Military Review

Carrier issue. Fire at Kuznetsovo and the possible future of aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation

177

The fire at Admiral Kuznetsov caused a flurry of publications in the community on the theme that this ship is now over. At the same time, they recalled all the accidents and emergency situations that occurred with this unfortunate ship.


It is worth returning the venerable audience to reality. In this regard, a small “digest” of near-avian issues plus some “repetition of the past.”

A bit about the fire


First of all, a fire. I must say that in our ship repair something burns all the time. This is due to the serious degradation of domestic ship repair. In an interesting way, the same persons who sit on the boards of directors in shipbuilding in the development of marine weapons and in various state colleges and commissions. Those who influence everything receive dividends from everything, but they are not personally responsible for anything.

Ship repair is actually still "in the feeding" of the characters who do not care about its effectiveness from a large bell tower. In many respects, this explains the shortage of personnel at repair plants, and the "antediluvian" (for example, pre-war) equipment, and the general condition of the entire repair infrastructure, buildings, structures, etc.

The moral decomposition of the top of the Navy is superimposed on this “from above”, which naturally turned into the “Queen of England” - it performs purely ceremonial tasks. Neither the Commander in Chief, nor the Commander in Chief, nor the General Staff of the Navy manage fleets, they are responsible for military-technical policy, but they cannot always influence it. The fleet is de facto transformed into "Naval units of the ground forces", which cannot but affect the attitude of his senior officers to the service.

All this is above, and below we have an unorganized crowd of people on the ship being repaired, tolerance orders signed by the executors “for a fool”, it is not clear whether the ship’s repair technology is violated or not formalized when it is not cleaned of dangerous contaminants before starting work , and a fireproof cape not thrown over the cable-track shaft.

All this is one of many indicators that the fleet is seriously “sick”, but nothing more.

The fire itself did not do fatal damage to the ship. 95 billion rubles voiced by the Kommersant newspaper are nonsense, absolutely obvious to any person who knows how to think at least a little. There is simply nothing to burn for such an amount. The fire area on the ship was equal to four good three-room apartments, and on different decks. The combustion temperature of fossil fuels in confined spaces with a limited supply of oxygen at atmospheric pressure can in no way be more than 900 degrees Celsius, even in the midst of a fire.

All of the above together clearly indicates that there is no fatal damage to the ship. Of course, some equipment was damaged, possibly not cheap. Yes, the time frame for the ship to go out of repair will now increase, as will its cost. But this is not a reason for writing off and certainly not 95 billion rubles. The ship could send a serious destruction of the hull for decommissioning, but even if somewhere individual steel structural elements lost their toughness and became more fragile, then when performing repairs in a technically competent way, the value of this problem can be reduced to zero. However, steel conducts heat well and it is unlikely that the body heat, even in the combustion zone, has reached some dangerous values ​​for the steel parameters - heat dissipation to other structural elements outside the combustion zone was too strong.

The only really irreparable loss is the dead people. Everything else is more than fixable.

You can relate to A.L. Rakhmanov, the head of the USC, but one cannot help but admit that in this case he is right in the preliminary assessments of the consequences of the fire.

Of course, the investigation is yet to come, as are the conclusions of the commission that will examine the ship. Ahead is an adequate and accurate assessment of damage. But the fact that there can be no question of any cancellation of Kuznetsov due to this fire is obvious now.

This means that everyone should stop rehashing other people's nonsense - nothing currently hinders the restoration of the ship, although of course it is a pity that extra money and time.

So, it must be restored.

What's next?


In the correct version - a normal repair, with the renewal of the power plant in general and the boilers in particular and the modernization of electronic weapons. You don’t need to invest in this ship with your mind, it’s already old, unlucky, and it was not invented in the best form, but it is necessary to bring it into a combat-ready state. The combat value of Kuznetsov before the repair was openly conditional, not only because of its condition, but also because of the training of its crew - from the commander to the sailors on the flight deck, and frankly weak in terms of training the air group.

Correctly completed repair of an aircraft carrier, which will make it possible to operate it under normal conditions, make transitions at high speed and a long stay at sea without loss of serviceability, will make it possible to organize full-fledged combat training of the 100th and 279th separate naval fighter regiments.

It is worth saying the following: what we had in terms of preparing regiments before is absolutely unacceptable. Initially, Kuznetsov was created as an air defense carrier with missile weapons. RCC "Granite" has never been his main weapon; in the old educational films of the USSR Ministry of Defense, everything is said quite intelligibly about this. However, the specifics of impact reflection aviation from the sea is that the reaction time required for this should be very short.

Article “We are building a fleet. Wrong ideas, wrong concepts ” an example of reflection of a strike on surface ships by the forces of a coastal fighter aviation regiment from a watch position on the ground was analyzed, and it was shown that in the presence of a radar field 700 kilometers deep from the ship group to be protected, the air regiment manages to fly to "its" attacked ships simultaneously with an attacker if the protected ships are no further than 150 kilometers from the airfield.

If the ships move further from the coastal airfields, then the only thing that can disorganize the enemy’s attack is to ensure combat duty on air in the air. As the area in which hostilities are moving away from the coast, the cost and complexity of such combat duty is constantly growing, in addition, interceptors on duty in the air lose the opportunity to receive reinforcements upon request, and the enemy will not only launch “attackers”, but also an escort. And he will be strong

The aircraft carrier makes it possible to have on-board strike groups permanently present in the air interceptors and helicopters AWACS, as well as combat aircraft with container radars, partly replacing AWACS aircraft. In addition, during their air combat duty, a comparable number of interceptors may be on deck in a minute or so readiness for take-off.

Even if the adversary is superior in numbers, the interceptor’s counterattack will force him to “break up” the battle formation, lead to losses, disorganization of the attack, and, most importantly, to increase the magnitude of the missile salvo of the attacking aircraft (in time), but this is not will make it possible to create such a density of a missile salvo that ship’s air defense in the attacked ship’s group cannot cope with.

In addition, enemy attack planes emerging from the attack will be faced with the fact that they are attacked by interceptors from an aircraft carrier who did not manage to enter the battle before the enemy detached the weapons.

We recall the Falkland War: in most attacks, surface ships took the first blow (which proves their ability to survive under air strikes), but the bulk of the Argentine aircraft were destroyed by the deck Harriers at the exit of the Argentines from the attack, which allowed the British to win the war of attrition between the Royal Navy and Argentine Aviation. Thus, the “shooting” of the enemy’s departing strike aircraft is critically important, and in addition to ship MiGs, there will be no one to carry out this task if we ever have to fight at sea.

Thus, as an air defense carrier, “Kuznetsov” must work out the reflection of a massive airstrike together with surface ships, and in conditions close to real, that is, a massive attack by the enemy with forces that are clearly superior to those that our aircraft carrier can take to the air by the time the enemy launches missiles, the introduction of ship planes into battle along squadrons, the work of "catching up", the evasion of the aircraft carrier from an enemy missile strike. Naturally, all this should happen day and night, and in winter and summer.

Of all this, in the best case, the 279th okiap performed a group interception of air targets, and not with full strength for a long time. Such training is not conducted regularly, such that the naval omshap on the Su-30SM would really “fight” against the ship carrier group with Kuznetsov and the ship aviation regiment on it never at all. And without such teachings, there is no, and there will be no understanding of whether we are doing everything right and how effective these actions are.

Of interest is the use of ship aircraft in the escort of anti-submarine Tu-142, working in the interests of the ship carrier group. In escorting a volley of cruise missiles (enemy interceptors may well shoot down slow anti-ship "Caliber" if they do not interfere), in air reconnaissance, both in the form of "pure" scouts and in the form of AUGRUs that attack the detected target after it is detected.

In the event of a global war, the main striking force of the Russian Navy will be submarines, and the "cleansing" of airspace in the areas of their combat use will be critically important. Modern basic patrol aviation poses a monstrous threat to submarines, and it should not be over those areas where our submarines will operate. Even if the Russian Federation captures Svalbard and northern Norway during preparatory measures, there will still be enormous gaps between the air defense zones organized by coastal aviation and anti-aircraft missile forces over the sea, which can be covered by nothing but surface ships. And it is Kuznetsov that will be the most useful of them, and the only one capable of suppressing the actions of the Orions and Poseidons against our submarines, as well as providing relatively free actions of the Tu-142 and Il-38 against enemy submarines. All this will be critically important for ensuring Russia's defense capabilities.

