Military Review

Deck Su-33 will not be able to give odds even F / A-18C. What happens to the Admiral Kuznetsov air wing?

128
Undoubtedly, the statement published on the domestic military analytical portals by the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov about the beginning of a quick modernization of the shipyards of the 35 shipyard of Zvyozdochka TsS JSC for the subsequent docking of the modernized heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov allowed to breathe a thousand relief patriotic observers aware of the current problems of the Russian Navy at the present stage of its formation.




And this is completely unsurprising, because information about the accident that led to the loss of the PD-50 floating dock on the night of October 29-30, 2018, made the expert communities doubt the deadlines for the North the fleet the only Russian aircraft carrier that is one of the key links in maintaining the combat stability of CSF naval strike groups in the northwestern strategic direction (including the North Atlantic and the Barents Sea). Moreover, the transfer to Murmansk (via the Northern Sea Route) of the Fokino naval base based on naval base FD-41 is a real utopia both due to the terrible technical condition of the latter and the fact that this floating dock has practically exhausted its operational resource.

The only 279th OKIAP of the Northern Fleet faced both a quantitative and a technological lag behind the Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB fleets from tactical aircraft armed with the U.S. Navy and ILC


Meanwhile, it would be very naive to believe that the timely completion of the overhaul and modernization of the TAVKR of 1143.5 Ave. “Admiral Kuznetsov” (with the final ceremony of handing over to the Northern Fleet in 2021 year) would be enough to eliminate all the gaps that somehow accompany such a deficit Russian Navy carrier component over the past three decades.

So, despite the re-equipment of the Admiral Kuznetsov by the naval commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Viktor Bursuk, announced by the unique ship-based ZRAK “Pantsir-M”, which in the future will allow to intercept four 3 fly targets simultaneously at a distance of up to 40 km by equipping standard 57EX6 solid rocket launchers with more powerful accelerators (booster steps), the air-defense potential of the 279 separate naval fighter regiment stationed on board the aircraft carrier still leaves elat better. Therefore, in a dueling situation today, the decked wing of our aircraft carrier cruiser is unable to form the proper A2 / AD anti-aircraft / missile zone in the radius of 700 — 1300 km.

And the root of the problem here lies not only in the fact that the number of carrier-based Su-33 carrier-based fighter interceptors / bombers and MiG-29K / KUB multi-functional fighters regularly aboard aboard Admiral Kuznetsov usually varies from 12 to 16 units. (3 — 4 units versus 12 units F / A-18E / F on board the Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carrier), but also in the multiple technological lag of the elemental base of the on-board radio-electronic equipment of the above-mentioned domestic carrier-based fighter aircraft from the electronic “stuffing” of state vehicles. In particular, the Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB are still equipped with hopelessly outdated H001K airborne radar stations based on the Cassegrain antenna and Zhuk-M based on the slit antenna array.

The noise immunity of these stations is at a very mediocre level, which completely deprives the crews of the decked “Dryers” and “MiGs” of the ability to carry out operations to gain dominance in the air and intercept in the event of the enemy engaging in advanced electronic warfare systems such as the AN / ALQ- multi-range overhead container-based radio countermeasure system 249 NGJ-MB ("Next Generation Jammer Mid-Band") directional suppression or integrated complex electronic warfare AN / ASQ-249 "Barracuda" (included in the architecture of airborne defense systems of fighter F-35A / B / C).

The energy potential of the N001K and Zhuk-M radar systems, determined by far from the highest average and peak pulse powers, ensures the range of target capture with 1,2 square EPRs. m (target type "F / A-18E / F") of the order of 70 and 80 km, respectively. Against this background, the crews of the Super Hornets, using the powerful and more anti-interference AFAR radars AN / APG-79, will be able to take the Su-33 to escort at a distance of 180 — 200 km and to “capture” at a distance of the order of 150 — 170 km (in connection with an impressive EPR Su-33, reaching 15 — 18 sq. m). After that, long-range AIM-120D air-to-air missiles can be launched, the target designation of which will be issued via the protected radio channels of the Link-16 network either by carrier aircraft (F / A-18E / F) or by deck aircraft E-2D Advanced Hawkeye RLDN, so Super Hornet pilots do not even need to enter the radius of destruction of the R-27ER / EM aerial combat missiles (110 — 130 km).

Unfortunately, in this situation, the existing modification of the Deck Dryer does not have a single trump card in its arsenal that could be opposed to the F / A-18E / F - AIM-120D air defense decks, because the current SUV- weapon control system 27K does not have hardware and software adaptation for the use of modern guided air combat missiles RVV-SD and the “180 Product” (the latter is a conceptual analogue of AIM-120D) equipped with active-passive and active-semi-active radar seekers of the 9Б-1103М-200PA / PS family . This fact illustrates the extremely disappointing picture, according to which the Su-33 will not be able to work on remote air targets even by targeting from third-party radar and radio reconnaissance equipment (without using its own radar).

Three or four links of MiG-29K / KUB deck multipurpose fighters, equipped in advance with not only more advanced Zhuk-M radars, but also terminals with multiplexed data exchange channels MIL-STD-1553B and MIL-STD-1760, could partially save the situation. that would ensure the adaptation of the fighter armament control system to the use of both the already-armed VKS URVV R-77 and RVV-SD, as well as the promising 180 Product interceptor missiles.

But here, too, everything is not so rosy, because the Ka-31RLD helicopters of long-range radar detection stationed on board the Admiral Kuznetsov cruiser are equipped with the same old good E-801 "Oko" radar systems based on PFAR, whose range of operation for targets of the " Super Hornet "barely reaches 105 km, which is about 3,5 times less than the AN / APY-9 AFAR radars installed on American carrier-based E-2D Advanced Hawkeye AWACS. As a result of this, in carrying out air defense tasks, the deck-based MiG-29K / KUB will entirely and completely depend on the more "farsighted" A-50Y RLDN aircraft; and this means that there can be no talk of any self-sufficiency of the 279 OKIAP.

Another significant technological drawback of the H001K airborne radar of the Su-33 carrier-based interceptor fighter is the absence of the so-called bypass channel (auxiliary radar receiving path), designed to detect and track surface (surface and ground) stationary and moving targets in the modes of mapping the terrain synthesized by the terrain aperture (SAR), reverse synthesized aperture (ISAR) and direction finding of moving objects (GMTI). Conclusion: in performing air-to-surface missions, the Flanker-D decked aircraft looks extremely faded even against the backdrop of the F / A-18C / D carrier-based multirole fighter aircraft equipped with AN / APG-73 multi-mode airborne radars still in service with the US Navy slot antenna arrays and additional bypass channels for working on surface objects.

Even the F / A-33C / D “Hornet”, which underwent a program of deep updating of avionics, can be considered as a significant threat to the Su-18


Against this background, a diametrically opposite situation is observed across the ocean. According to the news and military analytical portal Warspot, with reference to the headquarters of the military-industrial corporation Raytheon and competent sources in the command of the US Marine Corps, armed with KMP Hornets, they will undergo a program of re-equipment for advanced airborne radars with AFAR AN / APG-79 (V) 4. These products can boast not only the above standard operating modes for ground targets (SAR, ISAR, GMTI), but also LPI modes (“Low Probability of Intercept”, “Low probability of interception”) and the so-called additional search during tracking during work on air targets.

The implementation of the LPI mode is achieved by means of AFAR radar emission of broadband complex-structured and varying in amplitude electromagnetic pulses, zeroing the probability of direction finding of this radar by obsolete warning stations about exposure to STR-15 “Birch” (installed on Su-33). The search mode during tracking is achieved by maintaining the spatial position of the scanning radar beam (in the elevation and azimuthal planes) even if the tracking target temporarily dived behind the radio horizon screen or hid in the folds of the terrain.

Therefore, when it reappears in the line of sight, the AN / APG-79 radar will be able to take it for accurate auto-tracking ten times faster and provide radio correction of the launched AIM-120D air combat missile, which can decide the outcome of an air duel at medium long distances. The pilots of our Su-33 can only dream of such abilities of the airborne radar system.

