Military Review

Expert in the USA: Russians are not just betting on submarines, abandoning aircraft carriers

95
The American media are trying to find out the main reasons why Russia relies on submarines and refuses aircraft carriers.




In the edition The National Interest a material was published which specifically addresses this issue. The author notes that Russia is investing heavily in the creation of submarines, including new classes, with virtually no cost reduction "against the backdrop of the vast economic crisis." At the same time, the author reflects on the “problems” of the use of submarines in conditions of possible large-scale hostilities.

From the article:

But it is not clear what exactly the Russians intend to do with dozens of modern submarines in case of war?

In this regard, the opinion of a specialist in the field of naval fleet, one of the members of the team of authors of the journal of the Institute of the United States Navy Norman Polmar.

The expert notes that while the surface fleet of the Russian Navy is mainly represented by Soviet-built ships, the submarine fleet of the Russian Federation has been substantially updated in recent years. It is added that progress in the modernization of submarines has already begun and is underway actively.

With reference to U.S. intelligence data, NI reports that the Russian fleet operates submarines of the 855 Ash, 955 Borey and earlier modifications, including non-nuclear (DEPL). [This is clear without reference to American intelligence, since the Russian Navy does not hide anything in this respect - approx. "IN"].



From the material:

Russia will continue to build submarines of the 4 generation of the Yuri Dolgoruky class until the 2020 of the year.

The publication called the Yury Dolgoruky class the 955 Borey project, in which the submarine with the mentioned name is the lead one.

Polmar notes that earlier Western intelligence was mistaken in assuming the following: the USSR will use a submarine fleet to attack surface convoys and transport ships. The expert shares with readers the thought:

But in fact, the Soviets never planned to carry out large-scale attacks on merchant shipping. Instead, Soviet doctrine suggested that submarines focus on nuclear deterrence and a possible attack on NATO submarines and alliance aircraft carriers.

According to Polmar, in the 1978 year, the CIA even distributed a report that noted a lowering of the threat from the Soviet submarine fleet to civil shipping.

Norman Polmar adds that even today it is necessary to objectively and professionally analyze how Russia is going to use its submarine fleet in case of war, refusing to build aircraft carriers. This, according to the expert, will make it possible not to repeat the mistakes of American analysts from among the intelligence officers committed in the 60-70 years.

In particular, an American expert previously noted that "the Russians are betting on surprise," which submarines can provide, unlike the same aircraft carriers.

That is why the Russians are not just betting on submarines, ignoring the possibility of developing an aircraft carrier fleet.

Secrecy and surprise, as stated, is a trump card that Russia can play in the event of a military conflict.
95 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. bar
    bar 4 October 2019 15: 44
    +26
    Russians are not just betting on submarines, abandoning aircraft carriers

    Yeah, they are already starting to suspect something. laughing
    I hope that local experts will soon cease violently minus for every word spoken against the creation of useless aircraft carriers laughing
    1. Hunter 2
      Hunter 2 4 October 2019 15: 47
      +33
      Captain obvious! laughing what we have enough money for is building! I would like faster .... sad
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 4 October 2019 16: 30
        +11
        Alexander Shishkin writes that over the past few years, the nuclear submarine forces of the Russian Navy have lost at least eight nuclear submarines of Soviet projects. Moreover, "
        the number is not final. To date, one can be quite confident in the combat readiness of only five multipurpose submarines - Severodvinsk (Project 885, SF), Geparda (Project 971.1, SF), Kuzbass (Project 971, Pacific Fleet), Pskova (pr. 945A, SF) and Obninsk (pr. 671RTMK, SF), to a lesser extent - Nizhniy Novgorod (pr. 945A, SF). Seven more boats are under repair or awaiting repair - six projects 971 and one project 671RTMK. The once great and powerful general-purpose component of the USSR nuclear submarine fleet has shrunk to 13 units, half of which are not in motion. "