But for this it is necessary to bring the combat readiness of the ship itself, and its aviation, and the headquarters on the shore, managing the aircraft carrier group to the highest possible level. The weapon itself does not fight, the people who use it fight, and for this they must be trained properly.

These questions have already been raised earlier in the article. “Coast Defense Carrier”. However, the tasks of an aircraft carrier cannot be reduced to the tasks of air defense and a hypothetical war with a strong enemy. Before the Syrian campaign, which had so ingloriously passed, the cellars for storing aircraft weapons at Kuznetsovo were modernized for storing bombs in large quantities, which had never been done on this ship before.

And the only real combat missions that domestic deck pilots performed in a real war were shock.

And it’s not just that.

Of course, we must keep in mind a possible war with the United States and its allies, as a maximum of what we may have to face. However, at the same time, the probability of such a war is small, moreover, the better we are ready for it, the lower this probability.

But the likelihood of an offensive war in some underdeveloped region is constantly growing. Since 2014, Russia has embarked on the path of expansionist foreign policy. We are pursuing a much more aggressive policy now than the USSR has ever been after the death of Stalin. Operations similar to the Syrian USSR have never been carried out at all.

And this policy gives rise to a high probability of entering into military conflicts far beyond the borders of the Russian Federation. For example, a map of the presence of the Russian Federation in African countries. It is worth remembering that in each of them there are also extensive commercial interests. And this is just the beginning.

Carrier issue. Fire at Kuznetsovo and the possible future of aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation

And where there are commercial interests - there is unfair competition from the “partners”, there are attempts to nullify the efforts and investments of Russia by banal organization of a coup in the client country, which the West has done repeatedly. Exacerbation of internal conflicts within Russia’s loyal countries and military attacks by pro-Western regimes are very likely.

In such a situation, the possibility of rapid military intervention can be very important. Moreover, on the one hand, it may be required much faster than a stationary air base can be deployed on the spot, and on the other, on the territory where there are no corny airfields.

And this is not science fiction - when our troops arrived in Syria, the fighting went on in Damascus itself. Before the collapse of the Syrian defense was very short. How would we intervene if it were not possible to use Hmeimim?

There can be only one answer to such calls and it is called the word “aircraft carrier”. Syria in all its glory has shown that neither the Kuznetsov nor the naval aviation are ready for the strike tasks.

This means that we will have to work in this direction too - air reconnaissance over land, departure to strike by a pair, several links, a squadron, and the entire aviation regiment. Attacks to the maximum range, combat duty in the air 5-10 minutes from the war zone, practicing the departure with the maximum possible composition, practicing a joint strike by aircraft from an aircraft carrier and cruise missiles from URA ships, practicing combat sorties at maximum intensity, day and night - we never did anything.

And, since we are ready to attack the coast, it’s worth working out the most basic, classical task of an aircraft carrier fleet - air strikes on surface ships.

This gap will also have to be filled.

Worth mentioning is anti-submarine operations. During the first trip of Kuznetsov to the Mediterranean Sea, they were practiced, an attempt was made to simultaneously carry out anti-aircraft defense and air defense operations, at the same time it turned out that it was impossible to do these things at the same time - only one thing. This example shows well that the theoretical ideas for waging war with the help of an aircraft carrier in practice have to be adjusted.

That is, Kuznetsov will have something to do. And, no matter how it turns out that by the time, for example, the distribution of Libya, the ship will not be ready yet. This will be a big and fat “minus” for our country.

Infrastructure issue


Alas, besides all of the above, there is another chronic problem - infrastructure deficiency. So, from the moment the first aircraft carrier combat ship of the USSR Navy capable of carrying combat aircraft on board was commissioned, it was already nearly forty FOUR YEARS. This is a lot. This, frankly, is a lot. And for this considerable time, our country has not mastered the construction of normal berths in different fleets, where ships of this class could be moored.

It's a shame. There is an expression according to which all types of armed forces are indicators of how a nation can fight, and the fleet is also an indicator of how well it can think. From this point of view, everything is bad with us. For decades, the presence of aircraft-carrying ships in the fleet, and in two fleets, did not force the responsible leaders to provide them with an elementary parking place.

Until now, one has to listen to the opinions of admirals that the operation of a large ship in the North is somehow a special problem. But why is this not a problem with icebreakers? What's the question? The fact is that the whole huge Russia cannot put a berth, build a boiler room, a turbocompressor workshop, a water pump station and an electric substation next to it. We can build Sochi, we can send many thousands of kilometers of pipeline to China, and raise a new cosmodrome in the Far Eastern taiga. But we cannot make a berth. This, of course, is an indicator of both the ability to think and the organizational abilities of our people and we should not be indignant, the individuals from the "near fleet" did not come from Mars to us, and we and they are parts of the same society.

But on the other hand, awareness of the problem is the first step to begin to solve it, we still have no choice. So in addition to the titanic task of restoring the aircraft carrier, bringing it into operational condition, bringing the training of air regiments to the “world average” level for carrier-based aviation units, we still have an even more titanic task - to finally build a berth.

Another problem is the basing of naval aviation regiments. Complaints of the responsible commanders are usually the following: a polar night, no skills to train, it’s cold in the Arctic, I don’t want to serve there especially, the planes constantly stick out at the Nitka River in Crimea, and to train pilots on real hikes, you have to chase an aircraft carrier already to the Mediterranean Sea, where it’s warm and bright.

Here it is worth recalling again about "An indicator of how well a nation knows how to think." The questions that will need to be asked next time in response to such complaints are:

1. Why are shipboard regiments not permanently based in some convenient region for service? Aviation is a mobile kind of force, the transfer of okiap from under, for example, St. Petersburg with its high standards of living in Severomorsk will take about a day. Shelves simply need to be removed from the north altogether - if only because it is a front-line zone and basing them there on an ongoing basis, we risk, in which case, to lose the personnel of all naval aviation in the first minutes of the conflict, without having time to transfer a single aircraft to the aircraft carrier, if the aircraft carrier itself will survive such a conflict. This consideration alone is enough to “relocate” the naval aviation regiments to the south, and relocate them to the ship if necessary.

2. Why do we need a drama about the impossibility of conducting combat training during the polar night? The ship is also mobile. It can be transferred to the North Sea, can be transferred to the Baltic Sea. What prevents, for example, from transferring “Kuznetsov” to the Baltic, there they can receive air regiments, train pilots on takeoffs and landings on an aircraft carrier, day and night, flying in conditions as close to combat as possible - but in a calm Baltic? With sunrises and sunsets, not a polar night? And only then to return with the already trained personnel to the north, continuing military training already there? What's the question? The provocative approach of the aircraft carrier to the Baltic? But, firstly, this process can be as open as possible, secondly, sooner or later they will get used to it, and thirdly, we don’t have much to lose, we are already not blamed for that. The Baltic, of course, is one of the options, there are others.

One way or another, and the basing of an aircraft carrier in the North is a purely technical problem and it can be solved.

Look into the future


As soon as we need aircraft carriers, and we can support them, it is worth considering the possibility of building new ships of this type. Everything is very complicated here. At present, Russia has two factors that strictly limit the construction of aircraft carriers — the presence of an appropriate shipyard and the availability of an appropriate main power plant (GEM). These factors are interlinked.

Currently, Russia has two main options for creating a power plant. The first is based on gas turbine engines created on the basis of the M-90FRU gas turbine engine, but in a marching, and not an afterburner, optimized for long-term operation. Such a turbine, of course, will have to be created, but not from scratch, but on the basis of a well-known design in mass production. How real is such a power plant? Will there be enough for an aircraft carrier?

Answer: enough, but easy. Take, for example, the Indian Wikrant, in the creation of which Russia participated. It is equipped with four General Electric LM2500 gas turbine engines, with a capacity of 27500 hp. each - that is, in terms of power, is an analog of the M-90FRU, which also has 27500 hp. Even approximate "estimates" show that the energy of exhaust from four such turbines is quite sufficient to use the recovery boiler to get the right amount of steam for the catapult, and not even one. The Indians really do not have it, but a couple of catapults on a ship the size of a Wikrant would have stood up, and it would have greatly increased its effectiveness in this case.