Meanwhile, the inner diameter of the Su-33 radar transparent fairing and the geometric parameters of its nose of the fuselage make it possible to integrate the most advanced PFAR and AFAR-RLS N011M Bars-R, H035 Irbis-E, as well as regularly advertised on the most famous Russian military-analytical sites Zhuk-AME radars, the transmit-receive modules of which are manufactured using the unique LTCC technology (low-temperature co-fired ceramics).
Author:
128 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. 9PA
    9PA 2 October 2019 06: 57
    -2
    Flooding it is easier
    1. 210ox
      210ox 2 October 2019 07: 41
      +49
      Whom? Damantseva? belay
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 2 October 2019 07: 49
      +10
      Quote: 9PA
      Flooding it is easier
      Too categorical. "Softer, softer, by the neck." Let it be a helicopter transport-transport (there are no such, so we did not have such transport-combat missions) to Syria. And the dance with tambourines around the aircrafts of the Air Force is not relevant for us. They are inferior to conventional planes.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. kepmor
      kepmor 2 October 2019 07: 49
      +16
      Wake up not from Rosneft ??? ... the Sechensky have a lot of experience in this ... for them it's like two fingers on the asphalt ...

      although he is an "eternal kamatoznik" and gobbled up money for his existence almost from the SSGN division, but in fact it was on it that the foundations of our deck aviation were laid by the legendary Apakidze ...
      if the author truly outlined the topic of the quantity and quality of training pilots of the 279th regiment, then he would definitely be mixed up on the forum ...
      and while in the admiral's offices they amuse themselves with hopes of atomic "storms", they will pump one corvette every year into the "kamatoznik" ... without which the same Federation Council simply suffocates ...
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 4 October 2019 07: 14
        +1
        Perhaps the admirals in the offices believe in a miracle ("$ 500 oil") and amuse themselves with Hope. I want the guys to play the sea empire ...
        1. yehat
          yehat 9 October 2019 15: 49
          +1
          Quote: 3danimal
          Perhaps the admirals in the offices believe in a miracle ("$ 500 oil")

          while the state collects taxes on salaries of state employees and state budget orders, no $ 500 or $ 1000 oil prices can fix anything.
          there is no sane regulation in the economy.
    4. Civil
      Civil 2 October 2019 08: 45
      +27
      What have I read, the Kuzi air group against the air wing of Nimitz ... this is impossible and pointless.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 2 October 2019 19: 58
        +1
        As the brave soldier Schweik used to say - you have to be a complete idiot in order to carry a drill against the mattress AUG. But for Kuznetsov, you can find another application.
        1. yehat
          yehat 9 October 2019 15: 58
          0
          Quote: TermNachTER
          you have to be a complete idiot to shove a drill against a mattress AUG.

          or you have to be a yamata. American weapons have a rather narrow niche of targets struck.
          it is enough to withdraw part of the weapons to other segments, as their defenses will drop sharply. partially this problem was solved by missile multipurpose submarines.
          the same problem was solved by a weaving or tu-22m aircraft with long-range missiles.
          and now you don’t have to tear the navels to make as many shock full fleets, but to prepare just a technically competent and less expensive answer.
          And for cover operations of our forces, air defense tasks, it’s necessary to solve only narrow tasks -
          to build a normal deck-based AWACS aircraft and to establish regular work on narrow-topic maritime-themed teams, so that modern equipment arrives on time.

          Make some deck refueling.

          That's what prevents us from building 10 years old at least analogue of the an-71, which will close the capabilities of deck hockey?
          transport versions of this machine are now actively operated.
          It takes 3-5 years to develop modern equipment, no more.
          everything in general is simple and clear, but nothing is being done.
          or do we not need a simpler and cheaper analogue of the a-50?
          I think it is very necessary.
          And the timely re-equipment of deck aircraft with already used equipment - is that an impossible question?
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 9 October 2019 21: 01
            0
            Financially and technologically, Russia now will not stand in direct confrontation with the United States, on the seas and oceans, but an asymmetric answer can be found.
      2. Cyrus
        Cyrus 8 October 2019 16: 20
        0
        Why all of a sudden?
    5. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 2 October 2019 10: 32
      -2
      Flooding it is easier


      Do you have to expose your crap and stupidity to the public?
      1. tracer
        tracer 2 October 2019 15: 02
        +5
        This is he about Damantsev.
    6. ver_
      ver_ 3 October 2019 02: 10
      +1
      ... cheaper ..
    7. max702
      max702 5 October 2019 10: 48
      +1
      Quote: 9PA
      Flooding it is easier

      According to the mind, it needs to be sold either to China or India .. We don’t need it, and it seems that the Moscow Region understands this .. With the proceeds we’ll build a hundred other planes for the aerospace forces, and five airfields in the right directions ..
      1. Cyrus
        Cyrus 8 October 2019 16: 22
        -2
        You have to sell your mind so that you can take out the brain with your stupidity and worthlessness.
  2. Prisoner
    Prisoner 2 October 2019 07: 05
    +12
    I read the headline, then the question is Damantsev? By itself! laughing
    1. AlexVas44
      AlexVas44 2 October 2019 07: 14
      -2
      Is he such a pessimistic alarmist?
      1. novel66
        novel66 2 October 2019 07: 17
        +17
        far from always. but our carrier business is really not so hot
        1. Okolotochny
          Okolotochny 2 October 2019 07: 54
          +3
          Roma, did I look into the water yesterday? Still, you harnessed the topic for aircraft carriers?)))
          1. novel66
            novel66 2 October 2019 08: 03
            +3
            I feel my favorite topic will be soon hi
        2. itarnmag
          itarnmag 2 October 2019 09: 24
          +12
          That is to say the least. And, in my opinion, we should not develop aircraft carriers. They have nowhere to base, they have no escort ships, bases outside of Russia, etc., not to mention the huge quantitative and qualitative advantage in aircraft carriers of a probable enemy
          1. Ezekiel 25-17
            Ezekiel 25-17 2 October 2019 09: 28
            -6
            Quote: itarnmag
            That is to say the least. And, in my opinion, we should not develop aircraft carriers. They have nowhere to base, they have no escort ships, bases outside of Russia, etc., not to mention the huge quantitative and qualitative advantage in aircraft carriers of a probable enemy

            We need aircraft carriers not to fight the Americans, but to defend Russia's interests
          2. Victorio
            Victorio 2 October 2019 09: 43
            0
            Quote: itarnmag
            That is to say the least. And, in my opinion, we should not develop aircraft carriers. They have nowhere to base, they have no escort ships, bases outside of Russia, etc., not to mention the huge quantitative and qualitative advantage in aircraft carriers of a probable enemy

            ===
            It’s worth working on and developing it. maybe so far at the first stage and to help give something
      2. Prisoner
        Prisoner 2 October 2019 08: 48
        -1
        Well no. laughing Just a pessemist.
    2. JD1979
      JD1979 2 October 2019 07: 22
      +29
      Quote: Captive
      I read the headline, then the question is Damantsev? By itself! laughing

      And what's so funny written here? Or do you start to laugh with any finger? Or from what Damantsev wrote it, it suddenly turns out that in fact all the decks went through the modernization of avionics to the level of Su-35? Maybe you can share where the Su-33 is being launched now and instead of the lost ones and just to increase the strike capabilities of the aircraft carrier? Not? Just poke at Damantsev and draw emoticons?
      1. Cyrus
        Cyrus 8 October 2019 16: 24
        0
        For more, they do not have enough brains, but for this they are not needed.
        1. yehat
          yehat 9 October 2019 16: 07
          0
          Su-33 is already very outdated - why do it?
          Mig-29K, as I understand it, with small alterations, the Mig-35 can be replaced
          in my opinion, it is worth seriously taking up the full repair and re-equipment of the avik, but don’t run into new dryers or their modernization, but plan the marine version of the Mig-35 and concentrate on other components - the new DRLO device, a refueling machine and can be an REB auxiliary vehicle. And it is also worthwhile to complete the latest developments of Kamov in marine vehicles.
          And only after all this, think about strengthening the fighter part of the wing.

          a separate issue is equipping our aircraft carrier group with a normal escort of air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships. Now that is, it is not enough. I’m not even sure that our squadron is capable of fighting off one single missile submarine.
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 2 October 2019 07: 15
    +11
    The only 279th OKIAP of the Northern Fleet faced both a quantitative and a technological lag behind the Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB fleets from tactical aircraft armed with the U.S. Navy and ILC

    How sad it is, it is natural! For very objective reasons, by the way!
    This is not critical, because in no operation, and the concept of building the Russian Armed Forces is this element inscribed as a full and important link!
    What will happen next??? it is not clear .... there is NOTHING to discuss yet!
  4. novel66
    novel66 2 October 2019 07: 16
    0
    fuck goat button accordion ??
    1. sinoptic
      sinoptic 2 October 2019 15: 52
      +2
      ... and it's better to give her a piano;)
  5. vanavatny
    vanavatny 2 October 2019 07: 33
    +5
    hmm, it may be so, but what can you reduce to a situation where our brand with an American aircraft carrier almost board to board for a volley ... I'm not a specialist (and I always thank the author), but looking back a bit and trying I see the future: aircraft carriers are not in order to fight chest to chest with an equal opponent, waiting for a nuclear club to strike, it’s dictating our will to the more backward, for this we need a different degree of economic power on the world stage, and before that, the author is infinitely right about our backlogs: there is simply no way to overcome them
    1. Avior
      Avior 2 October 2019 08: 07
      +5
      Read about the battle in the Coral Sea, where the ships did not fire a single shot, or the battle for Midway.
      our brand with the American aircraft carrier is almost side to side for salvo ... I'm not an expert (and I always thank the author), but looking back a bit and trying to look into the future, I see that aircraft carriers are not to chest with an equal adversary chest to beat
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 October 2019 14: 12
      +5
      Quote: vanavate
      aircraft carriers are not in order to fight chest to chest with an equal opponent, waiting for a nuclear club to strike, it’s more retarded to dictate

