"We have our trump cards": the general commented on the prospects of the Russian carrier fleet

Amid the active construction of the aircraft carrier fleet in China, attempts to expand the aircraft carrier potential in India, against the background of the willingness to adopt the Navy UDK aircraft carrier in Turkey, the issue of the prospects of the Russian aircraft carrier component once again becomes relevant. In this matter, experts are usually divided into two groups, in one of which they say that Russia does not need aircraft carriers, and in the other that without risk carriers Russia risks losing the status of a truly powerful ocean power.

The question is also aggravated due to the fact that at the moment the Russian Navy has the only aircraft carrier in its assets, but it, being uncontested, is still under repair.

The situation for "Military Review" was commented on by a member of the Presidium of the all-Russian organization "Officers of Russia", vice-president of the Russian-Cuban friendship, retired Major General Mikhail Makaruk.

According to General Makaruk, the carrier component today, of course, continues to play a crucial role. This component allows you to defend your interests almost anywhere in the oceans. But there is an important nuance: today, to defend your interests anywhere in the World Ocean, it is not at all necessary to possess an extensive aircraft carrier fleet.

Mikhail Makaruk:

Yes, the carrier fleet is important, but let's not forget that today we have our trump cards: modern high-precision weapon, the latest submarines and weapons, hypersonic missiles. At this stage, the actual lack of delivery vehicles by sea aviation to various significant zones is compensated by modern weapons of a different nature - those that I spoke of. So many of these weapons can be placed, of course, on warships. But the development of the carrier fleet in Russia has not yet been canceled. It will largely depend on how efficiently and timely we can carry out a complete modernization of our missile weapons, submarines, and other types of strike weapons. And "Admiral Kuznetsov" in any case will stand in line and will solve problems.

Comments

[dgonni]

No comments! We have. All!

[Starper-xnumx]

Yes, the carrier fleet is important, but let's not forget that today we have our trump cards: modern high-precision weapons, the latest submarines and weapons, hypersonic missiles.

I agree here ... We will have aircraft carriers, but later .. When we completely protect Russia from invasion, both from the outside and especially from the inside .. Many more bloodsuckers sucked onto Russia and they need to be crushed and crushed by all means, otherwise it is all useless ..

[Proxima]

Aircraft carrier is first of all military prestige. Even pasta has two aircraft carriers Thailand has an aircraft carrier. If Russia claims to be a superpower, then it would not hurt to lay another one in five years so that Kuznetsov would not be bored.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Proxima

it would not hurt to lay another one in five years so that Kuznetsov would not be bored.

Not forgetting that every AUG aircraft carrier.

[Masha]

Quote: tihonmarine

Not forgetting that every AUG aircraft carrier.

thinking about ... do we need it? for pleziru ????

[Starper-xnumx]

Quote: Proxima

Aircraft carrier is first of all military prestige. Even pasta has two aircraft carriers

Not to the prestige of Russia now .. It would be repulsed with minimal losses from external and especially from internal enemies ..

[Sergey Sfiedu]

Internal enemies end up sticking like this, either retirees, doctors, or teachers. But nothing, with the help of pension reform and optimization, we will fight back!

[Dmitry Donskoy]

Balabol. I would have given more specifics

[Vladimir_2U]

Exactly, there are ten such experts in a beerhouse for a dozen: .. not really needed, but it would be nice to develop it ...

[Cyrus]

you are a boy.

[Victor 73/XNUMX/XNUMX]

To beat off from the external, it is necessary to put the internal to the wall. It will not work otherwise

[cost]

Sarper: It’s not up to the prestige of Russia now .. It would be repulsed with minimal losses from external and especially internal enemies

as the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus wrote: "the most important goal of any ruler is to pit external and internal enemies against each other" (c)

[Runoway]

Aircraft carrier is first of all military prestige.