Lyrical digression for "beginners": catapults never freeze, and on the ship they never freeze because of them, planes fly perfectly from aircraft carriers in cold climates, they deceived you.

Thus, Russia has a chance in five years to get the right turbine for a light aircraft carrier. The problem may be in the gearbox - nobody makes them except the Star-gearbox, and it collects each unit by the corvettes every year, but we have the opportunity to get around this problem - the latest atomic icebreakers are equipped with a full electric propulsion system, which means Russia technically capable of creating the same for a gas turbine power plant. This removes the problem of gearboxes - they simply will not be there.

The third problem remains - where to build. I must say that this is not easy - the Baltic plant could be reconstructed for such a ship, but the Western high-speed diameter of St. Petersburg and the presence of a pipeline on the seabed severely limit any ship or ship being built there in height (52 meters, no more) and draft (under normal conditions - 9,8 meters). Theoretically, it is possible to restore the Zaliv factory in Kerch - its dry dock allows you to build a hull for such an aircraft carrier, some minimal hull work will have to be done outside the dock, this can be done.

But here the questions of the state of the “Gulf” arise, which is corny not ready to build anything more difficult forgive the Lord “patrol ship” of project 22160, and the political question is the passage of the built aircraft carrier through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. This will happen solely on the goodwill of Turkey, which makes the construction of a ship in the Crimea extremely risky.

SSK Zvezda in Vladivostok is not suitable for the reasons of expensive logistics - the delivery of equipment and components there increases the cost of the finished ship by 1,5-1,8 times, which is hardly acceptable.

Thus, the fastest option is the reconstruction of the slipway at the Baltic Shipyard, and the creation of a lightweight (40 tons) aircraft carrier with gas turbine engines and full electric propulsion (if it is not possible to solve the problem with gearboxes, if it is possible, then electric propulsion is optional), with height and draft allowing go to sea from the Baltic factory.

In extreme cases, the ship can be withdrawn somewhat unfinished, for example, with a dismantled radar, which would then be installed in another place.

But here the problem of our geography arises: in the Barents Sea, where an aircraft carrier will have to carry out combat missions in case of war against the directly territory of our country, there is usually a lot of excitement, and the 40 ton aircraft carrier is simply corny too small to allow continuous use of aviation.

The question then arises: is it possible, using the developments, for example, of the Krylov State Scientific Center in terms of the contours of the underwater part of ships, various types of rocking stabilizers, and the like tricks, to “force” a 40 thousand-ton aircraft carrier to follow the wave at least at the Kuznetsov level " or not. If not, the idea disappears.

And then the question arises differently.

Then you have to build a ship with a displacement of 70-80 thousand tons and a nuclear power plant. I must say right away - it is possible that it will be possible to create an atomic power plant for a ship of this class even easier and faster than a gas turbine one - nuclear power plants are produced for icebreakers. Such a ship satisfies the climatic conditions of any potential theater of operations much better than the hypothetical “Russian Vikrant”. And it is quite possible to create a carrier-based DRLO aircraft under it, like a transport and a tanker, and the number of sorties per day from such a ship can be effortlessly provided at the same level as from the Khmeimim air base.

But only if it is possible to reconstruct the finished production under the “Russian Vikrant”, then it will have to be built for such a ship - there is no dry dock or slipway for such ships in the European part of Russia. There are no cranes with a lifting capacity of 700-1000 tons, there is still much more.

And, what’s the most annoying, for nothing but aircraft carriers they are not needed - Russia will manage to do with almost any task of building anything. The infrastructure necessary for the construction of such a ship is in itself unbearable - it will be needed only for an aircraft carrier, otherwise you can do without these costs.

Here we are in this situation.

The "large" frigates of the 22350M project and the modernized nuclear submarines of the 949AM project, which are being created now, will be able to become a fully-fledged escort for the future Russian aircraft carrier. But the future of the aircraft carrier itself is very vague for the above reasons.

And while this is so, it is worth stopping all talk about the allegedly cancellation of "Admiral Kuznetsov." Despite the need for this class of ships, there will be no alternatives to our only one aircraft carrier for a very long time.
Author:
Photos used:
Defense.ru, RBC
177 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergey39
    Sergey39 20 December 2019 04: 56
    -3
    That is, Russia needs at least a light aircraft carrier in the Arctic. For a hypothetical capture of Svalbard.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 20 December 2019 05: 14
      -2
      Two, not counting the reserve! Pacific Fleet do not forget.
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 20 December 2019 05: 28
        +4
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Pacific Fleet do not forget.

        For good, at the Pacific Fleet you need at least four!
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 20 December 2019 05: 29
          +4
          Yes, in the current circumstances, two, for everything about everything, utopia! ((
          1. Uncle lee
            Uncle lee 20 December 2019 05: 31
            +4
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Utopia!

            We have everything, about everything - just one! And he is sick ...
            1. novel66
              novel66 20 December 2019 07: 23
              +8
              and accompany what ?? two! four!! maybe first destroyer do, well, at least one .. Volodya, hello hi
              1. Uncle lee
                Uncle lee 20 December 2019 07: 27
                +2
                Roma hi Dreams, dreams .... So let's drink to ensure that desires coincide with the possibilities! drinks
                1. novel66
                  novel66 20 December 2019 07: 28
                  +3
                  well, or dream of opportunities lol asks! drinks
                  1. Uncle lee
                    Uncle lee 20 December 2019 07: 32
                    +4
                    Dream!
                    Need to dream
                    Children of the eagle tribe!

                    Here are the songs we sang!
                    1. novel66
                      novel66 20 December 2019 07: 34
                      +5
                      well, at that time they did what they dreamed about
                      1. Uncle lee
                        Uncle lee 20 December 2019 07: 38
                        +5
                        Quote: novel xnumx
                        at that time and did

                        The habit remained .... crying
              2. SVD68
                SVD68 20 December 2019 08: 31
                0
                Quote: novel xnumx
                and accompany what ?? two! four!! maybe first destroyer do, well, at least one .. Volodya, hello hi

                The question is incorrect. In contrast to the strike aircraft carriers, the air defense carrier itself is escort. The right question is: accompany what? What strike warships will form the basis of the compound?
                1. novel66
                  novel66 20 December 2019 08: 32
                  +3
                  with this, too, problems ... not MRK to accompany him
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 20 December 2019 10: 04
                    +4
                    Healthy 1st-class tech pilot! hi
                    Quote: novel xnumx
                    there are problems with this too

                    what have aircraft carriers already begun to build? Cheto I missed in life ..
                2. arkadiyssk
                  arkadiyssk 20 December 2019 09: 51
                  +1
                  Kuzya will walk with the Nakhimovs and a pair of patched, but combat BOD. Norm will be a combat formation. Although by that time, as Kuzya and Nakhimov will go out of repair, it seems that all the BOD will be written down for needles
              3. timokhin-aa
                20 December 2019 10: 12
                +5
                The modernized Nakhimov, frigates 22350, in the future frigates 22350M, BOD are still alive.
                1. LeonidL
                  LeonidL 21 December 2019 23: 02
                  0
                  And how many tankers, rescuers, tugboats, supply vessels and other things are needed for leash? Consult Admiral Rozhdestvensky.
          2. alexmach
            alexmach 20 December 2019 20: 45
            0
            Yes, in the current circumstances, two, for everything about everything, utopia! ((

            If we assume that the maximum that is possible is only 2, then both should be in the same fleet, for shift duty.
        2. Tiksi-3
          Tiksi-3 20 December 2019 08: 08
          +4
          Quote: Uncle Lee
          For good, at the Pacific Fleet you need at least four!