      In a situation where only one country has an aircraft carrier fleet, it willy-nilly turns into a way dictate your adamant will to the rest of the world community.
      With an equal adversary, aircraft carriers last fought for maintenance in WWII. And it was they who decided the outcome of the war on the theater.
  6. Errr
    Errr 2 October 2019 07: 43
    -2
    And if you just replace the Su-33 with the Su-57? The latter has the "takeoff / run" parameters that are quite suitable for a short deck strip. It remains only to build the last folding wing and "screw" it the same landing hook.
    1. Avior
      Avior 2 October 2019 08: 09
      +5
      It just won’t work out, other loads on the plane, its fuselage will have to be strengthened, that is, make it heavier, if at all possible
      1. novel66
        novel66 2 October 2019 08: 30
        +11
        nobody canceled the problem with AWACS, without it the aircraft carrier is blind as a mole, and it’s not even about the planes anymore, but in order to launch AWACS you need a catapult ... that is. another type of ship
      2. Errr
        Errr 2 October 2019 09: 50
        -4
        Quote: Avior
        It just won’t work out, other loads on the plane, its fuselage will have to be strengthened, that is, make it heavier, if at all possible
        In fact, the maximum overload for the Su-57 glider is more than 10 g, and for the Su-33 - no more than 8,5 g. What other fuselage fortifications?
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 2 October 2019 10: 11
          +15
          Local at the point of attachment of the hook and reinforcement of the chassis and points of its attachment. Overload in flight is one thing, and landing on an Avik is somewhat different. In land aviation, a hard landing is an emergency, and in naval aviation, it is the norm.
          1. Nycomed
            Nycomed 2 October 2019 20: 31
            +4
            No wonder that in the aircraft carrier aviation of the US Navy, landing on deck is called a "controlled accident".
        2. Avior
          Avior 2 October 2019 10: 14
          +7
          Completely different loads
          in other directions.
          Compare, for example, deck Rafal with conventional ground
          The first prototype single-seat multipurpose deck aircraft Rafale M, designed by the AFM project (Avion de Combat Marine), made its first flight on December 12, 1991. The main difference of this modification is the increased mass of the structure, 750 kg reinforced chassis racks Messier-Bugatti.

          There are other differences.
          Similarly for f-35.
          And as for the overload 10 for the Su-57, you must honestly add "presumably".
          The usual overload for 9.5 fighters, people can’t even withstand so much.
          1. Errr
            Errr 2 October 2019 11: 39
            +3
            A trained pilot can withstand 15 g, but no more than 5 seconds without loss of consciousness.
            I don’t think that strengthening the main landing gear and their attachment to the Su-57 glider is an insurmountable problem, but I won’t think where to fix the landing hook. To the horror prevents the rear compartment of weapons.)))
            1. Avior
              Avior 2 October 2019 11: 52
              +5
              About an overload of 15 for combat pilots, this is from the realm of fantasy, I think. In any case, the direct road to the hospital after that. And how to train it from blood vessels that burst in the eyes, for example? Learn to blink with a load on the eyelids?
              As for the landing gear, it’s just not a problem; they change it when using a catapult, which the su-57 does not seem to threaten.
              When braking with a hook, loads arise on completely different structural elements of the aircraft than during maneuvering.
              Again, the wing area of ​​the decks is much larger than that of the land.
              In general, it simply cannot be said how difficult it is to convert a Su-57 into a deck one, and is it possible at all, and what will come of it. Too many different nuances.
              hi
              1. Errr
                Errr 2 October 2019 12: 05
                +3
                Thank you for the science, but still the wing area of ​​the Su-57 (82 m²) is much larger than that of the Su-33 (67,84 m²). hi
                1. Avior
                  Avior 2 October 2019 12: 35
                  +7
                  I was referring to the deck and land versions of the same aircraft.
                  In the forehead case, there are many nuances
                2. GibSoN
                  GibSoN 6 October 2019 20: 26
                  0
                  Thank you for the science, but still the wing area of ​​the Su-57 (82 m²) is much larger than that of the Su-33 (67,84 m²).
                  If you are so smart that you are manipulating numbers, can you turn your head on and off, turn off trolling? The wing area of ​​the AN-124 is generally wow! AND?
              2. Povelitel_buri
                Povelitel_buri 3 October 2019 00: 22
                0
                Quote: Avior
                Again, the wing area of ​​the decks is much larger than that of the land.

                It’s not just the square. Korabelka needs to provide a high landing Su, which is also ensured by developed mechanization. Yes, the Su-57 has a short mileage, but still its mechanization is not sufficient to provide a low Vpos - this will be the main problem. Moreover, the Su-57 glider is already heavy enough, and all the "chilling" measures will certainly add another ton to the weight of the glider. Therefore, the issue of ensuring takeoff and landing characteristics will become even more acute.
              3. Lucy
                Lucy 3 October 2019 01: 14
                +3
                Yes, everything is simpler. The use of an air wing ends with a min. at take-off and landing intervals, based on the taxiing pattern. Kuznetsov floor area. decks and the size, turning radius of the Su-33 when taxiing, the features of the lift (stern, because the bow is not used) has large intervals of vzl. and pos after the first 3. And accordingly, the anti-aircraft missile systems, RP are displaced, and even there is no RLD. Where else to shove the Su-57, and not the MiG-29. And in a hangar during a storm how to set? He was like a simulator so far there is.
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 2 October 2019 17: 02
              +2
              Record. 12g overloads occur in sports cars. Actually, Su-27 does not go more than 7g, if I remember the schedule from the RLE correctly. MiG-29, like, before 8. In general, in a battle this only happens for a split second. Plus, overloads are different in direction.
              1. Errr
                Errr 2 October 2019 19: 44
                0
                About 15 g for 5 seconds to an unconscious state, I no longer remember where I grabbed. Maybe it's doctors whom they tortured in a centrifuge?)
            3. Lucy
              Lucy 3 October 2019 00: 56
              +1
              The fighter you are led by the Frsirs. hold the turn 7-ku. Theorist.
        3. Lucy
          Lucy 3 October 2019 00: 49
          +1
          Answer pros. Also write the overload formula. And the permissible settlement. overload for land Su-27 and deck. Although the pictures of the Su-27 and Su-27k sometimes look.
    2. Prosha
      Prosha 5 October 2019 20: 37
      0
      It's easier to produce drones for this money and load it on Kuznetsov) IMHO not a bad idea ...
      1. Errr
        Errr 5 October 2019 20: 54
        0
        We stock up on popcorn.)
  7. EvilLion
    EvilLion 2 October 2019 08: 26
    +15
    The Su-33 has the same problem as the Soviet MiG-29, the MO understands that neither one nor the other is needed, which means there is no point in somehow modernizing them.

    However, as many as 33 Su-25s were built, some of which were lost in accidents. They will be modernized (how does Damantsev know if the Su-33 Irbis will fit into the Su-XNUMX, and can it be powered by existing generators?), And generally ready to at least take off; there is no difference for the country's defense capability.

    As for the MiG-29K, the construction of the MiG-29СМТ instead of them would be both cheaper and more useful.

    At the same time, despite the formal presence of an aircraft carrier, all questions of its use come down to who has a member of length ... advanced radars. Tactics and organization remain behind the scenes, as shown by the Syrian shame of "Kuzi", simply because no one understands how this white elephant can even be theoretically applied. It is just a rudiment of a strange Soviet fleet, which was going to swing symmetrically in the ocean with the American AUG, for which they needed aircraft carriers capable of accepting the Su-27 and MiG-29.
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 2 October 2019 10: 15
      0
      Tactics and organization remain behind the scenes, as shown by the Syrian shame of "Kuzi", simply because no one understands how this white elephant can even be theoretically applied. He's just a rudiment of a strange Soviet fleet


      What are you carrying?! What shame are you talking about in Syria? About the loss of 2 planes due to a dangling cable for landing planes?

      More than 400 combat missions were made from the TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov", one third of them at night. This is an invaluable experience for Russia, but against the background of the same French aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" in general, shock work.

      You look at the non-combat losses of other countries in aviation, the United States in Iraq - dozens of lost planes and helicopters, planes fall and crash at all who operate them without even having aircraft carriers.

      The tactics of using an aircraft carrier are not clear to you personally, but you do not have to affirm this for everyone.

      An aircraft carrier is needed where we will not be able to get a ground airfield - this is the actual tactics of using an aircraft carrier. And also to expand the capabilities of our ship grouping.

      Russia is already building frigates, moreover powerful enough, etc. 22350, and soon there will be an even more powerful series, etc. 22350М, in the future there will be new destroyers with nuclear power plants. What will protect TAVKR will be.

      And TAVKR is now needed to build experience and maintain competence in the operation of aircraft carriers by both pilots and sailors.

      And the topic of modernization of the wing has been raised correctly.
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 2 October 2019 12: 39
        +5
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        What shame are you talking about in Syria? About the loss of 2 planes due to a dangling cable for landing planes?

        Not at all. This is a real victory.
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        More than 400 combat missions were made from the TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov", one third of them at night. This is an invaluable experience for Russia, but against the background of the same French aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" in general, shock work.

        This is amazing. And how many sorties were from Khmeimim, share? And with what load.
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        You look at the non-combat losses of other countries in aviation, the United States in Iraq - dozens of lost planes and helicopters, planes fall and crash at all who operate them without even having aircraft carriers.