        https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/203848.html
        In general, the grouping of the 971s in our fleet has been safely destroyed a little less than completely. Judging by the frames of "Military acceptance" as many as 4 pieces. in combat formation. "Cheetah", "Panther", "Tiger" (Northern Fleet), "Kuzbass" (Pacific Fleet). Vepr may leave VTG in the near future. The rest are in the eternal "modernization" and the eternal "reserve". Very, very sorry that it happened. Considering that, in addition to 7, 2 more Yasenya-M were ordered, the stake was made on the construction of new multipurpose nuclear submarines. On the positive side, the K-331 “Magadan” nuclear submarine, pr. 971, which had been in the water area of ​​the Far East Zvezda plant in Bolshoy Kamen for about 10 years, awaiting repairs, was delivered this year to the plant's boathouse, which was vacated after the withdrawal of the K- 186 "Omsk" project 949A. Previously, the K-331 "Magadan" was on satellite images in the water area of ​​the JSC "Far East Plant" Zvezda ". Recently there have been pictures showing the Magadan docked, but later in the last pictures it is not on the territory of the plant. Most likely in the boathouse stands together with the Irkutsk submarine of project 949A.
        1. Greg Miller
          Greg Miller 4 October 2019 19: 15
          -3
          Today, the leadership of Russia is betting on the yachts of Usmanov, Abramovich, Melnichenko and other offshore bloodsuckers ... and not on submarines and mythical aircraft carriers. I want to remind you that since 2014, not a single new nuclear submarine has been accepted into the fleet system ...
          1. krot
            krot 5 October 2019 11: 03
            -2
            Abramovich’s yachts are being built by Russia? Yes, you shoo !!! ?? So it looks like my Nissamaran, too, the state has coughed up?) Who has what incomes, the one has such boats .. And where is the country?
            And if enviable, envy silently. Or Abramovich didn’t achieve everything himself, but someone actively helped him?
            1. jhltyjyjctw
              jhltyjyjctw 5 October 2019 14: 45
              +1
              Borya Yeltsin actively helped him. If there wasn’t Bori, he would have sold jeans.
              1. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 6 October 2019 16: 17
                0
                Quote: jhltyjyjctw
                Borya Yeltsin actively helped him.

                Abramovich Berezovsky protected.
            2. Bogatyrev
              Bogatyrev 5 October 2019 22: 52
              0
              "Who has what income ... and do not envy the type"
              That you sho! Pretty boy! And the difference in the method of obtaining is not important? When in order to build schemes, some people corrupt the whole country in which we incidentally live. And there is no need to talk about envy. There are no fools. This is not envy. Just people do not want to live in shit. Moral.
            3. Islander-o
              Islander-o 9 October 2019 20: 19
              0
              "... Or Abramovich did not achieve everything himself, but someone actively helped him? ..." As a child, I bought an apple for 5 kopecks, washed it, rubbed it and sold it for 10 kopecks. I bought 10 apples for 2 kopecks ... - an old and well-known story long before the wonderful enrichment of the gentleman under discussion. :)
            4. SIBWOIF
              SIBWOIF 23 October 2019 22: 20
              -2
              They plundered the country and is it called earned money? There will be a revolution on you too!
        2. Eduard Egorov
          Eduard Egorov 6 October 2019 11: 25
          0
          Do you even believe in it yourself? Do you even know that submarines and boats are not always sailing.
      2. Alex777
        Alex777 4 October 2019 18: 38
        +6
        Captain obvious! laughing for what is enough money - we are building it! I would like it faster .... sad

        I would say a little differently: that we have not forgotten how to build, then we are building.
        On surface ships, the restoration of competencies is very difficult. hi
      3. Chaldon48
        Chaldon48 4 October 2019 22: 18
        +1
        Of all the submarine construction sites that went to Russia, only one operates in Severodvinsk, while the rest, if they are building, are small vessels.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 4 October 2019 16: 32
      +5
      Quote: bar
      Russians are not just betting on submarines, abandoning aircraft carriers

      Yeah, they are already starting to suspect something. laughing
      I hope that local experts will soon cease violently minus for every word spoken against the creation of useless aircraft carriers laughing
      They never stop. After all, they are so beautiful. feel For me, so rare crap. And the submarine, it will force any AUG into the latrine in 15 minutes. run.
      1. novel66
        novel66 4 October 2019 17: 37
        +2
        do you think AUG PLO isn’t ??? I doubt very much .. for war non-nuclear means where are how good
        1. bar
          bar 4 October 2019 18: 15
          +3
          There will be no non-nuclear war with Russia. The guarantor promised. I hope the stripes also understand this.
        2. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 4 October 2019 19: 16
          +1
          Quote: novel xnumx
          do you think AUG PLO isn’t ??? I doubt very much .. for war non-nuclear means where are how good