          2 on the Northern Fleet and 2 on the Pacific Fleet + 2 UDC for each fleet!
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 21 December 2019 17: 03
            -1
            1 permanent AUG on the SF, 1 permanent AUG on the Pacific Fleet (less makes no sense). To do this (based on American KOH), 12 aircraft carriers are required. Just a thing.
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. seti
        seti 20 December 2019 10: 08
        +2
        Very correct article. I would still try to start talking with Erdogan about the construction of an aircraft carrier on the Black Sea in Kerch. I think the issue with the Straits is being decided. True, there are many drawbacks, but there are also lots of goodies.
        On the downside, this is the Montreux Convention on the Status of the Straits (the point about aircraft carriers). But there is a good old "aircraft carrier" cruiser. Again, there is the question of the state of the Zaliv plant and its dock, the availability of all the infrastructure and the lack of specialists on it. Alas, during the time it was part of the 4-4 country, the plant seriously degraded. Accordingly, first you need to invest in the enterprise itself and bring in specialists of whom we do not have so many. Remoteness from the Center and the necessary industries. Accordingly, the rise in the project cost. We will also not discount political complications.
        From the pros.
        The presence of a dry dock. So far, almost no capacity of the plant’s capacity has been used. Convenient location. The new railway. Warm climate. Convenient access to the oceans. A serious shake-up of the entire South of Russia and the involvement of the population of Eastern Crimea and Tamani- providing them with jobs.
        Nearby are two military bases - Novorossiysk and Sevastopol. An additional hint to everyone near whose Crimea is. Reconstruction of the enterprise we really need and its dock, the creation of a powerful repair base not only for aircraft-carrying ships, but also for the Black Sea Fleet in general. Given that we are increasingly paying attention to Africa and the Middle East, the presence of such a repair unit will help us in the future.
        1. Graf56
          Graf56 20 December 2019 11: 06
          +1
          An article raises at least one question.
          But first you need to remember 2 known facts.
          1. Kuzi's Achilles heel has always been a power plant. It was because of her that Kuzya spent most of his time idling and repairing.
          2. It was the energy compartment that was burning.
          And now the question itself: how to combine the above facts with the peppy statement of the author? GEU Kuzi and before the fire breathed in the air. After the fire, if the author is optimistic, will she feel much better?
          The desire of certain circles to justify themselves and absolve themselves of guilt by such optimistic throws is understandable.
          But words do not solve the problem itself, you can say anything.
          And Kuzya was already a problem before the fire. A huge problem.
          And will someone prove to me now that after the fire the problem has decreased? What's all right, beautiful marquise?
          Is it time to fundamentally reconsider the attitude to this suitcase without a handle, called Kuzey?
          1. seti
            seti 20 December 2019 12: 07
            +1
            If you listen, then you need to write it off and put it to scrap. This is the wrong decision.
            It is expensive ? Yes it is expensive to maintain and maintain. Yes, there is no infrastructure for him. There is no modern aircraft on it. But we have no other and the next 10-15 years will not be. Means that all one needs to use what is. Why? Yes, because we need aviation far from our shores here the author is 100% right. This ship has not exhausted its resource. We can quite fix his power plant. We need to study on it and we need to train on it. Because to the large or escort aircraft carrier we all come one. In a global war, he may not be needed, but in a conflict like the Libyan, we need him. He and his escort. Universal landing ships. If we started expansion we need an ocean fleet. And 2 good aircraft carriers with AWACS aircraft and powerful aircraft. It will pay off. There is money in the country - we need Will.
            1. Graf56
              Graf56 20 December 2019 13: 27
              0
              It is not just expensive. It is fantastically expensive for the economy of the Russian Federation. It would be expensive even for the US economy.
              Has anyone ever considered what the cost of the contents of this suitcase costs to the Russian budget?
              What did the 1994-1995 repair cost?
              Repair 1996-1998?
              Repair 2001-2004?
              Repair 2008?
              Repair before going to Syria?
              Someone tried to add to these colossal sums the cost of two aircraft drowned in Syria?
              The cost of a unique floating dock with two tower cranes? But the floating dock now needs to look for a replacement, sweep the next headstock.
              The cost of another repair? But it will be prohibitive, given the repair of a deck broken by a crane and the elimination of the consequences of a fire.
              But the point is not money. Who and when did we reasonably count the people's penny? Our money is squandered uncontrollably, just look at the fleet of oligarch yachts, which will soon be commensurate in tonnage with the Russian Navy.
              It’s common sense.
              Why maintain a ship by pumping huge funds into it if it does not fulfill its functional duties?
              For whom else is the secret that our planes are not able to take off from it with full combat load and with full tanks of fuel? Who needs these sorties?
              And it is very good that our command understood this in Syria, stopped the booth and sent Kuzya home. For there was no sense in him. As land aerodromes carried the main combat load, they continued to carry it.
              It’s time to solve something fundamentally with Kuzey. Unlearned the old days, it’s time to rest or needles.
              At least there will be less ridicule from the adversary towards our Navy.
              The construction of new ships to replace this cripple is a different matter. By the way, it is unlikely that it will be resolved positively in the near future.
              1. Sergey_G_M
                Sergey_G_M 20 December 2019 14: 38
                +3
                At least there will be less ridicule from the adversary towards our Navy.

                Here it is in this situation excites everyone the least
        2. timokhin-aa
          21 December 2019 08: 38
          -1
          Very correct article. I would still try to start talking with Erdogan about the construction of an aircraft carrier on the Black Sea in Kerch.


          And if Erdogan first agrees and then re-tries? And if they throw it off during the construction? And then what to do?
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. bayard
      bayard 20 December 2019 08: 12
      +2
      Russia needs at least 4 such aircraft carriers - two each for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet for shift service, and as an optimum - 6 units. , for the possibility of withdrawing one by one to the repair without compromising the services.
      It is possible to build light (40-50 thousand tons) at least in the Baltic Sea, at least in Kerch, but after the modernization of these shipyards. And atomic - only in the Big Stone. But all this is not earlier than the middle - the end of the next decade (bookmark). And another 7 - 10 years for construction.
      In the meantime, there is no alternative to Kuznetsov. request
      1. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 20 December 2019 09: 26
        +2
        So many aircraft carriers are expensive for us.
        In my opinion, Kuzyu needs to be relocated to the Crimea, there are good conditions for training pilots, he will walk in the Mediterranean region and off the coast of Africa to display a flag, and he shouldn’t bother much with his GEM, but everyone around will know and write about him, and Kuzya will be able to disguise itself perfectly against the background of burning oil rigs))
        And with light aircraft carriers, first gradually equip the Pacific Fleet then the Northern Fleet, how much money is enough and not to the detriment of the construction of other ships.
        1. bayard
          bayard 20 December 2019 09: 55
          +1
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          So many aircraft carriers are expensive for us.

          Well, then how to say. USC threatens that if there is an order for light gas turbine, it is ready to build at a price of 1,5-2 billion dollars. in a displacement of 40 - 45 thousand tons, and this is even at the maximum - the price of the modernization of "Admiral Nakhimov". But the shipyard for such orders will need to be prepared, and this is time and money in excess of the above cost.
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          In my opinion, Kuzyu needs to be relocated to the Crimea, there are good conditions for training pilots, he will walk in the Mediterranean region and demonstrate a flag off the coast of Africa,

          This and I suggested in the comments on previous articles. In the north, there is no dock for him and there will not be another 3-5 years, and the conditions for him are not the same. Therefore - to drag him in tow to Kerch and there to repair with moderate modernization, there and serve him - to teach pilots. And during this time (repair time and preparation of air wing pilots) to build infrastructure for basing such ships on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. This infrastructure is also useful for the new UDC.
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          and against the background of burning oil rigs Kuzya will be able to perfectly disguise itself)

          It’s ridiculous. But after the repair, it is unlikely that he will continue to please us with a smoky show ... But against the background of oil rigs it will look really good, which is what I wish for.