Our prestige at the Olympics and Football is gone; Russia cannot be understood by the mind.
Yes, and why do we need it ?! Well, we are not sowing democracy; we are not going to go to war in the USA.
But you're right, a couple for the elite of pilots need people like Kuzma, and not the super-bearer who right now likes to draw everywhere, what to do and why to keep it? In fact, the fleet is in a deplorable state, there is no money to buy large quantities in Almaty and SU-57 as well as production capacities, I am generally silent about social programs, we are not India with its castes, someone is world-famous, but someone is hungry cattle

[skif8013]

Quote: Proxima

Aircraft carrier is first of all military prestige. Even pasta has two aircraft carriers Thailand has an aircraft carrier. If Russia claims to be a superpower, then it would not hurt to lay another one in five years so that Kuznetsov would not be bored.

Translating into the street language above the statement sounds like: Aircraft carrier is a show off! Too expensive show off!

[Cyrus]

When one of your loved ones dies under air bombs, then you will realize that a good show is more expensive than money.

[Greenwood]

Quote: Proxima

If Russia claims to be a superpower

"Russia does not claim to be a superpower. There is only one superpower in the world - the United States, and we accept that." (c) V. Putin

[Leeds]

Norway does not have an aircraft carrier. To say that the Norwegians soars their prestige, which the Thais have. It's funny

[Antidote]

The "aircraft carrier" was donated to Thailand, and is used for photos with tourists.

[78bor1973]

But the Americans already have 12, and one is on the move, and China successfully closes the program for the construction of aircraft carriers, even their budget does not stand up, and even with the planes "ambush"!

[tinkle]

don't you think it's herd instinct

[cost]

a member of the Presidium of the all-Russian organization “Officers of Russia”, vice-president of the society of Russian-Cuban friendship, retired major general for some reason reminded Gorbachev, a great lover of talking for a long time and there is nothing

[barclay]

Nothing new. Social activists work in language.

[maidan.izrailovich]

We have. All!

We are happy for you.
But Russia needs aircraft carriers.

[Basarev]

The article is about nothing. This Makaruk did not say a word of specificity. Straight all in person.

[The leader of the Redskins]

He has a question:
- Do you need or do not need aircraft carriers?
The general smoothly evaded the answer, spraying on SSBNs, Strategic Missile Forces and other precision weapons ...

[AAK]

I agree, colleagues. The feeling that the author just got out of the bathhouse at the general’s dacha, and before the interview he got a bunch of guys ... The funny thing is that not the acting admiral, but the retired general discusses the aircraft carrier prospects ...

[Overlock]

Quote: AAK

and a retired general ...

and what else does retired do? Only talk and left

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: AAK

The funny thing is that not the acting admiral, but the retired general discusses the aircraft carrier prospects ...

Practice has shown that admirals always want them, but more, because the more ships the more admirals, but the generals either do not think, or they do not care or have a relatively balanced opinion. And we must admit two things, firstly, the problem is not in the admirals (they simply copy the ideas of the leading maritime powers), but in our geography, and secondly, we have a crisis of analytics in the General Staff of the Navy, because they are doing jamb after jamb spending money and without giving RF benefits. Actually, because of the latter, the Navy is cutting financial and administrative levers.

[kit88]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

He has a question:
- Do you need or do not need aircraft carriers?
The general smoothly evaded the answer, spraying on SSBNs, Strategic Missile Forces and other precision weapons ...

Well, since Comrade General did not say, let us say here whether aircraft carriers are needed.
With tasks like that of Italy or Thailand - absolutely not needed. Well, there would now be an aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, what would it have changed globally off the coast of Syria or Venezuela. In my opinion, absolutely nothing.
To bulo for the sake of prestige. Just not serious.
But purely Russian tasks, such as ensuring the deployment of an SSBN in a special period, are hard here without him (them).

[Greenwood]

Quote: kit88

Well, there would now be an aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, what would it have changed globally off the coast of Syria or Venezuela.

Logically, being in the ranks of "Ulyanovsk" means that it was completed, that the Nikolaev shipyard is working, that the USSR has not collapsed. This means that there would be no Syria and Venezuela, or rather, they would be peaceful states, friendly to the USSR. There would be no revolutions and civil wars there.