          Persuaded, let them run with PLO. feel
          1. novel66
            novel66 4 October 2019 19: 19
            -1
            Hooray! that is, no, not cheers !! bad !!
        3. ccsr
          ccsr 4 October 2019 19: 30
          +1
          Quote: novel xnumx
          do you think AUG PLO isn’t ??? I doubt very much .. for war non-nuclear means where are how good

          Is it you with the Americans or with China who decided to wage war by non-nuclear means? Brilliant, you will not say anything.
          The advantages of submarines over aircraft carriers are so obvious that their ammunition even for aircraft carrier groups does not make sense to spend, because their main purpose is a nuclear strike on the continental United States from the smallest distances that they can go hidden. That's why the American analyst wrote absolutely correctly that
          That is why the Russians are not just betting on submarines, ignoring the possibility of developing an aircraft carrier fleet.

          It is good that our military theorists have finally correctly determined where we need to invest in the first place, since the Americans began to stock up on diapers in advance.
          1. novel66
            novel66 4 October 2019 19: 35
            0
            excellent analytics - I'm talking about diapers ..
      2. Islander-o
        Islander-o 9 October 2019 20: 22
        0
        "... And the PL, she will force any AUG into the latrine in 15 minutes. Run ..." This is not so simple. It is necessary to clarify that the submarine "can force" ...
    3. Piramidon
      Piramidon 4 October 2019 17: 25
      +11
      Quote: bar
      I hope that local experts will soon cease violently minus for every word spoken against the creation of useless aircraft carriers

      I have been talking here for a long time about the fact that aircraft carriers are needed, mainly, in order to "bring democracy" to underdeveloped countries. But, as you rightly noted, for this opinion, two bags of minuses have already been dumped on me by the local supporters of the concept - "everything that has nothing to do with it."
      1. bar
        bar 4 October 2019 17: 35
        +3
        I’ve been here recently, but I also managed to catch the minuses on this topic. smile
        1. Vasyan1971
          Vasyan1971 4 October 2019 19: 18
          +3
          Quote: bar
          I’ve been here recently, but I also managed to catch the minuses on this topic. smile

          Bullshit! What does not ban us makes it stronger!
    4. Vasyan1971
      Vasyan1971 4 October 2019 19: 16
      0
      Quote: bar
      Yeah, they are already starting to suspect something.

      On the eighth day, the sharp-sighted Bill noticed that there was no wall in prison.
  2. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 4 October 2019 15: 47
    +13
    Strategists (SSGN) will not be spent on AUG. In the event of a military conflict, they will immediately hit the "decision-making center" with all warheads ... what do they expect there?
    1. ltc35
      ltc35 4 October 2019 16: 33
      +9
      So at the Pentagon they don’t - they perfectly understand where all this economy is aimed. And AUG is a demonstrator of strength, like the tail of a peacock or deer antler.
      1. Islander-o
        Islander-o 9 October 2019 20: 26
        +1
        In addition to the "demonstration of strength", the AUG ensures the stability of a heterogeneous ship group providing cover for an ASW line or an area of ​​deployment of strategic submarines ...
        1. ltc35
          ltc35 9 October 2019 21: 02
          0
          I agree. But at the same time, the grouping is an excellent guideline for hitting it, because in any case it is a large and powerful source of electromagnetic radiation.
  3. Yrec
    Yrec 4 October 2019 15: 47
    +3
    For mattresses, aircraft carriers are a sacred cow, absolute unbreakable power. Anything else is not available for their understanding, they measure the level of the Armed Forces of any state with aircraft carriers. They look at our crippled "Kuzya" and judge by it. Gradually, of course, this pattern changes, but very crookedly (like Windows after an update), the mattress consciousness begins to lag.
    1. eagle owl
      eagle owl 4 October 2019 15: 53
      +9
      Until now, they still haven’t reached why, after putting on the DB Chinese anti-ship missiles - US aircraft carriers, no one has even seen off the coast of Japan ... No. they’ve sent a solitary, without an escort, so that it’s clear to the fool that he’s not going to fight, and now the Chinese are driving him with a scribbled broom) But no conclusions have been made about the real benefits of the AUG.
      Sense with them against China? And the Russian Federation, as it were, would be cooler in terms of anti-ship defense - and even less vulnerable from the sea ...
    2. bar
      bar 4 October 2019 16: 19
      +8
      Quote: Yrec
      For mattresses, aircraft carriers are a sacred cow, an absolute indestructible power. Any other is not available for their understanding.