          And to build aircraft carriers (if we decide) it is necessary precisely with a series. And it’s a dense series, then we’ll manage for 12-15 years (from the moment of laying the head one) ...
          It is of course, if such a decision is made.
          Such a decision should be made in the near future, and the head should be laid not earlier than in 5 years (preparing the industry for such a program will require modernization of shipyards and contractors, which means time and money).
          1. Sergey_G_M
            Sergey_G_M 20 December 2019 10: 14
            +1
            Most likely we will not dare. We do not even have a normal fleet development program, and the one that is is constantly being violated and changing - so consider that the same is not.
            Russia is not the USSR, we do not have so many resources, the military budget of Russia is equal to the French or German, of course we would like our AUG to plow the oceans, but we will not pull it corny.
            A couple of light aircraft carriers / helicopter carriers as the flagships of the squadron covering the exit of the submarines from their home base if we build already will be a great success.
            1. bayard
              bayard 20 December 2019 10: 56
              +2
              Quote: Sergey_G_M
              Most likely we will not dare. We do not even have a normal fleet development program, and the one that is is constantly being violated and changing

              Well, in our reality, even if there is such a program, we are unlikely to hear about it in the open, although ... such an "elephant" cannot be hidden ... at least for a long time.
              However, if you look at the past (very recent), then the previous program was quite healthy and consistent, but the trouble was that Ukraine was thought of as a friendly state and future member of the Eurasian Union, and therefore did not duplicate the production of aircraft engines and ship turbines with gearboxes. .. Now it seems that all these problems have been successfully overcome / overcome, and therefore it is possible to dream again. Moreover, the rearmament of the ground forces is successfully completed and the new shipbuilding program will not be too burdensome. In addition, negative experience is also an experience, moreover, a very edifying one.
              Now the main thing is to launch the 22350M line, as well as import-substituted power plants to get used to the 22350 normally.
              Minesweepers seemed to go rhythmically, I spat, so as not to jinx it.
              UDC in the spring in Kerch laid.
              To solve the problem with anti-submarine frigates, anti-submarine aircraft and small anti-submarine ships ... and the fleet can still succeed. hi
  2. mso.716
    mso.716 20 December 2019 05: 33
    +7
    There is no future for aircraft carriers in Russia .. Only further degradation has a future
    1. novel66
      novel66 20 December 2019 07: 29
      +2
      it is possible, but not within the framework of the current concept
    2. kepmor
      kepmor 20 December 2019 07: 33
      +6
      after another show of the "protagonist" in front of the cameras, it is difficult to refute your assumption ...
      huge respect for the author for the article ... everything is thoughtful and competent ...
      however, it is somehow hard to believe that "Kuznetsov" will ever break free from the grasping paws of our OSK into the open arms of our "parquet" admirals ...
      in the fleet they are simply afraid of him ... no deventors for command ... no one smut ...
      nice-thing from a new boat in Kamchatka to pull a "club" ... yes on a frigate smelling of paint around the ball to go ... in an embrace with "divine" zircon to light up ... that's where service is a joy ... and you have a job, and your titles ... not service, but heavenly pleasure ...
      so here the interests of ship repair and fleet coincide miraculously ...
      the first capacity utilization with stable financing ...
      the second is the absence of a lot of problems with combat training and maintaining those outside the plant. the readiness of the "old man-camotaznik" ...
      there is no strength to drag, and there was no desire ... but there is no permission to quit ...
      the army, and especially the fleet, is a focused projection of all the problems and diseases of our country ...
  3. Thrifty
    Thrifty 20 December 2019 05: 51
    +1
    Alexander ", Kuznetsova" must not only be restored, but also restored as a "clean light aircraft carrier" by removing missile and other unnecessary weapons from it. The fact that something is constantly burning with us indicates that there is no control over the implementation of repairs in general. It is necessary to punish very severely for this. For the same fire on Kuznetsovo, the leadership of the organization that carried out the repair work on the cruiser should be brought to justice. Let the repairs be done for their own money. What has burned down, let them at least restore it with their own hands, buy the equipment itself damaged and destroyed by fire. And then we quickly find the extreme, placing the blame on the dead! It is time to make the circle of people responsible for the control of the work performed, whose competence includes this very control.
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 20 December 2019 07: 18
      -2
      Judging by the tonal minuses, the sect of the anti-aircraft carrier is not asleep, it is processing money lol
    2. novel66
      novel66 20 December 2019 07: 25
      +2
      if removed from the pre-cruiser
      missile and other excess weapons from it

      he will not become a carrier carrier, but will require a strong escort, and from which to take it? and all diseases (lack of catapult and AWAC) will not go anywhere
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 21 December 2019 17: 08
        -1
        He already requires an escort. And it will become more aircraft carrier: due to the main caliber (which is still killed - flooded with fuel), you can increase the space for ammunition and fuel for aviation. Only Kuzya can carry and use this good, and rockets - many more.
    3. Vadmir
      Vadmir 20 December 2019 08: 20
      +6
      Alexander ", Kuznetsova" should not only be restored, but also restored as a "clean light aircraft carrier"
      I agree that Kuznetsov needs to be restored, because we do not have another yet, but for the future the very concept of a light aircraft carrier is flawed. The KUG air defense carrier is imprisoned for only one task, which is absolutely not relevant in any conflicts except for the war with the US-NATO. But a non-nuclear conflict with the United States is a harmful, obviously losing utopia. And in a nuclear conflict, an aircraft carrier really can not do anything, neither light nor heavy.
      But a large, full-fledged aircraft carrier will be able not only to provide air defense of a group of ships, but also in the local conflict to play the first violin, working with its aircraft along the coast.
      Yes, a heavy nuclear carrier is much more expensive, but a light aircraft carrier is generally a waste of money.
      For the same fire on Kuznetsovo, it is necessary to bring to responsibility the leadership of the organization that carried out repairs on the cruiser.
      Here I also agree, but alas, it will not work to bring them to justice. If you were in production, then you know what a safety instruction is - in general, it is correct but overly formalized and reinsurance, paper with a bunch of prohibitions, making it almost impossible to work or maybe very slow. Therefore, few people read it before signing, and the signature completely removes responsibility from the authorities, shifting it to switchman-performers.
      Of course, it is necessary to seriously change the approach to observing safety precautions and, more importantly, to ensuring comprehensive measures for the safety of work by the authorities.
    4. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 08: 40
      -1
      "removing missile and other unnecessary weapons from it.


      Granites have not been used there for a long time, PUs are empty and disconnected, and their complete dismantling will not work (see ship layout)
  4. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 20 December 2019 07: 28
    +6
    The author gave a slightly incorrect example of the Falklene conflict.
    To begin with ... Argentines used old American-style bombs of which approximately half (!) Did not explode when hit by a target.
    Secondly ... The main forces of the Argentine Air Force, also, an outdated aircraft fleet: Skyhawks, Mirages ... Slightly newer SuperEstandar. It was the latter who could strike with the "exosets", which caused the main headache for the British.
    Well, preparation. The Argentines lacked the experience of fighting in the face of the opposition of a more technically advanced enemy. Prior to this, aviation only participated in palace coups ...
    1. Avior
      Avior 20 December 2019 08: 32
      +8
      Let me agree with you on something.
      Argentine pilots had very good training, their aviation was an elite. Their attacks from very low heights speak of their good preparation.
      As for the bombs, the Argentines had no choice - they had to attack from the very small, otherwise they would be the victim of ship’s air defense, but using bombs from the very small was problematic, because they just didn’t have time to remove the fuse that stands for the bombs didn't damage your own plane
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 20 December 2019 08: 36
        +4
        They knew how to fly))) But there were no air battles against Profi and practically did not perform anti-aircraft maneuvers. And their courage was erected in the monument)))
        About bombs, by the way, marriage is recognized. At least that is what Hispanics said. Because the top-mast was carried out.
        1. Avior
          Avior 20 December 2019 09: 42
          +3
          And they and the British especially did not conduct a lot of air battles
          Yes, and they had a bit of fuel for this
          With air defense fought attacks at very low altitudes
          And as for marriage, well, there had to be some kind of excuse
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 20 December 2019 10: 49
            +4
            Nevertheless, for the English side, everything that happened can only be called a failure. Timokhin writes that it is critically important to shoot down planes after load shedding. Not really. Important, but secondary. Task number one is to shoot down before load shedding. The British completely failed this main task of air defense, and if everything that fell from the Argentines exploded, it would be a disaster for the British. The task of the air defense is precisely "not to let the bombing", since the Second World War. And actually our victory in the Second World War and at the same time high personal scores of victories of the German aces is a consequence of the fact that it was our aviation that solved its main task more successfully than the enemy. This is the task - not to allow bombing. You don't have to shoot down, you don't have to shoot at all, but you don't have to let the bombs drop on your heads. And let them bomb the enemy.
            The victory of the British is due precisely to the fact that the bombs of the Argentines did not explode, and not because their air defense successfully solved their task. The fact that the Argentines came up with an excuse about the fuses does not negate the fact that the Harriers could not prevent attacks on their ships.
            1. Avior
              Avior 20 December 2019 11: 07
              +2
              . if the Argentines exploded everything that fell -