        It makes sense to attribute non-combat losses to the total raid. If it’s rude, the more planes and more often they fly, the more accidents. Now the question is how often we flew with Kuzi.
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        An aircraft carrier is needed where we will not be able to get a ground airfield - this is the actual tactics of using an aircraft carrier.

        Where is it? In the ocean, thousands of kilometers from the native coast. What for?
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        And also to expand the capabilities of our ship grouping.

        Building new / new aircraft carriers is tantamount to lessening the capabilities of our ship constellations. One aircraft carrier without a wing and an escort is 10 billion (US prices, ours will be more expensive). Those. minus 10, 20 frigates / corvettes.
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        And TAVKR is now needed to build experience and maintain competence in the operation of aircraft carriers by both pilots and sailors.

        Yeah. We have already seen these competencies in Syria.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 2 October 2019 14: 19
          +8
          Quote: Winnie76
          Where is it? In the ocean, thousands of kilometers from the native coast. What for?

          In the Barents Sea, 600 km from its native coast, off Bear Island - at the turn of the Northern Fleet.
          Back in Soviet times, it was clear that if we wanted to defend ourselves in the north, covering the bases and launch areas of SLBMs, we would have to build an AB - because coastal aviation could not cover the naval groups at the most advantageous line of defense from the air. More precisely, she can cover - but does not have time to strengthen the on-duty cover forces on time when an enemy is detected. And he calmly takes out the duty link and works out on the ships, and our reserves approaching from the shore can only look at the outgoing aircraft of the enemy.
          1. Winnie76
            Winnie76 2 October 2019 15: 12
            -2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Back in Soviet times, it was clear that if we wanted to defend ourselves in the north, covering the bases and launch areas of SLBMs, we would have to build an AB - because coastal aviation could not cover the naval groups at the most advantageous line of defense from the air

            And from whom Kuzya can cover? The article describes in great detail that, against the American carrier-based aircraft, the Su-33 and MiG-29k are not pulled with high quality. And quantitatively against the SF and Pacific Fleet, Americans can put up 5 normal full-fledged aircraft carriers. With AWAC, an escort. Those. the construction of several aircraft carriers does not solve any problems, but for all other arms of service it creates. Everyone else sits on a hungry rations.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 2 October 2019 15: 32
              +5
              Quote: Winnie76
              The article describes in great detail that, against the American carrier-based aircraft, the Su-33 and MiG-29k are not pulled with high quality.

              You forgot to add "as of now". There is no point in upgrading the Su-33 - the deadline for hardware is already right there. But you can work with the MiG-29KR.
              Subject to full repair, team training and staffing of the air group, 1143.5 in the role of an air defense carrier It looks quite normal.
              Our eternal problem is trying to save money on "little things" such as repairs and combat training. And as a result, we get that the money is still spent (less, of course, but spent), but there is no result: a semi-refurbished AB with an understaffed air group has no combat value. But at the same time, the assessment of the capabilities of 1143.5 based on the results of real work is based on the capabilities of this "cripple".
              Quote: Winnie76
              And quantitatively against the SF and Pacific Fleet, Americans can put up 5 normal full-fledged aircraft carriers. With AWAC, an escort. Those. the construction of several aircraft carriers does not solve any problems

              Just decides. The presence of the air defense AB covering forces forces the enemy to increase the air clearing group and cover the strikers at the expense of those very strikers (for the number of aircraft on the AB, of course, is 4 squadrons of Hornets). And you also need, just in case, to leave some of the forces to protect your AUG - for who knows, these Crazy Russia, maybe they will lift part of the cars in the shock configuration, so that they sit on the tail of the returning shock group and themselves attack the AB.
              So in a situation "Nimitz" attacks - "Kuznetsov" covers the combat ready 1143.5 has every chance of completing a combat mission. And several ABs can defend themselves from the AUG group.
              1. Winnie76
                Winnie76 2 October 2019 19: 35
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                But with the MiG-29KR you can work.

                Of course you can work. Only in the near future will he have to confront the F-35. Happily the fifth generation.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Given the full repair, team training and staffing of the air group in the state, 1143.5 in the role of an air defense carrier looks quite normal.

                Well yes. The old man Mig-29, against the F-35, with the support of AWACS. Shoot like a partridge. F-35s may not even include radars.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                So in a situation, "Nimitz" attacks - "Kuznetsov" covers the combat-ready 1143.5 has every chance of completing the combat mission.

                I don’t see the slightest chance. Moreover, no problem to put 2-3 aircraft carriers. What for Americans some duel. They will beat for sure.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And several ABs can defend themselves from the AUG group.

                How many wolves do not feed - the elephant is still thicker. On one of our Americans will find a couple - three of their own.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 3 October 2019 13: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: Winnie76
                  Of course you can work. Only in the near future will he have to confront the F-35. Happily the fifth generation.

                  So far, the fleet is in no hurry with the "penguins" - they prefer the "Hornets". \
                  Quote: Winnie76
                  Well yes. The old man Mig-29, against the F-35, with the support of AWACS.

                  Or bring to mind the Ka-31. Or buy your own A-50 for the fleet (you can also use AWACS from the coastal airfield - there is no urgent need to urgently reserve the help). It’s own, because there are air forces today, but not tomorrow - they left to carry out tasks in another area.
                  Quote: Winnie76
                  How many wolves do not feed - the elephant is still thicker. On one of our Americans will find a couple - three of their own.

                  10-12 AB? They are not able to - they need to control other TVDs as well.
        2. Eduard Egorov
          Eduard Egorov 3 October 2019 23: 07
          -2
          "Yeah. We've already seen these competencies in Syria."

          Yes, they saw 80% of the territory freed in a year, which they could not do the entire NATO bloc in Iraq in 4 years.

          "It makes sense to attribute non-combat losses to the total raid. Roughly speaking, the more planes and more often they fly, the more accidents. Now the question is how often we flew with Kuzi."

          Forgot to write in percentage terms, roughly speaking 400 flights 2 losses is 0,5% of the total, and this is not in favor of the US.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 October 2019 15: 11
        +5
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        What are you carrying?! What shame are you talking about in Syria? About the loss of 2 planes due to a dangling cable for landing planes?

        About the inability of the deck crew in peacetime to perform the standard task of replacing the aerofinisher cable in a timely manner. And about how the Navy managed to lose the plane near the coastal airfield out of the blue - simply because no one wanted to take the rubbish out of the hut and sign the impossibility of repairing the aerofinisher on time. As a result, they reached the moment when the fuel supply on the plane was not enough to land in Khmeimim, and still could not take him to the deck.
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        And the topic of modernization of the wing has been raised correctly.

        Half correct. For there is no point in upgrading the Su-33 - their main question is not how modern avionics are, but how much life the design has left.
        1. Ratmir_Ryazan
          Ratmir_Ryazan 2 October 2019 17: 19
          -7
          About the inability of the deck crew in peacetime to perform the standard task of replacing the aerofinisher cable in a timely manner. And about how the Navy managed out of the blue to lose a plane near the coastal airfield


          Well, it's all by the fact that you weren’t so smart and smart there, everyone was at a loss.

          You draw conclusions, and you are aware of all the circumstances of what happened and how there ?!

          Well, if not, then maybe you shouldn’t be smart and not whine about this ?!

          In the United States, a Hawkei plane was recently damaged when approaching a landing, the wreckage of which damaged a couple of F-18 fighters.

          And they had much more tragic accidents with aircraft carriers in peacetime, moreover.

          What could be the reason why the United States should write off all its aircraft carriers ?! And then why, they have been exploiting them for so many years, but they still fight when landing, they burn, in general, only losses.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 2 October 2019 18: 27
            +5
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            Well, it's all by the fact that you weren’t so smart and smart there, everyone was at a loss.
            You draw conclusions, and you are aware of all the circumstances of what happened and how there ?!

            There is only one circumstance - unwillingness to take dirty linen out of the naval hut.
            There is: 1143.5 with a faulty aerofinisher - one piece. A plane returning to 1143.5 is one thing. Coastal airfield - one piece.
            The plane cannot land on the deck - it cannot slow down. Nearby there is a normal runway, with which, by the way, Kuznetsov's planes worked. But instead of sending the plane to the coastal runway, it is kept until the last one next to AB, waiting for the completion of the repair of the aerofinisher. Wait - the fuel is used up, the air arrestor is not fixed, the plane is lost. Near a normal coastal airfield.
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            And they had much more tragic accidents with aircraft carriers in peacetime, moreover.
            What could be the reason why the United States should write off all its aircraft carriers ?!

            And I somewhere called to write off AB? I write about the fact that the AB must not only have, but also be able to use it, keep it in combat readiness and regularly use it to prepare the air group. And do not push a slightly shamanized carcass into the sea once a year, which has been waiting for normal repair for 10 years, desperately hoping that if it carried it in the past, then it will somehow blow it. And if something happens, then all of them, we’ll forget somehow.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 2 October 2019 17: 04
        +3
        If you lose planes at the 100 km ground base due to a torn aerofinisher cable, then it’s too early for you to play aircraft carriers.

        An aircraft carrier is needed where we will not be able to get a ground airfield - this is the actual tactics of using an aircraft carrier.