Quote: kit88

To bulo for the sake of prestige. Just not serious.

By 2000, it was planned to have about 8 aircraft carriers of various types in service.

[lelik613]

"For joy in bed
The child jumped up:
“Really?
Really not joking? "
And mother to him: “Bye-bye! close your eyes;
It's time to fall asleep finally
Listened like a king father
Tells fairy tales. "
(c) Our everything

[knn54]

"The trouble is, if the shoemaker starts the baking of the pies, / And the cake-maker uses his boots." ...

[tihonmarine]

Vice President of the Russian-Cuban Friendship Society, retired Major General Mikhail Makaruk.

I like to read when generals are in command of fleets, and when they speak about tactics and strategy of the fleet. In this case, it would be better to be engaged in "peace-friendship" than thinking about the aircraft carrier.

[ProkletyiPirat]

a counter question: What is the difference between "the command of a general whose fleet is not and will not be" from "the command of an admiral whose fleet is not and will not be"?

[Fraracol_2]

And what new has this "expert" said? What is it all about?

[Stalllker]

From an economic point of view, it’s cheaper to build an air base than to rivet an AUG. Moreover, we do not have many geopolitical interests outside the country. Syria, Vietnam, Cuba and somewhere in Africa. And this for the eyes

[Mouse]

subplav is our everything! on soft paws ...

[KrolikZanuda]

We will be honest. Russia lost the status of a powerful ocean power in the 90s.

[Greenwood]

Quote: KrolikZanuda

Russia lost the status of a powerful ocean power in the 90s.

Russia in the 90s lost the status of a superpower, in principle, by the level and quality of life, having rolled down to the countries of the Third World.

[Azis]

The titles were impressive ... Google just something like:

Ukrainian community leader, volunteer, boatman of the international rozvidualnogo team InformNapalm, member for the sake of volunteers at the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine

[shoroh]

1 aircraft carrier, which he would not be cool and especially the weather will not do great. we need at least 4 aircraft carriers, everyone understands this, and better quickly. but a replacement for marine pilots will probably have to be searched for in artificial intelligence, a sea hunter is very necessary.

[Greenwood]

Quote: shoroh

we need at least 4 aircraft carriers, everyone understands this, and better quickly

"There is no money, you hold on there!" (from)

[bars1]

Quote: AAK

The feeling that the author had just left the bathhouse at the general’s dacha, and before the interview he got a grunt of a couple of guys ...

"Well, for the aircraft carrier"!

[Alexey from Perm]

An aircraft carrier is always a strike complex for operating operations far from the borders of Russia. The issue of prestige cannot be removed either. In my opinion, the Leader family of nuclear destroyers is more relevant now. They are more necessary.

[G. Georgiev]

Russia is a great country and has vast territories and resources. There is no reason to use (aircraft carrier = $ 5-7 billion light target) against a foreign country. For example, in Russia there are enough respectable submarines with tactical non-nuclear missiles

[bars1]

Quote: Alexey from Perm

An aircraft carrier is always a strike complex for operating operations far from the borders of Russia.

An aircraft carrier is not a weapon for hitting the Papuans at distant lands, as the Soviet propaganda said, but a weapon for establishing dominance at sea and for covering its surface ships from enemy naval aircraft.

[Rostislav Bely]

An aircraft carrier is a very big target, only to bomb the Papuans at a great distance and wash the grandmothers, so to speak, sparrows from a cannon ... for the Chinese, it is needed because they are interested in control over the Strait of Malacca, they have all the trade there

[wt100]

Aircraft carriers and their component are effective against third world countries that do not have nuclear weapons (North Korea), and when the success of a military invasion (Iran) is not obvious.
And so history shows that for such countries (Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia?), This is a very effective trump card.
For the Russian Federation, this is a very expensive weapon, starting to lay them down (construction will not be quick), how to explain to the population who we are going to attack at the far frontiers? Whose pension, VAT, gasoline prices, food prices and much more. So you can grind the entire electorate ..
And on the good, we could use a couple of AUGs, in the west of the country (Crimea, Baltic, Severomorsk?) And in the east (Vladivostok?) For a prompt response. There are many hot and potential spots around the world, and our "partners" are trying to develop their skills in creating them. And after Syria, many have turned in our direction, as an alternative to the hygemon.
Somehow

[cat Rusich]

The Russian Navy needs a full-fledged AUG — an atomic-powered aircraft carrier and main escort ships also with atomic traction. What for ? - imagine our (Russia) operation in Syria without land bases ... and the ability to refuel ships on the way to the theater of operations.