              And it didn’t explode just because the fleet’s air defense drove the Argentines to extremely low altitudes, that is, the air defense was not perfect, but it fulfilled its task and did not allow the Argentines to attack in conditions convenient for them.
              And about the fact that the bombs did not have time to get off the fuse, this is not an excuse, this is reality
              Excuse is about alleged marriage.
              Of course, it’s better to shoot down not when leaving the attack, but before it, but even this approach gradually weakened the Argentine aviation
              Of course, if the British had AWACS aircraft, this would greatly simplify the task for the Harriers.
              I note that the Argentines at the first stage of the AWAC was, although old, it was he who brought the Superetendars to Sheffield and Plymouth
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 20 December 2019 11: 45
                +2
                But it didn’t explode just because the air defense of the fleet drove the Argentines to extremely low altitudes
                I’m not sure that this is exactly so in pure form, simply because the British had ships and air defense systems for near low-altitude interception and they proved extremely poor. Rather, the fact that the Argentines did not want to reveal themselves when flying up to targets at high altitude. But this is the technology of action of any aircraft in a modern war against an enemy possessing at least some kind of air defense. I mean a certain example, spherical in a vacuum, if the Argentines had assault bombs with the appropriate cocking and detonation algorithm, then the British would have been very hard.
                The Argentines attacked correctly, but not with the right weapons. The British did not defend themselves correctly, but they were lucky. Therefore, the latter won.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 20 December 2019 12: 06
                  +2
                  The British had problems with low-altitude interception - too much working time of the then air defense systems, too little time for them to react
                  If the British were anxious to put the latest American Phalanx at that time, the Argentines would definitely have no chance of bombing
            2. timokhin-aa
              21 December 2019 08: 41
              0
              Timokhin writes that it is critically important to shoot down aircraft after a load shed.


              False, Timokhin wrote that it is critically important to shoot down enemy planes, and since they cannot be shot down before using the TSA, you must shoot down at catch-up courses, the importance of which was brilliantly demonstrated by the British.
    2. Galleon
      Galleon 20 December 2019 10: 19
      +3
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      The author gave a slightly incorrect example of the Falklene conflict.

      I agree and want to add a little. Argentinean aircraft flew in attacks on the British ship group at the limit of the combat radius, there was only enough fuel for one attack. There was no calculated fuel for the oncoming battle after this attack, so they dodged as they could, were limited in maneuver and vulnerable. This partly explains the loss on the way out of the attack. There were cases when they didn’t reach the airfields and fell into the ocean (I’m sorry that I wrote this in the plural, because I clearly remember only one such incident - the plural is presumably).
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 December 2019 08: 43
        0
        There was no calculated fuel for the oncoming battle after this attack, so they dodged as they could, were limited in maneuver and vulnerable.


        Strikes against ships are almost always carried out "with a thrust" - at the limit of the combat radius in order to attack targets as far as possible from their ships or the coast. Americans, if something happened, will do the same. No one will ever have fuel for maneuvers, dumps, etc. in the attack of surface forces.
  5. LeonidL
    LeonidL 20 December 2019 07: 55
    0
    At first glance, Mr. Timokhin seems to be writing the correct article. To begin with .... So: "In the event of a global war, the main striking force of the Russian Navy will be submarines, and the" cleanup "of the airspace in the areas of their combat use will be critically important. Modern basic patrol aviation is simply a monstrous threat for submarines, and it should not be over the areas where our submarines will operate. " That is, it is assumed that Russia will be the aggressor? After all, boats need to be taken out to the patrol areas in advance, deployed in positions (according to Timokhin). And what, the alleged adversary misses the deployment? Will not notice that not one or two will go out on patrol as usual, but everyone will rush in a crowd? Yes, this is already a reason to press the button of mass attack of strategic nuclear forces! But, suppose ... that all the boats go in a flock under the cover of one "Kuznetsov"? And they will not notice his exit with an escort? We read further "Even if the Russian Federation captures Svalbard and northern Norway during the preparatory measures, there will still be huge gaps over the sea between the air defense zones organized by coastal aviation and anti-aircraft missile units, which cannot be closed by anything except surface ships." Again pushing the idea of ​​Russia's aggressiveness. How and with what and for how long will Russia be able to "capture" Svalbard and northern Norway? And NATO will slap its ears on the cheeks at this time? Norway, if Mr. Timokhin has forgotten, is a NATO member. And the military doctrine of the Russian Federation does not imply aggression. such provocative calls for aggression, for war quite definitely fall under the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.By the way, they will translate the article in Norway, grab the heart of Madame Ministry of Defense, and this is a worthy reason for increasing the defense budget, accusing Russia of aggression, seizure, etc. But what about? Russian Military obscenity wrote! One of the most authoritative in the world!
    1. Vadmir
      Vadmir 20 December 2019 08: 46
      +2
      That is, it is assumed that Russia will be an aggressor? After all, boats need to be brought out early in patrol areas, deployed at positions (according to Timokhin). And what, the alleged adversary misses the deployment? He won’t notice that not one or two will go on patrol as usual, but will all be broken together?
      First, if a fight is inevitable, then you have to hit first. In addition, the so-called "threatened period" is possible, when there is still no war, but its probability has sharply increased.
      Secondly, in the event of a retaliatory or retaliatory-oncoming global nuclear strike without a previous "threatened period", the role of the fleet, even theoretically, cannot be considered, it will not have time to go to sea. Only submarines that are under water and without a "tail" from the enemy boats will be able to strike.
      And the military doctrine of the Russian Federation does not imply aggression.
      Well, yes, you need to turn the other cheek.
      It is impossible in our modern wolf world to be a white and fluffy sheep - either they will regularly cut the wool or even let the meat go.
      1. LeonidL
        LeonidL 21 December 2019 03: 03
        0
        "First, if a fight is inevitable, then you have to hit first." - Read the Doctrine carefully. To beat the first is about the same as the second or tenth ... there will not be much difference. In any case, the "perimeter" ("Dead Hand") will work. The fact is that precisely such weapons are being developed that make war again impossible. That is, the victory of the Navy in the war is the prevention of war. That is why the leadership of the Russian Federation is focused on asymmetric, modern and low-cost types of weapons. What's the use of building a mass of aircraft carrier groups, if it is clear that in practice this is an investment in non-firing weapons. With one exception - if you really manage to re-enter the African continent and defend your investments. But for such purposes, "Kuznetsov" is enough, and prestige. To compete in quantity (and even more so in quality) with the fleets of NATO and the PRC is a business that obviously leads to economic collapse. Yes, and this is empty - you can build in Kerch, but you cannot withdraw. It can be withdrawn in the North, but there is nowhere to build ... In general, here I agree with the conclusion - it is worth repairing. But you also need to find out the question - what was it all? Accidental, sabotage, sabotage, criminal negligence, criminal dereliction of duty at sea? However, practice shows that the main number of "accidents" occurs on the ships being repaired - the fall of the displacement line, the defrosting ...
        1. Vadmir
          Vadmir 21 December 2019 08: 33
          0
          To beat the first is already about the same as the second or tenth ... there will not be much difference.
          On the one hand, I agree that there will be no winners in a nuclear war. But on the other hand, the blow with the whole arsenal and the blow with the fact that survived is not at all the same thing.
          if you really manage to re-enter the African continent and defend their investments. But for such purposes, "Kuznetsov" is enough, well, and prestige.
          Not for this purpose it was created, not for real work along the coast, as American aircraft carriers did in all coastal local wars. Kuznetsov is not an aircraft carrier at all; it is an aircraft carrier cruiser. Even if it were not for a series of accidents in Syria, Kuznetsov could have carried out only a public relations company there for the press. His real contribution would be insignificant. He has too few airplanes and no catapult.
          To compete in quantity (and all the more in quality) with the fleets of NATO and the PRC is obviously a matter of economic collapse.
          Regarding the number I agree, a reasonably sufficient number of aircraft carriers is needed, taking into account the need for ships in periodic repairs. Right now, for example, we seem to have an aircraft carrier, but in fact it is not there and will not be there for a long time, therefore one ship is absolutely not enough.
          I do not agree about the quality, especially in comparison with China. If there are few ships, they must be as useful as possible for the fleet, which means their quality should be very high. We cannot afford much, so we need to build few, but first-class ones.
  6. LeonidL
    LeonidL 20 December 2019 08: 00
    -5
    Mr. Timokhin - tries to introduce himself as a super patriot and the main guardian of the Russian Navy. Let's omit all the dirt that he threw at the beginning of the article about the leadership of the Fleet, the country and shipbuilders. Okay, there is enough of everything. But when such a murky person like Timokhin constantly repeats this ... I specially conducted a test on Mr. Timokhin ... Calling him "Mr.". What, in theory, should such a super patriot do immediately? At least he will be offended and cry out - "Not Mr. I, but a citizen, comrade, Mr. at worst" ... But he is silent. Why? Isn't it because Mr. Timokhin is accustomed to be called Mr. Is not it?
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 08: 55
      -1
      For reference - an analysis of Leonidl's personality from his own words and his personal confession of why he is on "VO" - here:

      https://topwar.ru/165313-fregat-perri-kak-urok-dlja-rossii-sproektirovannyj-mashinoj-massovyj-i-deshevyj.html#comment-id-9923471

      do not succumb to the provocation of Leonidle.