        Where is this place on the globe?
        1. Ratmir_Ryazan
          Ratmir_Ryazan 2 October 2019 17: 10
          -2
          Where is this place on the globe?


          Everywhere where our aviation is lacking from the airfields at our disposal.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 October 2019 08: 18
            +1
            Aviation is missing on the moon. Will we build a space aircraft carrier?
    2. Lucy
      Lucy 3 October 2019 01: 19
      -1
      You work at the zoo. And by whom?
  8. spirit
    spirit 2 October 2019 08: 33
    +1
    Yes, everything is simple. Kuzyu and his air wing are supported only for media, but they have already written off him as a combat unit. The new air wing will most likely only be on the new Aircraft Carrier, which so far is only on paper, and therefore no one will scratch it for the new aviation.
  9. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 2 October 2019 08: 37
    0
    So in 2015 it was supposed to upgrade the radar in several stages.
    The first "Zhuk-ME" (analogue of the F-16 and F-15 radar), the second "Zhuk-MSF" (Falcon) (analogue of the F-16, F-15 and F-18 radars).
    It's 2019! So, plans can change and take a different path. New "Zhuk-AME" (2016), most likely, will be installed only on new devices. It all depends on the availability of the corresponding expense item in the MO, and not on the technical capabilities.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. lopuhan2006
    lopuhan2006 2 October 2019 09: 15
    +6
    Quote: Captive
    I read the headline, then the question is Damantsev? By itself! laughing

    And what is he wrong about? Or you must definitely tuck, because touched on uncomfortable topics? You can add about the absence as a type of modern mine-sweeping forces, modern anti-aircraft defense forces, means of early detection of submarines, and much more. Just do not talk about money, a surplus of billions, only these billions in bonds and on accounts, and not in industry and business. The fact that each fleet has an admiralty and each owner is his own .... But you need to insert your own pearls
  12. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 2 October 2019 09: 27
    +9
    Hmmm ... I read the comments and it became clear that the brains of non-patriots are being rebuilt in a liberal-capitalist fashion. sad
    How many "commentatorial" wars are already going on in the VO over "Kuznetsov"! But the root of the problem lies, in my opinion, in the realization and acceptance that there is Russia at sea. If everyone agrees that one hundred of the Russian Federation has slipped down to a second-third-rate sea "power", where it has enough coastal forces, then voila - you can cut everything, and leave ships no higher than rank 2 (all sorts of corvettes, MRK, patrol forces) , designate berths for SSBN combat patrols and continue to buy expensive yachts for oligarchs and not whine about the fact that Russia is showing its place everywhere without letting diplomats in, imposing sanctions, accusing them of doping, etc. This is capitalism, baby, where the West rules .. ...
    If pride leaps up and everyone agrees that Russia is truly a sea power with all the consequences, then there are many such ambitious players around it and the words must be confirmed by deed. Those. the construction is really a fleet. And these are ships of the distant sea zone (1st rank), these are high-speed supply vessels, this is the necessary number of multi-purpose nuclear submarines to cover the SSBN deployment areas (because the sense of them is that they are designed to put into hiding at sea retaliatory strikes). And of course, aircraft carriers, because without aviation all this fuss with the implementation of combat patrol of submarine missile carriers is meaningless. The USSR understood this - current lovers of jeans and chewing gums do not understand. An example is China! Socialism, adjusted for modern realities, works wonders - China does what the USSR did before the collapse - builds an ocean fleet! Ocean, Karl! With aircraft carriers and ships of the 1st rank! And this is possible when resources are in the hands of the state! And what is Russia building with its oligarchic order?
    So, an aircraft carrier is not a kept toy, but a necessary condition for the existence of an ocean-going fleet! Without aviation at sea, the naval component of the nuclear triad turns into zilch, for without aviation it is impossible to cope with the number of MAPLs that the "partners" are putting up against us. But the USSR, besides, as some have said here, the "training and training" "Kuznetsov", also built the "Varyag" and the nuclear "Ulyanovsk", and I am sure it would have built more! Because it was the socialist USSR, and not the modern capitalist Russia, about which everyone is wiping their feet. And no matter how much the media does not blow up a snigir, but things speak for themselves - only small ships are being built (I think it's not worth talking about the construction time), and there is no money for the rest ...
    So think that there is Russia .... This is so, personal opinion hi
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 2 October 2019 10: 26
      +5
      So, an aircraft carrier is not a containment toy, but a necessary condition for the existence of the ocean fleet!

      And the infrastructure for aircraft carriers of the USSR did not seem to be created out of class conviction.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 2 October 2019 14: 03
        +7
        Quote: Pavel57
        And the infrastructure for aircraft carriers of the USSR did not seem to be created out of class conviction.

        No. Just as they came to the realization that aircraft carriers are unnecessary for the ocean fleet, they would have come to the realization that in order to maintain this type of weaponry in good condition, normal infrastructure is needed. And it would be! First you buy a car or build a garage? Personally, I do not know a single friend of mine who would have a garage without a car. Therefore, everything is acquired in the process. Moreover, the USSR was at the beginning of the carrier path (pr.1143 - 1143.4 were more likely cruisers), and with the advent of clean ships pr.1143.5 - 1143.7 the necessary infrastructure would be created yes
        1. Pavel57
          Pavel57 2 October 2019 15: 10
          -3
          Learn to swim first, then pour water into the pool. Expensive aircraft carriers, and not one was created without proper infrastructure.
    2. Doctor
      Doctor 2 October 2019 12: 17
      +1
      And of course, aircraft carriers, because without aviation all this fuss with the implementation of combat patrol of submarine missile carriers is meaningless.

      But are aircraft carriers needed to cover the current areas of patrol? Two aerodromes in the North and East (Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Magadan, Komsomolsk), a mixed regiment for each aerodrome (search PLO planes + strike), two brigades of PLO frigates, two brigades of Varshavyanka (in the future of Husky). Or is it not so simple?
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 2 October 2019 14: 08
        +2
        Quote: Arzt
        But are aircraft carriers needed to cover the current areas of patrol?

        In the TTZ of ships of pr. 1143 it was listed:
        air defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
        ensuring the safety of strategic underwater cruisers in combat patrol areas;
        Search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
        detection, guidance and destruction of enemy surface forces;
        ensuring the landing of naval landing.

        As you can see points 2,3 speak for themselves wink
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 October 2019 14: 37
        +4
        Quote: Arzt
        Two aerodromes in the North and East (Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Magadan, Komsomolsk), a mixed regiment for each aerodrome (search PLO planes + strike), two brigades of PLO frigates, two brigades of Varshavyanka (in the future of Husky). Or is it not so simple?

        The main limitation of fighter aircraft: the approach time of the reserves should be less than the time between the detection of the enemy and his exit to the line of launch of weapons.
        So, for coastal aviation, the effective work area is 400-450 km from the coast. Further, the approach time of coastal aviation reserves becomes longer between the detection of the enemy and his exit at the launch line of anti-ship missiles
        That is, in order to cover the SSBN bases and position areas based on coastal aviation, we will have to stretch the PLO line in those same 400 km from the coast along the Kola Peninsula and further to Novaya Zemlya.
        Or you can stretch this line along the meridian, shortening it, and immediately cut off half of the Barents Sea. But then AB is needed for air defense of the right flank of this bastion - because we go far beyond the border of the 400-km zone.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 2 October 2019 15: 48
          +1
          So, for coastal aviation, the effective work area is 400-450 km from the coast. Further, the approach time of the coastal aviation reserves becomes longer between the detection of the enemy and his exit at the launch line of anti-ship missiles.

          Clear. That is, we now practically do not control the areas.
          And what forces and means will be required for full control of the 500 square for 500 km, for example: Murmansk - 500 km to the North-East - Cape S. Gusiny Nos (Novaya Zemlya) - Cape. Canin Nose (Canin Peninsula)? Say, such an organization of a permanent database: 4 frigates of type 22350 specialized for PLO, 4 Varshavyanki, also for PLO, there is always an IL (2,3?) Type plane (38?) In the air. Enough to prevent the mouse from slipping?
      3. Lucy
        Lucy 3 October 2019 01: 27
        0
        It's simple, but not everyone has access with the SS stamp.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 3 October 2019 20: 34
          +1
          It's simple, but not everyone has access with the SS stamp.

          It seems that now the situation is that the very existence of the Russian Navy is needed only to ensure the launch of strategic missiles from the SSBN. Based on this, how would you personally organize a cover for launch areas in the Barents and Okhotsk Seas? Just your opinion without any secrets. And so that the mouse does not slip.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 October 2019 14: 29
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And this is possible when resources are in the hands of the state! And what is Russia building with its oligarchic order?

      The funny thing is that it is possible and necessary to build aircraft carriers even with an oligarchic order. Only for this, gentlemen, the oligarchs must finally understand that international law and the rule of law against the weak is a myth and fiction. And that the power of law is in the right of power: the most reliable protection of the interests of this or that FIG outside the country are not lawyers, but the armed forces. Dick Cheney and his Halliburton (as well as United Fruit) will not lie. smile
      In the meantime, gentlemen, the oligarchs are building luxury yachts and trying to fit into the Western elite - and then they are terribly surprised that they are thrown into the banal and robbed.
      1. Negruz
        Negruz 2 October 2019 16: 31
        0
        “And this is possible when the state has resources in its hands! And what is Russia building with its oligarchic way of life?”