      Mattresses have taken on the mission of the world's gendarme. And the gendarme has to go into all corners and there "project force." That is why they need aircraft carriers with their own AUG, and for nothing else they are not suitable. And, I hope, on this mission they will overstrain.
      But why do we need it? It seems that there is no need to project power; we have our own corners of the earth above the roof, if only they would not interfere with life. And the submarine fleet is much more eager for this.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 October 2019 11: 10
      +1
      Quote: Yrec
      Any other is not available for their understanding, they measure the level of the armed forces of any state by aircraft carriers

      You are mistaken a little more than completely. Americans took our submarine fleet very seriously almost from the middle of the last century
  4. Amateur
    Amateur 4 October 2019 15: 50
    +6
    At VO NI, just like a dream book in the old days. good
  5. Laksamana besar
    Laksamana besar 4 October 2019 15: 50
    +15
    Stop littering VO with these media like NI. It is much more interesting that the reactor facility of two nuclear reactors was launched on the atomic icebreaker Arktika, as reported by Rosatom.
  6. sir_obs
    sir_obs 4 October 2019 15: 53
    +4
    But it is not clear what exactly the Russians intend to do with dozens of modern submarines in case of war?


    Drowning mattresses and downsizing American states seems to be obvious.
  7. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 4 October 2019 15: 54
    +2
    But it’s not entirely clear what exactly the Russians intend to do with dozens of modern submarines in case of war?

    Stupid question))) The answer is obvious: they will fight, like everything else that can cause damage to the adversary
    And I would like to hope that by the hour "X", we will have dozens of them, not just a few. And that the cover "from above" would be reliable, respectively
  8. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 4 October 2019 16: 02
    0
    When the Americans realize that the oceans and all major seas are teeming with Russian submarines then the late will rush about .....
  9. NF68
    NF68 4 October 2019 16: 13
    +3
    They charge the gun! What for!?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi9bl_eiamc
  10. knn54
    knn54 4 October 2019 16: 18
    +1
    Different tasks: aircraft carriers are the weapons of the aggressor, nuclear submarines, weapons of deterrence .. and the response to aggression.
    1. Saul_Rhen
      Saul_Rhen 4 October 2019 16: 55
      -1
      Minus. This is not decided by slogans, but by necessity. A nuclear submarine with the Kyrgyz Republic is an excellent weapon of aggression if necessary, and the AB will also cope well with the defense of its water areas.
      1. Piramidon
        Piramidon 4 October 2019 17: 43
        -2
        Quote: Saul_Rhen
        Minus. This is not decided by slogans, but by necessity. A nuclear submarine with the Kyrgyz Republic is an excellent weapon of aggression if necessary, and the AB will also cope well with the defense of its water areas.