      This is now your signature on every comment, Leonidle. laughing
      1. LeonidL
        LeonidL 21 December 2019 22: 57
        -1
        Mister Timokhin - Are you mister or not? Well, admit it, are you an officer or not? The answer, however, is clear - to the first "Yes", to the second question - "No". And you can wave a reference about weapons, as well as pieces of paper about the sale of used shells. However, maybe it will help you to be recognized as admiral of the CAR! they will give you lompasses, a beautiful cap ... pay extra, and a dagger. The fact that you post from powerlessness and anger makes me laugh and gladdens. I wish you all the very, very successful and the best, especially in escape from bears and in the production of napalm at home.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 December 2019 23: 14
          -1
          Foreigners contact me mister. Those who don't know me well. Those with whom I have been in contact for a long time on business refer to me by name. Those who write me business letters refer to me as "Sir". There is nothing special about this, these are the usual rules of etiquette.

          About the officer, I have already exhaustively answered you.

          And now let’s you - how did you manage to serve 42 calendars from 1972 to no more than 1995, of which 1986 and further you went along the usual grid, without any "three years" - from your own words? As a 9-10 year old child, how did you dive with antediluvian scuba diving, which then had dimensions and weight more than a normal child, and even did not have a buoyancy compensator (they were invented later)? And where did you get it in the USSR in 59? Daddy gave?

          It is not for nothing that I hint to you about the "certificate for weapons" - it is accompanied by two examinations from specialized specialists, one of which you will not pass.

          And in the USSR Armed Forces with such a diagnosis, they did not even take the soldier, and now they do not take. So why are you telling fairy tales about yourself, about the fact that you are supposedly a former officer of the Navy, to whom Timokhin's writings are already sick? "Overvalued idea" won over?
          1. LeonidL
            LeonidL 21 December 2019 23: 59
            +1
            I have no doubts that they turn to you, I have no doubt that you have certificates (for example, the former speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine also has a certificate). Now I have no doubt that you are working on order. Your belief in impunity is most likely based on where you live. But these are all small things. As well as your attempts to post your conjectures of the "analyst" who sat ... in the office of "Horn and Hoof". The military analysts do not sit - the analysts are working hard. Well, okay, I treat such nonsense according to two principles "The dog barks - the wind carries" and "It is better to lose with a smart than with a stupid find." Now about the main thing. You made two unforgivable mistakes in your last opuses, two mistakes: "Mining of the Baltic" and "Occupation (capture) of Northern Norway and Spitsbergen". This is what characterizes you more than anything else. Therefore, Mr. Sir, you do not pull for more than the admiral of the fleet of the CAR, but "VO" giving you a tribune, can very, very burn out on this. I do not intend to enter into a discussion with you again until the next opus, I will just save something delicious. Yes, all your revelations, although you consider them remote, I have kept. All the best and every scripture success!
            PS If you are such a busy businessman that you communicate so tightly with foreigners, then how do secrets trust you? If such a business businessman, then where did you get so much time for speedy writing verbose articles on all issues of the Navy?
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 December 2019 14: 28
              -2
              Everything is clear - a madman with a diagnosis found himself an enemy. Well, it happens that while we do not need to undergo a psychiatrist examination for access to the Internet, such as you will be the inevitable cost of freedom of speech in Russia. Well, okay, I’m glad that you at least stopped lying about your service, which of course with such a diagnosis can’t be reached.

              Keep accumulating dirt on me laughing
              How to save up - write to Sportloto, please people
              laughing laughing
              1. LeonidL
                LeonidL 22 December 2019 19: 30
                0
                Mr. Timokhin! You contradict yourself - you dumped the dirt. I, with your permission, personally quote your statements "not an officer of the Navy, others spoke about it" ... and Mr. Timokhin was modestly silent. Spiriting napalm, running away from a bear, VUS - a shooter, selling used shells, massacre, close communication with the usual prefixes "mister" and "sir", "sitting" in the analytical department ... But the most important and sad thing is inadequate ideas : the mining of the Baltic, the seizure of Northern Norway and Spitsbergen, then the construction of a mass of underships, then the construction of the Big Fleet, then the restructuring of the fleet management, then the newest theory of naval art ... I think this is what can lead to a deterioration in the already heated limit of the international situation. You are for war, and I am for peace. I repeat - the Navy will win the war, excluding the war as a conflict of geopolitical contradictions. .... I communicate with you, my dear, very correctly and without hysterical anguish. Moreover, based only on your, my dear, personal statements about your person. You, and your tame little friend Maxim, on the contrary, going into a rage, prefer attacks of a personal nature .... For me, they are funny in their absurdity. As a person, you are antipathetic and uninteresting to me. But your opuses are very alarming.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  22 December 2019 21: 30
                  -2
                  But your opus is very alarming.


                  This is a purely medical matter in your case.
                  1. LeonidL
                    LeonidL 22 December 2019 22: 15
                    0
                    My dear, Mr. / Sir Timokhin! I am alarmed by your opuses, you cannot essentially answer, you are our occupier of Norway and the Baltic miner. And you again about my health! Have a nice one you too.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      23 December 2019 11: 11
                      -1
                      I don’t get sick, Leonidl, it’s not me who squandered about diving at 9 years old and 42 calendars in the Navy for 13 years of service, it’s not me who is chasing you throughout the Military Review, throwing dozens of meaningless comments to you, attributing to you that that you never claimed.

                      You do it. For medical reasons, as we have found out.
                      1. LeonidL
                        LeonidL 24 December 2019 00: 52
                        0
                        Your disease is progressing, Mr. / Sir Timokhin. I tell you about the mining of the Baltic and the occupation of Norway and Svalbard. These are your suggestions in your "articles". You, not me, confessed that you did not serve in the Navy, that you have no officer rank, that you did not study naval sciences and subjects, and that you have nothing to do with the Navy. Why are you so hysterical mangling? Yes, I dived for the first time at about this age, then I had my personal "Ukraine" and "Submariner". Yes, I have served in various positions for about as long and not only in the Navy, but what's so surprising? Here Lieutenant General Count Ignatiev served 50 years. Do not believe me - read "50 years in the ranks". What's so surprising? You wave help in response! From a psycho dispensary or from a coronal? I really don't need such information, God has mercy. Further ... You and I did not find out anything and did not graze anything together. Save your nerves until the next article. And if I find something impermissible there, I will write again. All you Mr. / Sir Timokhin very-very. Do not be ill and do not worry. Adieu! Sorry! Rather, Goodbye !!!
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        24 December 2019 13: 11
                        0
                        Here Lieutenant General Count Ignatiev served 50 years. Do not believe me - read "50 years in the ranks".


                        I read, but this is not the case with you. You have such a discrepancy in your testimony that the question about your service is automatically removed. And automatically the question of legal capacity arises.

                        Once again, Mr. Liar - you claim that you received the title in 1972. So then you were somewhere around 22-25. Well, let 21, let’s push off from this figure. You further state that 42 calendars were served prior to dismissal.
                        Then you, with a blue eye, tell such details of your biography that could take place only in 1985-1991 and without any hot nets.