        "In the meantime, gentlemen, the oligarchs are building luxury yachts and trying to integrate into the Western elite - and then they are terribly surprised that they are banally thrown and robbed."
        ___________
        The liquid assets of Russian oligarchs are less than Russia's annual defense budget ....
        The total assets of Russian oligarchs (including real estate, stocks, newspapers, factories, steamboats) are less than the quarterly GDP of Russia (that is, the annual total cost of goods, works and services, NOT ACCOUNTING the cost of the state assets themselves) ....
        Besides impractical from the point of view of achieving the goals of "dispossession", are there any other ideas?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 2 October 2019 18: 40
          +4
          Quote: Negruz
          Besides impractical from the point of view of achieving the goals of "dispossession", are there any other ideas?

          And who is talking about dispossession?
          But there is an idea - here, please, how this issue was resolved in the past.

          Destroyer "Bukhar Emirskiy" ... oh, "Emir of Bukhara". Built with funds allocated by the "Special Committee for Strengthening the Navy on voluntary donations." Named after the largest donor:
          ... Emir of Bukhara contributed a million rubles, retinues of His Majesty Major-General Earl A.D. Sheremetev - 200 thousand rubles, Kazan Zemstvo and the Finnish Senate each contributed 300 thousand rubles, Moscow City Credit Society - 250 thousand rubles, Moscow Nobility Club - 100 thousand rubles, Moscow Land Bank and Moscow Provincial Zemstvo - 50 thousand rubles each

          In total, the fleet received from this action 18 mine cruisers, 2 submarines - and there were still 2 million rubles left, which were spent on the Novik EM.
          Only such a solution now is not very convenient for the fleet and shipbuilders, because gentlemen the oligarchs may ask about what is built on their money and why it is for such money. wink
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 2 October 2019 19: 57
            +5
            Quote: Alexey RA
            But there is an idea

            good Here I am indirectly for this (if it is really radical)
            Here is a typical example of patriotism

            Greek cruiser "Georgiy Averof", named after the main sponsor of its purchase smile
            But our homegrown oligarchs are more likely to buy this.

            ... than fork out for at least a corvette for the Navy request
            1. Negruz
              Negruz 3 October 2019 01: 08
              -1
              As far as I remember the numbers, one corvette of project 20380 was worth 2015 billion rubles for 17.3. at the rate of 56 rubles. per dollar = 310 million dollars ....
              The Averoff family (George himself by that time was "a long time ago" (c) donated 1/3 of its value to the cruiser - 2,5 million gold francs ...
              1 gold franc is 0,29 grams of fine gold (the highest standard for gold bullion) ...
              Today, 1 gram of such gold costs 49,07 US dollars ....
              Thus, the total amount of donation of the Averof family amounted to 35,6 million US dollars ....
              From this it follows that since the time of cast iron the cost of ships has "somewhat" risen in price: a rank 1 ship (heavy armored cruiser) built in Italy costs almost three times cheaper ($ 106,8 million) than a Russian rank 2 ship (corvette) of the near sea zone (310 million dollars in 2015; now it is probably more expensive due to R&D, equipment modernization and production organization due to import substitution) ...
              Because not iron ....
              In these conditions, I stubbornly do not see not only new averofs, but also the "old" ones, I'm afraid, would not pull ...
              Regarding the pictures of the yacht, who knows how they are used: this is an investment of capital in the first place .... The resale value over time will not be much lower than the purchase, and during the tenure the yacht will be leased to the pont cutters for which there is no money to buy such a yacht ...
              At the same time, there are persistent rumors that Monsieur Averoff amassed his capital in Africa (Sudan) on the slave trade, which created certain difficulties for him in the "civilized community" ...
              Any other ideas?
              1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Negruz
            Negruz 3 October 2019 00: 15
            0
            The Emir of Bukhara is not a Russian oligarch, but a native ruler of a dependent territory .... This is the "payoff" of the metropolitan colony during the war ...
            As well as the money of the zemstvos collected by subscription, they were collected in the WAR (RYAP) .... As it happened in the Second World War ...
            Can something more practically useful without idle talk?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 3 October 2019 12: 46
              +3
              Quote: Negruz
              The Emir of Bukhara is not a Russian oligarch, but a native ruler of a dependent territory ....

              And Major General Count A.D. Sheremetev, Moscow City Credit Society and Moscow Noble Club?
              Quote: Negruz
              Can something more practically useful without idle talk?

              Can it restore order in the Navy and shipbuilding - so that some do not order unnecessary ships to solve the tasks of the neighboring department, while others do not ask for rabid grandmothers for them and do not build RTOs for 5-7 years? Oh, some nonsense ... smile
              1. Negruz
                Negruz 4 October 2019 02: 07
                0
                "And Major General Count AD Sheremetev, the Moscow City Credit Society and the Moscow Noble Club?"

                You prudently threw out the Finnish Senate from the quote?))
                I repeat: when the war is on, the state not only redistributes finances in favor of the army and the military-industrial complex, not only introduces new fees from citizens and legal entities, not only uses requisitions, confiscations or nationalization of the property or assets of the enemy country that it needs, but also resorts to accumulation funds from the uplifting patriotic impulse of their citizens ....
                So it was in the situation described by you - RNP was on and the money was raised during the war!
                So it was during the Second World War, when not only entire teams, but also individual citizens donated to the army (state war loan bonds) and threw off the construction of military equipment: workshop workers, collective farms and collective farmers, scientists and artists, and even women and schoolchildren! Remember the tank "baby" .... But this is all during the WAR!
                So your example is NOT an "idea" ...
                By the way, I just now realized that I counted "superfluous" out of respect for the Averoff family ....
                Since I pointed out the cost of the corvette of the project 20380 at the prices of 2015, it was necessary to give the cost of gold by 2015 (then it was much cheaper than now: 34,17 dollars per gram) ....
                It turns out: the donation amounted to $ 24,8 million in 2015 prices, and the armored cruiser itself cost $ 74,3 million ....
                Don't you think that in order to build one lousy corvette, Russia will have to give the status of "national hero-philanthropists" to 13 oligarchs?
    4. Negruz
      Negruz 3 October 2019 01: 39
      +2
      Modern China is about 10 times richer than the USSR of the heyday and did not butt (until recently) with "regressive humanity", but humbly collected iPhones for the whole world .... And then - China - spends in moderation, without jumping out of his pants and without doing all sorts of bullshit, such as fighting collective farmers selling crops from their backyards ...
  13. Pavel57
    Pavel57 2 October 2019 10: 24
    +2
    According to the article - The main thing is to scare first, and then offer an obvious solution.
  14. huntsman650
    huntsman650 2 October 2019 10: 27
    -5
    Do not pull the country Kuzyu economically)
    1. Lucy
      Lucy 3 October 2019 01: 30
      0
      And technically
  15. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 2 October 2019 10: 31
    +1
    The problem is correct, the air wings on the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR need to be modernized or updated.

    And what kind of mediocrity and fools are yelling here in the comments about the uselessness of Russia TAVKR ?! Is there anything left of the mind in your head?

    It’s still needed, the operation of the TAVKR gives Russia not only the opportunity to use aviation, including the Su-33, MiG-29K, Ka-52, Ka-27, Ka-29 where we do not have an airfield on the ground, but also gain invaluable experience which will be used in the construction of new and more powerful aircraft carriers.
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 2 October 2019 13: 40
      +1
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      And what kind of mediocrity and fools are yelling here in the comments about the uselessness of Russia TAVKR ?! Is there anything left of the mind in your head?

      Military budget, buddy, not rubber. If we begin to build an aircraft carrier, we will have to abandon something, close some programs, disband parts, and reduce something. Your suggestions?
  16. vsdvs
    vsdvs 2 October 2019 11: 46
    +4
    "So, несмотря на announced by deputy commander of the Russian Navy Viktor Bursuk re-equipment of "Admiral Kuznetsov" unique ship-based SPRA "Pantsir-M", which in the future will allow to intercept simultaneously four 3-fly targets at a distance of up to 40 km due to equipping the standard 57E6 missiles with more powerful starting solid propellant boosters (booster stages), the air-defense potential of the 279th separate naval fighter regiment stationed aboard the aircraft carrier still leaves much to be desired... Therefore, today, in a duel situation, the deck wing of our aircraft-carrying cruiser is unable to form a proper anti-aircraft / anti-missile zone A2 / AD within a radius of 700-1300 km. "There is an elder in the garden, and there is an uncle in Kiev.
  17. Livonetc
    Livonetc 2 October 2019 11: 50
    +3
    I did not notice any pessimism in the article.
    There is a listing of problem areas visible by the author.
    Further options for resolving problems.