        You still act as a lawyer for the white, furry and peace-loving Yankees. laughing However, all of your compatriots from the "promised land" act in this role.
        1. Saul_Rhen
          Saul_Rhen 4 October 2019 21: 55
          0
          Which country? I live in the Kuban. I hate the slogans of the Soviet era, like this nonsense "aircraft carriers are the aggressor's weapon." Because of such ideas in the USSR, the devil knows that instead of the fleet they built, guided by the principle "Aby not like people." Spent billions not misunderstandings pr. 1123 and 1143, before they realized that it was necessary to build normal aircraft carriers (which, alas, did not have time to build). "Aggression" and "containment" is determined not by the type and affiliation of the ship or submarine, but by the orders given to the captain. The aircraft carrier's air group can both strike at enemy targets and intercept enemy missile forces flying into their ships, bases, cities. The submarine can either shoot at the enemy or prevent him from shooting.
      2. Oyo Sarkazmi
        Oyo Sarkazmi 5 October 2019 10: 33
        0
        With the submarine you can’t land an assault. And it’s easier to protect your water area from the coast - planes from a long strip fly out with a larger combat load and fuel supply.
        1. Saul_Rhen
          Saul_Rhen 5 October 2019 17: 28
          0
          From an aircraft carrier, too, troops are usually not landed.
          1. Oyo Sarkazmi
            Oyo Sarkazmi 5 October 2019 19: 21
            0
            However, during the intervention in Iraq in 2003, a pair of aircraft carriers delivered almost 7 marines. Directly with the Vremya correspondent on board. The Marines not only "sailed", but also conducted firing practice on the deck. I remembered the command: Attach shops, whoever can! The fire!
            1. Saul_Rhen
              Saul_Rhen 5 October 2019 21: 08
              0
              Rather, an exception, since the presence of numerous assault forces and landing vehicles severely limits the ship's "profile" capabilities.
  11. EnGenius
    EnGenius 4 October 2019 16: 20
    +5
    The SSBN is the only way to take the nuclear arsenal on duty farther into the oceans from its shores, while leveling the possibility of preventive destruction of the arsenal and there is the possibility of launching missiles right in the campaign for a retaliatory strike. This direction needs to be developed. Mine and mobile installations are targets for a preemptive strike on our country.
    1. YOUR
      YOUR 4 October 2019 16: 33
      +1
      Unfortunately, while the United States is ahead of us in the number of nuclear submarines. They generally abandoned diesel-electric submarines, only atomic ones. In terms of the number of SSBNs, we have 14 and 14 have parity, but besides they still have 53 more multipurpose submarines. We don’t have that much. DEPL is reimbursed.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 October 2019 16: 45
        +1
        Quote: YOUR
        By the number of SSBNs we have parity 14 and they have 14

        We have 10 for 16 launchers of ICBMs, they have 14 for 24 launchers
    2. YOUR
      YOUR 4 October 2019 16: 39
      -3
      We plan to have 2023 - 58 nuclear submarines and 64 diesel-electric submarines by 30. Amerikosov have 58-59 nuclear submarines. In 2023, it is planned to commission the new generation SSBN Columbia. But in general, their lag is noticeable. All boats with great "seniority"
      1. Saul_Rhen
        Saul_Rhen 4 October 2019 16: 58
        0
        According to the nuclear submarines, this will not happen even with strategists. According to DEPL - most likely too. You need to look at reality objectively.
        1. mikle1999
          mikle1999 4 October 2019 21: 09
          -1
          It would be nice to take into account how many days a year an American boat is on a campaign, and how many are ours.
          It’s possible to shoot from the pier, of course, but why for this purpose the whole boat, with its reactor, turbines and other galleys / galleons
        2. YOUR
          YOUR 6 October 2019 01: 38
          0
          Americans DEPL not at all. Abandoned them. Still completely abandoned non-nuclear submarines naglichans.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 October 2019 16: 46
        +2
        Quote: YOUR
        In the plans for the 2023 year we should have 58 - 64 submarines and 30 DEPLs

        wassat fool
        Well, how much should I take on my chest in order to operate with such numbers?
        1. YOUR
          YOUR 6 October 2019 01: 55
          -1
          No need to drink anything. You can just carefully read at least the same articles on VO
          for example - https://topwar.ru/66306-sravnenie-podvodnyh-sil-rossii-i-ssha.html
          You can look through the weapons section, the fleet subsection. This I only called you one site.
          Still not too lazy to see the payroll of the Russian fleet and the payroll of the US fleet. And after that you can jerk.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2019 11: 55
            +3
            Quote: YOUR
            Still not too lazy to see the payroll of the Russian fleet and the payroll of the US fleet. And after that you can jerk.

            It is very funny to watch how you recommend me to do something that your hands do not reach. Therefore, I report - to date, the fleet includes 10 SSBNs and 27 multipurpose nuclear submarines, and all in all - 37. In reality, it’s less, because part of it is put into sucks and will not return from there, there are no repair plans. According to the most optimistic plans, 2023 Yasenei and 6 Boreev will be operational before 5. Total maximum nuclear submarines - 48, but by 2023 g really will be less, as part will be disabled. The Americans now have 14 SSBNs and 57 multipurpose nuclear submarines, that is, 71 ship, and their number is clearly increasing
            1. YOUR
              YOUR 6 October 2019 12: 35
              0
              Thanks for the accurate information, you helped me a lot.
            2. YOUR
              YOUR 6 October 2019 12: 41
              0
              But here is a little different information - https://topwar.ru/142243-yadernaya-matematika-o-potenciale-rossiyskih-rpksn.html
              Nevertheless, your comments are valuable to us.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 October 2019 15: 57
                0
                Quote: YOUR
                But here is a little different information - https://topwar.ru/142243-yadernaya-matematika-o-potenciale-rossiyskih-rpksn.html