[G. Georgiev]

The operation in Syria was successfully completed for Russia !!! without an aircraft carrier. Russia showed the world that it has no equal in a technological war. At this stage, an aircraft carrier is NOT needed, because there are no problems for aviation abroad. Money should be spent on improving the welfare of a Russian citizen and stimulating small business. moment.

[Runoway]

Only oil in the hands of the Americans, a piece for Turkey, a piece for the Jews, what is the success? In the ruins of Assad

without an aircraft carrier.

Wait a minute, he sailed with a haze, drowned two planes (due to the technical malfunctions of the finisher) and sailed with a haze in unlimited repairs, since at least under its own power

[Vadmir]

The operation in Syria was successfully completed for Russia !!! without an aircraft carrier

And if Iraq, like Bulgaria and Turkey, would have closed their airspace for the passage of Russian military aircraft? How would our aircraft get there?
But what if Russia delayed the entry into the war and Hmeimim was already captured by the barmales?
But what if, say, Venezuela had to help?

Money should be spent on improving the welfare of a Russian citizen and stimulating small business.

Russia does not buy weapons abroad, but orders its own enterprises. Dozens of companies work on such projects. Thousands of Russian workers get paid. And they also spend money in Russia, stimulating, among other things, the development of small business.

[Vadmir]

The situation for "Military Review" was commented on by a member of the Presidium of the all-Russian organization "Officers of Russia", vice-president of the Russian-Cuban friendship, retired Major General Mikhail Makaruk.

Or maybe it’s better on questions of the fleet to ask questions to the admirals, rather than retired Major General?

[Klingon]

Quote: Basarev

The article is about nothing. This Makaruk did not say a word of specificity. Straight all in person.

and you from someone in the highest ranks hear specifics? only exhortations and promises and instruction for the lower castes how to live on pasta

[Yuriy26]

Dear comrades, mainly for pro-Westerners, aircraft carriers in our country, in accordance with our military doctrine, are not needed, in principle, because we are not going to carry democracy and impose their principles of life and activity on neighboring countries, but in order to protect our borders , we have enough strength. So for offensive actions, to which the use of the AUG is envisaged, we are not striving, we are a peaceful country and are not going to conquer others!

[G. Georgiev]

This is a good and smart opinion.

[Greenwood]

In the world, a dozen countries own at least one aircraft carrier, and half of them build new ones. All these countries are going to attack someone, right?

[Yuriy26]

In addition, one more thing, when several new aircraft carriers are put into operation, how much it will be necessary to reduce personnel in the troops in order to approve the AUG staff

[ZVS]

Apparently because the United States and England are extremely backward countries, that's why they build aircraft carriers.
WELL IT SHOULD NOT BE SUCH A FRUENDLY DRAM, Dikiy Sadik!

[Dikiy sadik]

Not quite so - they are building not multinational carriers, but multifunctional .... in short - they are actually building a floating military base, with all the paraphernalia.

[lopvlad]

In this matter, experts are usually divided into two groups, in one of which they say that Russia does not need aircraft carriers, in the other that without risk carriers Russia risks losing the status of a truly powerful ocean power.

It makes sense to build aircraft carriers when the problem of the lack of "patrol boats" and support vessels is completely solved. That's when you can rivet aircraft carriers to project force in the form of large pies far from the most protected and protected their shores. The US for using the dollar as a world currency and China which is the first economy in the world can afford to rivet everything at the same time, but Russia does not, while GAZPROM, Rosneft and other offices pay a 1% tax to the budget on a par with the poor residents of our country.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: lopvlad

it makes sense to build aircraft carriers when the problem of lack of "patrol" and support vessels is completely solved.