    Maybe the topic was puzzling, because it had already been raised many times.
    However, you should take this as a brainstorm.
    During a brainstorming session, all possible ideas are put forward and all possible situations are modeled up to improbable and even fantastic ones, then the most appropriate and productive ideas are selected.
    And suddenly a bright head appears and generates a new interesting idea.
    Dare others and do not be angry with authors who offer us a field for training our minds.
    hi
  18. Ivan Muscovit
    Ivan Muscovit 2 October 2019 11: 52
    +1
    In any case, any plans for modernization must correspond to the economic and technological capabilities of the country and the specifics of the military doctrine. Although, it is clear that many can see the sofa better from the command bridge, but desire alone in such matters is clearly not enough. It all comes down to the classic formula from the "Prisoner of the Caucasus": "I have the desire to buy a house, but I have no opportunity. I have the opportunity to buy a goat, but ... I have no desire. So let's drink so that our desires always coincide with our capabilities .. . "
  19. bar
    bar 2 October 2019 13: 58
    -2
    What happens to the Admiral Kuznetsov air wing?

    And what happens to "Admiral Kuznetsov" himself. And who needs his air wing, if the "blacksmiths" himself stands at the wall without screws and hope for a close repair?
  20. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 2 October 2019 14: 09
    +1
    The only 279th OKIAP of the Northern Fleet faced both a quantitative and a technological lag behind the Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB fleets from tactical aircraft armed with the U.S. Navy and ILC

    But does the SF have two naval aviation regiments - the 279th okiap on the Su-33 and the 100th okiap on the MiG-29KR?
  21. Tavrik
    Tavrik 2 October 2019 15: 45
    +3
    Quote: Alexey RA
    In the meantime, gentlemen, the oligarchs are building luxury yachts and trying to fit into the Western elite - and then they are terribly surprised that they are thrown into the banal and robbed.

    "Fleet in the service of oligarchs!" Cool slogan. The main thing is relevant. Directly state. program. Sadly, this is what we are heading for.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 October 2019 18: 48
      +1
      Quote: Tavrik
      "Fleet in the service of oligarchs!" Cool slogan. The main thing is relevant. Directly state. program. Sadly, this is what we are heading for.

      What's good for General Motors is good for America. smile
      The welfare of the country depends on the taxes collected. The largest taxpayers - FIG. The higher their income, the more taxes. So the state is vitally interested in promoting the interests of its FIGs abroad. Naturally those who honestly pay these taxes. wink
      In the end, now even the US president uses his official position to promote US LNG to European markets. Why can the state defend the interests of private companies in them, but not in our country?
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 2 October 2019 20: 44
        0
        Because in our country the interests of the private oligarchy are defended to the detriment of the interests of the people. "The president is a hired manager" is a fashionable theory. Therefore, one LNG promotes, the second - air defense systems. Who can what.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 October 2019 13: 04
          +2
          Quote: Tavrik
          Because in our country the interests of the private oligarchy are defended to the detriment of the interests of the people. "The president is a hired manager" is a fashionable theory. Therefore, one LNG promotes, the second - air defense systems. Who can what.

          So the fact of the matter is that the interests of the private oligarchy globally coincide with the interests of the state - only a strong state can guarantee the observance of the interests of its companies abroad.
          For at present, no lawyers will be able to protect against the principle of political expediency or highly likly. And no lawyer will help if if your competitor with the help of his state simply arranges a coup (popular revolution for freedom and democracy) in the country with which you have concluded an agreement - and the new government will re-decide everything in its favor. Or he won’t bother at all - he will declare this country a threat to democracy, bomb it in the Stone Age, appoint an occupation government and continue to work on the bayonets of the army and PMCs.
        2. provergatel
          provergatel 3 October 2019 17: 25
          +2
          Here you are funny. How much pathos and empty big words.

          Here we take the payment of pensions, is this care of the people? And where does the budget of the pension fund come from? That's right - mainly from the pension contributions of the employer pool from the payroll fund, plus the little things there: the funded system, the contributions of pension savings, etc. But! Thus, by now, only 60% of the expenditures of the PF budget is covered; accordingly, the state has to add another 40% by transfer from the federal budget (and this amount makes up 20% of the entire FB of Russia). In 2018, revenues to the Pension Fund amounted to 8,27 trillion rubles. 40% of them - 3,28 trillion - is a transfer from the federal budget. Here it is.

          Incidentally, this is one of the main reasons for raising the retirement age. Medicine is improving, as one of the consequences - life expectancy is growing, which means that the number of pensioners is also growing, and it is growing faster than natural population growth, which means that banal logic dictates that the number of workers is decreasing. Well, it is enough to follow the dynamics of the growth of transfers from the federal budget to the pension budget. To cover the lack of the PFR budget at the beginning of the 3,3s, a transfer of several hundred billion rubles was enough, despite the fact that the efficiency of collection of tax deductions from employers was several times lower, in the private sector the overwhelming majority worked "all the way", receiving money in envelope, and the budget received penny contributions with the minimum possible salary specified in the employment contract. Last year, the transfer from the federal budget amounted to XNUMX trillion rubles. And every year this amount is growing, so I think the dynamics are obvious.

          Well, let's continue to talk about caring for the people. How is the federal budget formed? We look at the structure. And what do we see there, in 2019 more than 40% of the budget is generated by "oil and gas revenues", and what is this with us? Correctly - these are just taxes and export duties paid by oil and gas companies of that very private "oligarchy". But there are still a bunch of enterprises of that very private "oligarchy", including large mining and processing (metals / coal / fertilizers / etc.), which in total form up to 10-15% of the budget with their taxes. That is, in the pension received by each pensioner, 20% of the money of the largest private "oligarchy". But there is also medicine / education / science / culture and much more. And up to 50% of the money allocated to these areas is the money of the very "oligarchy". I put the word "oligarchy" in quotation marks, because in the last 250 years (with the light hand of the French revolutionaries), this term is usually understood as super-rich people who have either directly political power or a strong influence on political power. We ended these at the beginning of the second presidential term of GDP. Now there are just super-rich people.

          In no case do I admire the existence of the super-rich, their yachts and other eccentricities. But I'm used to perceiving objective reality, and not living in a fantasy world.
          The objective reality is that big business is an inevitable evil. Even in socialist China, they were forced to admit it, and this ensured them such economic growth. But they carried out their transition from socialism to state capitalism smoothly and under control. We are now trying to slowly follow the same path, though we are forced to build our state capitalism on the ruins of nonsocialism, on which the system of large private business has grown and somehow, albeit at the very least, has worked. If you try to sharply break it through the knee, we get the next year 1917/1991 with all the fascinating consequences. Do you need it? To me, here, not at all!

          And ... Immediately, anticipating a favorite objection about "the bowels of the people". The oil and gas industry is free money only in the view of a very naive, if not much more blunt, person. These are colossal expenditures on resource exploration, field mapping, analysis and assessment of production prospects, creation of infrastructure (in Russia, for the most part, in a difficult climate), delivery of equipment, installation, adjustment, maintenance, construction of a residential sector for personnel and establishment the life of this personnel, laying thousands of kilometers of oil / gas pipelines (with all the infrastructure, compressor and pumping, measuring and other stations, etc.), searching for buyers, protecting and lobbying their interests in the international market, where there are many others who want to sell their oil and gas. These are expenses for the development, creation, improvement and regular updating of equipment for oil and gas production. But this also entails a bunch of related branches of metallurgy, machine tool and instrument making, the construction industry and the industry for the production of building materials, and dozens! So, all these costs are borne by the same private companies, but in Russia, since we do not have pure private companies in the oil and gas sector, without the participation of the state, the state partially helps, sometimes with money, sometimes with tax breaks, sometimes with authority in international negotiations. But the return is great up to half of the budget annually, it seems to me that the game is worth the candle.

          Well, if someone is so eager to take advantage of his share of the "national treasure", then a pipe on his shoulder and forward into the tundra or taiga, there he will even be shown where exactly there is gas or oil. Let him get it there, then find someone who will buy it from him, and then also deliver it to the buyer. Profit! You can enjoy the result.
  22. Nikolay Shestakov
    Nikolay Shestakov 2 October 2019 15: 48
    +1
    The thing is the lack of a good aircraft carrier and most importantly - catapults. Until this happens, there is nothing to invent with ready-made aircraft. And the second, successful experience is the American lightweight F / A-18. So this result can be achieved only with light MIGs. Dry on this matter does not fit. Enough Design Bureau Sukhoi to pull money for all kinds of aircraft to the detriment of the MIG and national interests.
  23. Negruz
    Negruz 2 October 2019 16: 21
    +2
    What are the problems, author: personal income tax - 50% and VAT - 30%, for retirement - from 70 .....
    And they will be the best su-33 .....
  24. Mainbeam
    Mainbeam 2 October 2019 16: 39
    -1
    The article is similar to a reporting analytical note to the chief. If it wrote notprofessional, then professionals reported something like that where it should be. If a professional, then this looks like an analytical drain of information, like, dad doesn’t listen to me, so I’ll connect the public.

    On the one hand, the evidence base is good and I am glad that they did not just unsubscribe, that "everything was lost!" On the other hand, what does it give me? I had no idea that the carrier groups would fight each other. Aircraft carriers are against the banana republics - both here and among the Yankos. And the sea chopper of superpowers is not planned, because the Russian Federation, China and someone else there still have anti-ship missiles capable of sinking aircraft carriers along with the F-18.

    In this regard, the question: why such a comparison?