                Vladimir, the information is the same. But you look at its date - the article to which you refer from May 29 to May 2018, Kirill Ryabov, to which I respectfully pointed out
                In total, at the moment - taking into account the repaired Bryansk and Dmitry Donskoy with unknown capabilities - 13 missile submarine cruisers are in the Russian fleet

                Including 1 Shark, 3 Borea, 6 Dolphins 667BDRM and 3 Squid 667BDR. And that was, at that moment, right.
                Only now, in fact, the Shark was already unarmed at that time, since its standard ICBMs had long expired. In fact, Akula was then, and is now, an experimental ship (one mine has been converted into a Bulava) and it will never return to service as an SSBN (it is too expensive to re-equip the Bulava carrier). And of the 3 Kalamars 667BDR, only Ryazan has remained in service by now, while Podolsk and Georgy the Pobedonosets are awaiting disposal
                Thus, today our naval strategic nuclear forces are represented by 3 Boron 6 Dolphins and 1 Squid. Alas, that’s all.
    3. rocket757
      rocket757 4 October 2019 16: 45
      +1
      Vigorous ground-based arguments are not collected in one heap, in one place! It is impossible to destroy everything and everything in a preventive way, moreover, preventive ones will be thinned out and restrained for the time necessary for a retaliatory strike.
      It is impossible to prevent a massive strike, as well as to prevent a retaliatory strike. Let it be for now!
      1. EnGenius
        EnGenius 4 October 2019 17: 49
        0
        The targets for a preemptive strike are chosen in the light of a significant reduction or destruction for a retaliatory nuclear strike. So at least separately, all these are goals, and for mobile complexes all areas with starting positions can be exposed. All these are potential exclusion zones in our territory. Look at the USA - they do not develop mobile installations, do not upgrade or build new mines, but their nuclear submarines are in absolute priority.

        I believe that the military "return" to the Arctic region is being done in order to take all ICBMs further away into the tundra, together with air defense and missile defense systems.
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 4 October 2019 18: 12
          +1
          Everyone understands that no truncated, preventive, etc. strike is not possible. The consequences will be ... Armagidets shorter.
    4. Oyo Sarkazmi
      Oyo Sarkazmi 5 October 2019 10: 39
      +2
      And there were no restrictions on the number of missiles and the number of warheads - the Americans themselves tried to remove sea-based cruise missiles from the OSV-2 and START restrictions in Gorbachev-Yeltsin times. Well, they did not suspect that Serdyukov was already born, and after lesson 80808 he began to rivet Caliber and boats for them, like baking pies. And now the submarines laid with him are entering into operation.
  12. Basarev
    Basarev 4 October 2019 16: 22
    0
    But in reality, the Khrushchev cliché still dominates in the minds of generals: an aircraft carrier is a weapon of imperialist aggression.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 4 October 2019 16: 39
      0
      What does he have? in fact.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 4 October 2019 17: 29
        -2
        In fact, an aircraft carrier is a defensive weapon. He is a defender of submarines, because only he can bring dozens of fighters to the areas of operation of the submarine fleet, protecting boats from their most evil enemy - anti-submarine aircraft. The main point is that the aircraft carrier itself is not evil, there is only the evil use of the aircraft carrier. The truth is that Russia cannot objectively build and use aircraft carriers, therefore, the Kremlin is dominated by black envy for those who have aircraft carriers - hence the tsunami blackening of aircraft carriers. And ordinary forum users - opponents of aircraft carriers do not speak their words - they only repeat the Kremlin propaganda.
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 4 October 2019 17: 57
          +2
          And what is the radius of action of anti-submarine aircraft?
          What water area can our anti-submarine aviation control?
          And how many anti-submarine aircraft do we have?
          And why should the Amer submarines be in the control zone of our anti-submarine aircraft?
          And why should the Amer aircraft carrier groups guard the nuclear submarines in the area of ​​our anti-submarine coverage?
          Why, why, why, why ......
          Answer the questions, and then read, sho you wrote there ...... together then and in vain! However, you can grudge .....
      2. novel66
        novel66 4 October 2019 17: 33
        0
        but he can also take part in defensive measures or help there to provide brotherly Cuba or Venezuela ..
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 4 October 2019 18: 03
          +1
          Quote: novel xnumx
          but he can also take part in defensive measures or help there to provide brotherly Cuba or Venezuela ..