It makes sense to build and maintain aircraft carriers if and only if you have a large and multi-tonnage civilian fleet, because it is the profit from this cargo fleet that pays for the content of aircraft carriers. And here it doesn’t matter if you pay off due to your export (as the USA did), or due to the resale of other people's goods (as the UK did), or due to colonial expansion and robbery (Portugal, Spain, etc.). In all other cases, it is more advantageous to dispense with other methods.

[lopvlad]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

It makes sense to build and maintain aircraft carriers if and only if you have a large and multi-tonnage civilian fleet

hinting that the larger construction by Russian oligarchs of luxury yachts the size of a steamboat will help us build and maintain aircraft carriers? I have not heard anything more doubtful than your statement.
It's like confusing state and foreign private sheep, especially if the owner of the sheep is still a tax resident in another country, like the majority of "our" oligarchs.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Since you pulled the yachts of the oligarchs, you obviously did not understand the essence of my post.

[lopvlad]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

then you clearly did not understand the essence of my post.

you didn’t understand what you wrote about as the main function of the cargo fleet is the delivery of purchased goods from one point to another (Russia - sales markets (overseas territories) and profit from this. There are no sales markets overseas - you do not need a civil freight fleet - unnecessary enterprises producing goods; unnecessary workers at these enterprises = complete lack of profit. This is the same axiom as if the state has no access to the sea and the navy is unnecessary.

[U-58]

The aircraft carrier was good in the US war with Vietnam.
And how would such ships appear in the hypothetical conflicts Pakistan-India, India-China or the USA-USSR?
Yes, especially, nothing.
The aircraft carrier is good in peacetime for "showing the flag", muscles, good in local conflicts of the strong with the weak

[Alien From]

Did he jump into the sleeve of a joker ............ And the boys do not know .........

[ZVS]

Russia’s aircraft carrier fleet is not needed for hell! Russia does not need overseas territories, it needs it like air: modern medicine in the countryside, which has always been the source of the main population growth. Russia needs qualified doctors in insurance medicine. Russia needs garbage processing plants like air. Russia needs a program, not a presidential declaration, of social housing for everyone. Russia faces a catastrophe in the housing sector, where all communications are 80% worn out. The population of Russia needs sane tariffs for utilities and electricity. And let the president and the prime minister carry the carrier fleet on their own money, they have something to build on. And they will contain on their own. The whole world knows that aircraft carriers are the most expensive project in the field of armaments, but our crews do not have enough to understand this.

[lopvlad]

Quote: SU

Russia does not need overseas territories, it needs it like air: modern medicine in the countryside, which has always been the source of the main population growth.

Since the beginning of the 90s, Russia has been a capitalist state and a capitalist state in order to have all that you have listed, you need markets for your products and raw materials, and these are the markets of those overseas territories. And if the presence of our fleet and army is not there, then we instantly thrown from those markets.

[ZVS]

So what? So now the Russian people will send their sons to the war for the interests of capital? Let the interests of Gazprom protect the children of Miller and Vyakhirev on the battlefield.

[japan-k]

It is clear that we, for the most part, our people do not have secret, strategic information. Unlike the Minister of Defense, the Supreme Commander for example. And here the question arises, if with the development of missile weapons (hypersonic) with a range of 1000 or even more km. With the development of underwater nuclear torpedoes, laser weapons, possibly from space carriers. Is it worth it to spend crazy grandmas on what will soon become unnecessary and useless ???? Even the same American experts already say that their aircraft carriers are the most expensive coffins for soldiers

[lopvlad]

Quote: japan-k

that their aircraft carriers are the most expensive coffins for soldiers

they began to say this after breakthrough Russian developments of hypersound. But in the world there are a huge number of countries where there is no army as such and there are natural resources to plunder the United States.

[Cyrus]

As long as military aircraft exist, aircraft carriers will be in the subject.