    Even the F / A-33C / D “Hornet”, which underwent a program of deep updating of avionics, can be considered as a significant threat to the Su-18

    So our airplanes will undergo a "deep modernization" in due time.
  25. Polar Bear
    Polar Bear 2 October 2019 19: 42
    +2
    In 20 years, China has made a giant technological breakthrough. ... Putin only promises to get off the oil and gas needle for 20 years, but things are still there. Raw material "superpower". Hence the result, or rather its absence, that what is Soviet is what it is, or is being completed somehow. For idiotic entertainments like the Winter Olympics in the tropics, billions of dollars are spent on science and technology is not. I wonder how Stalin would assess Putin's activities? Especially in comparison with China.
    1. Negruz
      Negruz 3 October 2019 00: 05
      -1
      Stalin would have shot all the Chinese petty-bourgeois nationalists, starting with Dan and ending with ....
  26. karabass
    karabass 2 October 2019 20: 03
    0
    I am making a congenial offer - since our kuzma flies and swims badly, I propose to give it to Ukraine. THREE YEARS THROUGH IT
  27. certero
    certero 2 October 2019 21: 41
    0
    Carriers for Russia are too expensive toys. Kuznetsov in the USSR was to be just the beginning before the construction of full-fledged carrier ships with an atomic installation and catapults. The beginning, on which the training of pilots, actions at sea, required performance characteristics would have worked out. Undoubtedly, it is impossible to drown Kuzyu, it is necessary to operate it, but precisely as a floating experimental base. But war requires rocket ships.
  28. Lunt
    Lunt 2 October 2019 21: 48
    0
    As long as the Russians and Americans are working together in the Office of Lunar Operations, no "duels" are expected, since the United States simply does not need it.
  29. Whisper
    Whisper 2 October 2019 21: 51
    0
    And where are these planes going to meet? Is the meeting issue resolved already? laughing
  30. DPN
    DPN 2 October 2019 22: 29
    0
    Why should they butt? they will greet each other and disperse, they will say let the ground ones understand their missiles more.
  31. mikle1999
    mikle1999 2 October 2019 23: 59
    +2
    Yes, there will be no repair, what kind of kindergarten. You can sleep peacefully, the Strategic Missile Forces guarantee the global security of the country, no one will fight locally with us, and try to confront the whole hostile world (including China), which is more economically powerful, technologically advanced and attractive, ideologically ideally possible, but completely useless.
  32. Vitalo
    Vitalo 3 October 2019 06: 50
    0
    The main thing is what begins in the military industry, or where else, is the concept of development.
    As I always understood, an aircraft carrier is a means of attack and / or intimidation. But no protection.
    The President always says that we are not going to attack anyone, and all that we do is solely for protection.
    Then we do not need an aircraft carrier.
    If you lied (and usually always does), then yes - it is necessary.
    But financially and (and most importantly) technically we are not able to survive.
    Lada - Mercedes. Comparable level. That in the scoop, that now, nothing has changed.
    Our electronics industry is in decline, so neither planes nor ships will we reach the level of the USA and NATO in the near foreseeable future.
    Anyway, the people, obviously many served in the army. Forgot what is our army? - sloppiness in everything!
    Again, the threat assessment (refers to the concept of development) - over the past 70 years, not one of our soldiers died at the hands of NATO.
    The main victims:
    1. Internal conflicts (Chechnya, Dagestan ...)
    2. Neighboring conflicts (Central Asia, former Socialist Republics)
    3. Our army itself - violation of TB, accident and so on ...
    That's where (in my opinion) you need to start and what to pay increased attention to.
    Until the heads of the heads have a clear understanding of the development of the country - we will be fed with endless threats, cartoons about "unparalleled" weapons and other heresy.
  33. armata_armata
    armata_armata 3 October 2019 11: 26
    -1
    The last normal analyst remained on VO, the boiling of shit from the tricks in the comments to this confirmation
  34. yakisam
    yakisam 3 October 2019 20: 22
    +1
    Thanks for the set of information,
    but Kuznetsov's air group not only cannot, nor, in principle, is intended to counter the DECK aviation of the "partners". If I am mistaken, then correct me - with reference to specific documents defining the purpose of using this ship.
    I ask everyone to pay attention - the repair / modernization of the Kuznetsov TAVKR is taking place under conditions when NOBODY knows what the purpose of this ship's existence in the Russian Navy is. I am not suggesting that it is unnecessary (or needed). The point is that there is no intelligible purpose for such a ship in the ONE copy, except for the reasoning, which boils down to the following: we have Kuznetsov, it is a unique base for unique weapons and must remain and develop. That is, "he is, okay." Correctly it was renamed in honor of Kuznetsov ...
    1. Eroma
      Eroma 6 October 2019 23: 15
      0
      Now a turning point is possible in naval armaments and combat aircraft. Which aircraft carrier will be in the future is not known, but to know, one must have operational experience! To abandon the existing avik means to try to guess the future, and not to develop on the basis of new technologies and experience in their operation !!!
      Perhaps Aviks are not needed, or perhaps they will gain new opportunities, without our Avik we will guess, and with it we will know for sure.
  35. Devil13
    Devil13 4 October 2019 15: 05
    0
    Well, Zhuk-AME is still a parable; it seems to be there, but it doesn't exist.
    So it would not hurt to cram it (with the declared performance characteristics) into ALL of our fighters, Su-30SM and Su-35, incl. Moreover, the Su-30SM (glory to India and its purchases) is made digital, with an open architecture, and everything is "crammed".
    But why instead of the Su-33, which is already 30 years old, it’s not possible to make NEW FULLY Aircraft based on the Su-30SM or Su-34 - this is a very interesting question, considering that SM is a ton lighter, rpm, of suspension points + 2, + 1,5t load.
    To attach folding wings and hook from 33, or okay, cross one of them with 33 and make a new car from what it is - since they are produced SERIES - that’s the question.
    And take out already from the long-suffering Kuznetsov P-700 (the benefit of the unmanned MiG-21s is already a little outdated, and no one needs an aircraft carrier) and shove a couple of cars and ammunition to them. Moreover, the Indians still taught the Su-30 to throw BrahMos (aka Onyx).
    And then "this is the turn" happens. Because with a full wing, to get a "long arm" in (okay, a little fiction, but they will not piss and take off with 3 "Onyxes" drying. Let's imagine such a picture) even in the extra 500 (BR + fuel costs will spin until all the cars take off ) 32 aircraft, let the strike group 24, 24x3 and 800 + 500 km, this is already something, this is a very unpleasant WHAT. Even just a group salvo of 24-32 missiles at 1300 km is extremely unpleasant. or at 800 km in stealth mode (that is, missiles will go at low altitude, launch and approach beyond the radio horizon) - this is a BIG SURPRISE.
    Well, if you are not an AUG of the US Navy, of course, then you have a full-time AWAC and you can see everything.
  36. Alexey G
    Alexey G 4 October 2019 22: 14
    0
    Tree sticks! Well, we have old planes, but what about the boat? Upgrade them! And Kuznetsov don’t have to fight with Nimitz yet! It will be enough to bomb terrorists or some other weaklings!
    His task is to deliver bombs anywhere in the world! Support the allies of Russia with fire and mobility!
  37. xax
    xax 6 October 2019 21: 43
    +1
    Once I saw a cartoon where the children tried to make breakfast for themselves. They just took all the products that they thought were tasty (fish, meat, milk, jam, ketchup, etc., etc.), and put them in one pan - it turned out, naturally, completely inedible.
    When I read Damantsev, I recall this cartoon. Damantsev, like those children, simply takes words that seem tasty to him and puts them in one sentence, not trying to figure out how much they will be combined there - as a result, something is indigestible.
    Although the author, putting sweets against candy wrappers, thinks that a dish of "such a complex recipe" must certainly arouse the eater's respect for the chef.
  38. Eroma
    Eroma 6 October 2019 23: 27
    0
    The article probably describes the current situation, but so far this is not relevant! Avik is not, will be repaired in 2 years and that probably. Fussing about airplanes early. When it becomes clear with the date of entry avik, I think there will be new aircraft. Perhaps the Su-57 will be put on deck, or the MiG-35 on kroynyak. Now, if old planes are planted on a repaired avik, then the relevance of the article will appear
  39. Brigadier
    Brigadier 8 October 2019 20: 42
    0
    First, our "authorities" should be very concerned about where billions are quietly leaving the country, and only then they will correct and modernize something in different sectors.
    And then to carry water with a sieve is not the best idea! But not leisure is visible.
    We need to have time to come up with laws, such as raising the retirement age ...
    In a word - everything, as usual, in current Putin Of Russia. Quiet and smooth ...
    Like in a cemetery ...
  40. Klingon
    Klingon 26 October 2019 01: 18
    0
    Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
    Quote: itarnmag
    That is to say the least. And, in my opinion, we should not develop aircraft carriers. They have nowhere to base, they have no escort ships, bases outside of Russia, etc., not to mention the huge quantitative and qualitative advantage in aircraft carriers of a probable enemy

    We need aircraft carriers not to fight the Americans, but to defend Russia's interests

    maybe it is better to need UDC aircraft carriers with aircraft like Yak-141 ??
    they will probably be easier to build