          Novel soldier
          "Comrade" is not in the subject that in the vastness of the oceans, far from our shores, there is a lot of free, uncontrolled place! Ours there never, did not control anything .... we would have to control side by side at least somehow, at least something!
          And he is still trying to "enlighten" us ???
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 4 October 2019 19: 39
      +2
      Quote: Basarev
      But in reality, the Khrushchev cliché still dominates in the minds of generals: an aircraft carrier is a weapon of imperialist aggression.

      We do not need them at all, and not only because there is little money in the country, but because we have no reason to send aircraft carriers anywhere, because we need to protect our territory and equip our remote areas, which will be our main state task during the XNUMXst century. That is why a decision is made to abandon aircraft carriers in general, and this will not violate the security of our country, but will allow us to spend more effectively on the weapons we need more.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 4 October 2019 20: 48
        +1
        However, they sent Kuznetsov to Syria for the fun of all of Europe. The truth is that Russia has interests in the most remote corners - at least in the face of the possibility of access to the ice-free oceans. And where there is an overseas interest, its protection is also needed - and here the AUGs are just perfect.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 4 October 2019 21: 00
          +2
          Quote: Basarev
          The truth is that Russia has interests in the most remote corners - at least in the face of the possibility of access to the ice-free oceans.

          In which oceans are our ships and civilian ships unable to go? Why should we send warships to distant corners if we have no economic interest there?
          Quote: Basarev
          And where there is an overseas interest, its protection is also needed.

          I heard that even under the flag of Mongolia ships sail in the oceans - and they do not worry that they have no warships. So do not come up with unnecessary threats, which are now completely different from those that were during the colonial seizures.
          Quote: Basarev
          here AUG fit perfectly.

          I recalled the attack of an American warship by a small ship that disabled it - and the aircraft carrier group did not help.
          ON THURSDAY, October 12, at 12.15 local time, the US Navy destroyer Cole, which was at the pier of the port of Aden (Yemen), exploded, as a result of which a hole 12 x 6 meters in the side of the destroyer was formed.
  13. Ros 56
    Ros 56 4 October 2019 16: 37
    0
    Here are the curious striped ones, well, someone will tell you. On occasion you will find out.
  14. rocket757
    rocket757 4 October 2019 16: 39
    +3
    In our military doctrine there is no point to ATTACK, before capturing something there! There is a clear and understandable goal, to repulse the aggressor by MAXIMUM! That is, the enemy, and at home, in command posts / bunkers should not have the illusion that he will have at least something, living space, including This should stop ANYONE who has brains, in principle.
    Underwater nuclear fleet, there is a serious argument / proof that it will be so.
  15. Baikonur
    Baikonur 4 October 2019 16: 58
    0
    Expert in the USA: Russians are not just betting on submarines, abandoning aircraft carriers
    ... Because it doesn't matter to them - KHANA! (cYtata from the movie "Destroy the 30th")
  16. novel66
    novel66 4 October 2019 17: 31
    0
    want already, already unbearable !!! only no money .. and no project ... and no escort
  17. Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 4 October 2019 17: 36
    -1
    For American fake news I am giving away a secret (the fact that it is a military one - add yourself) - the Russians are building liners to drown gas carriers with American "liquid" gas in the vast oceans !!!! )))
  18. 7,62x54
    7,62x54 4 October 2019 17: 46
    +1
    A compartment for the transportation of Chechen special forces is being built on each boat. They exit through hatches in an underwater position and swim to the enemy’s shore. Well, there they are terrifying.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 4 October 2019 18: 05
      0
      Norwegians have already tensed ... nervous however. They valium for their defense mines, it is necessary to purchase in batches!
    2. Oyo Sarkazmi
      Oyo Sarkazmi 5 October 2019 10: 44
      +1
      But Shaw, the Buryats have already been sent to retire? Or all the APU crumble? request
  19. cniza
    cniza 4 October 2019 17: 57
    +1
    “That is why the Russians are not just betting on submarines, ignoring the possibility of developing an aircraft carrier fleet.


    We are not going to attack anyone ...
  20. wow
    wow 4 October 2019 17: 58
    -1
    Tremble hermaphrodite ....
  21. vipdollar
    vipdollar 4 October 2019 18: 48
    -1
    The Russians do not build aircraft carriers because they are smart, understanding that at hour X all NATO carriers, the territories of the USA and Europe, and in general everyone will die in minutes from Russian hypersonic nuclear calatos of unlimited range anywhere in the world that cost a penny compared to any aircraft carriers. In addition, the Russian Nuclear Missiles do not require almost any monthly expenses, unlike aircraft carriers. Russian missiles are sitting in ambush and stupidly waiting for Putin to press a button to turn the United States, Europe, all NATO carriers into radioactive ashes and coal in minutes.
  22. Lunt
    Lunt 4 October 2019 19: 04
    -1
    The point of spending money on aircraft carriers? Moreover, the Russians and Americans have long been working together on the moon and in deep space.
  23. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 5 October 2019 03: 10
    0
    What is this American expert carrying ?!

    Russia does not abandon aircraft carriers, just in the current conditions we cannot afford to build them, our corvettes are still in operation with a creak, new frigates have only just begun to enter the fleet, destroyers in general are still in the project, like cruisers, and it’s time before aircraft carriers will reach the very end.

    But we don’t save on submarines, and new ones get up and the old ones are modernized and we obviously do not ship them to sink, but just American aircraft carriers and deliver nuclear strikes at US naval bases.
  24. karp4karpov
    karp4karpov 5 October 2019 04: 20
    0
    Aircraft carrier created to conquer, and a submarine to destroy. Russia and the United States have different goals now.
  25. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 5 October 2019 17: 57
    -1
    * Stealth and surprise, as stated, is a trump card that Russia can play in the event of a military conflict. *
    That's the whole answer, actually speaking to Chamberlain.
    1. Desperado
      Desperado 5 October 2019 19: 56
      -1
      What secrecy and surprise are we talking about? At the moment, the Navy is not able to provide a hidden and safe exit of nuclear submarines from its bases.
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 6 October 2019 19: 36
        0
        And why?
        Is this your personal opinion or command of the Navy?
  26. Oleg Cheb
    Oleg Cheb 5 October 2019 19: 36
    0
    Oleg Cheb. The weapon is undoubtedly great. But is the country's "elite" leadership capable of using it ?! Does it include strong-willed, harsh and decisive characters? Able to give the order to use all the power of the Russian miracle weapon in the territories of traditional bloodsuckers, that is, in the "civilized west." (Which we will fulfill with great pleasure). Indeed, colossal national resources withdrawn from Russia have been invested in banks and investments, in the economy and defense industry of these countries! But what will the Russian "elite" be left with then? With bows from St. George's ribbons ?! Do they really need it? Questions and questions.

    Reply
  27. Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 5 October 2019 21: 20
    0
    The Russian submarine fleet was updated no more than a surface ...
  28. Evgeny Tarasenko_2
    Evgeny Tarasenko_2 5 October 2019 23: 46
    0
    No. Their analysts really surprise me. :)). But to understand that if a person is given a laxative, is he afraid to sneeze is difficult? ...
  29. the same doctor
    the same doctor 6 October 2019 00: 47
    0
    In Amer’s understanding, we do not need and are useless aircraft carriers. But as protection of the nuclear submarine position area, something like aircraft carriers is required. And as points of contact and control, surface boats are also needed. Here you only have to think - such strategic patterns creep out ... for example, speed requirements, vulnerability to ICBMs ...
  30. shinobi
    shinobi 27 October 2019 09: 51
    0
    They made a discovery, the more perfect the anti-ship missiles, the more useless the large surface ships in general and aircraft carriers in particular. The only reliable (at the moment) way to hide from a massive anti-ship missile attack, to hide under water and everything that hinders this process, difficulties in the production of submarines . Well and the price. The future of multi-purpose nuclear submarines and surface modular rocket-cannon platforms. Amen.