                        So from 1986 the maximum of the year and until 1991 you were counted year after year.
                        At the same time, the age ceiling for a person who has not grown at least to Rear Admiral is 50 years + 5 years by decision of the Minister of Defense or the commander of the Navy or several other persons of a comparable level.

                        We get that you could not stay in the service later than 2006, and that by decision at the level of the minister, NHS, etc. In fact, given the rubbish that you bring in the comments, no Minister of Defense would leave you in the service by order. Therefore, it is real - 2001.

                        2001-1972 = 29 calendars. Seven of them, you were a zablava, a candidate, a rationalizer and an innovator, respectively, you had the opportunity to bomb a year for three or something like that from 1972 to 1986 and then from 1991 to 2001. But the second period is already age-related, in 1991 you could not be less than 40 years old (and taking into account the need to swim with a huge and heavy antediluvian scuba diving without a compensator for buoyancy in distant childhood, even this is unrealistic, you must be older, but oh well) it should have miraculously happened to make you from zablava-innovators who earn extra money in college in the evenings op They are put on a hot mesh at conditions collapse in Navy personnel and total reduction.
                        So from 1991 to 2001, too, year after year.

                        Total: from 1986 to 2001 you have served 15 calendars. You claim that you have 42 in all.
                        So for the 14 calendar years in 1972-1986 you should have served 27, from the very first day.

                        So I ask - what did you do there? Reactor core areas were overloaded with hands?

                        The next question is, when did you carry out such an active service, did you have this? Salaries are Soviet, so this is just the end of the eighties:

                        And during the service and after he never sat on his ass, he became a candidate of sciences (+50), when he realized that the state did not want to pay for inventions - he became a rationalizer and introduced them like pies (+100), he became Honored (+50), weakness, associate professor.


                        How does it fit with shock service before 2001?

                        And all this with a bunch of assumptions, such as the fact that you have earned a cape, which in my deep conviction is impossible, taking into account the nonsense that you carry, I spoke with people in this rank repeatedly, these are, to put it mildly, others people not like you.

                        And without capra, you would have to fill 42 calendars by 1996. And then, in general, your alleged service in the Navy does not fit into reality.
                        And also explain how you at the age of 9 were able to put on a scuba gear and swim with it? The scuba gear then had a mass of about 19-25 kg. An old scuba gear under water would give extra weight to the swimmer's back equivalent to 10 kilograms.

                        A child of 9-10 years old weighs 22-25 kilograms, and now. A 9-10 year old child born in 1951 weighed less - the post-war famine in the USSR ended only in 1948, and not everywhere, in places it was until 1949. The people were smaller then. For a 10 year old, even lifting 5 kg is a test. And you're with 10 on your back underwater - and fine, right?
                        So how, LeonidL?

                        You are a liar. That's all. At the same time, you made a real hunt for my articles and dedicate half of all your activity in VO to allegedly exposing me - although I have never once deceived anyone about my biography.
                        What is this talking about? Only a diagnosis, Leonid L. It can’t talk about anything else.

                        You are a sick person who has convinced himself of his alleged past, which you really did not have, and which you cannot remember.
                        You constantly use the word "Glavmorshtab", although it has not been called that since 1950 - have you not learned the name of your main command structure after serving all your life in the navy?

                        Here is your dialogue with a real submariner - https://topwar.ru/156502-30-let-so-dnja-gibeli-apl-k-278-komsomolec.html#comment-id-9265192

                        Still obvious, right? So in which fleet did you serve with this level of knowledge?

                        Therefore, I’m telling you, seek qualified help while you still distinguish a computer from a gas stove. The loss of consciousness into the abyss can be sudden, Leonid, worry about it before it's too late.
  • Nehist
    Nehist 20 December 2019 08: 31
    +1
    Dear Alexander! The article is not a bit chaotic, something that you all dumped into a heap ... The fact that aircraft carriers are needed is beyond doubt. All the same, let's wait for the estimates of the damage to Kuznetsov after the fire, all the same, the burnout of the cable tracks is serious. Judging by the fact that you offer, it is not a repair that is required, but a complete restructuring of Kuznetsov, which will cost more than laying a new warbler.
    1. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 20 December 2019 18: 05
      +2
      Totally agree with you! Usually I read Timokhin with pleasure, but several mutually exclusive moments came up here. So, for example, first, your namesake gives a long and detailed argument why the aircraft carrier is important and needed: it allows you to divert the border of attacks on ships (even if they are far away from the coast), and if this happened give a head start for the arrival of coastal aviation forces to help the attacked . Then he sharply states that
      Shelves simply need to be removed from the north altogether - if only because it is a front-line zone and basing them there on an ongoing basis, we run the risk of losing the personnel of the entire naval aviation in the first minutes of the conflict ... The ship is also mobile. It can be transferred to the North Sea, can be transferred to the Baltic Sea.
      Well, and then what is the meaning of the aircraft carrier, if it can neither provide the specified radar field
      700 kilometers deep from the ship group to be protected
      nor aircraft combat duty over the theater of operations, because there is no corny in the combat zone, and even if there was, another factor comes into play, namely the climatic one: the conditions on the Barents and Baltic seas are different (take the same polar night), which means that the pilots will not be adapted to such conditions and will not be able to fulfill the combat missions facing them. The recent example, when the pilots of the SU-34 from my Altai Territory died in the Sea of ​​Japan because they simply did not have the skills to splash down, eloquently suggests that the pilot is not the same. Another question is that it would be worth considering the seasonal migration of regiments from the immediate place of deployment in the north to "winter quarters" near St. Petersburg. But where are the guarantees that this particular moment will not be chosen as the optimal one for striking our territory and the fleet? I have no doubt about the ability of aviation to fly from one place to another in a day. I am worried about something else: all this time, the fleet, in fact, will be left to itself. Agree, it is unlikely that in such conditions one of the captains will risk reaching a significant distance from the coast, which is capable of providing at least some cover with ground air defense means. In turn, without a convoy, the submarines will also remain at the pier. On the face of the principle of dominoes: one knuckle (in this case, a gap in the defense) entails another. And will we have this day? This question remains open. In addition, no one, as always, thinks about people, and after all, their physical condition after many hours of flight is unlikely to allow "worthy" to meet the enemy.

      As for Kuznetsov himself and his repair plans, in my opinion, the most interesting proposal for him came from a participant under the nickname Victor Leningradets, which he voiced in a previous article on our only aircraft carrier authored by Roman Skomorokhov. It consisted in leaving two GTZA and four boilers operating on external shafts to provide 23-24 knots, two internal shafts to be switched to diesel engines for economic operation, electric power to be transferred to diesel generator sets, and the ship itself to a single diesel fuel. At the same time, as Victor notes, it becomes possible to use KTU only for practicing combat training tasks, and for inter-base transitions and ocean voyages only diesel can be used.

      I tried to ask questions about the possible installation of KVG 6M and 6M-1, but no one answered me this question crying
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 December 2019 09: 01
        -1
        At the same time, as Victor notes, it becomes possible to use KTU only for practicing combat training tasks, and for inter-base transitions and ocean voyages only diesel can be used.


        And what kind of diesel to put? He has tens of thousands of hp at the economy course. are needed.
        The boilers there, by the way, are very compact.
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 08: 56
      -1
      all the same, the burnout of the cable tracks is serious


      Cable tracks burned out, which under the contract had to be changed.

      Judging by what you offer, it’s not a repair that is required, but a complete restructuring of Kuznetsov


      No, minimal hull work is needed there, and again, all this was already provided for by the contract and some equipment was prefabricated - everything fit into the price of repairing Kuzi.
      Perhaps I expressed it inaccurately, but this is my "what needs to be done" - it was relevant before the fire of the TK for repairs.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 20 December 2019 08: 51
    0
    About the air defense carrier.
    An air defense carrier is not able to protect a large water area. Due to the distribution of targets, the aircraft carrier itself will be a priority target for enemy aircraft. Those. an air defense carrier will be forced to engage in air defense of himself. At the same time, objects near the aircraft carrier will naturally fall under protection. But no more than that. Consequently, the air defense carrier cannot protect the deployment of submarines in principle. It can only protect the connection with the attack ships, which, with their attack, must break attacks on our submarines.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 03
      -1
      Consequently, the air defense carrier cannot protect the deployment of submarines in principle. It can only protect the connection with the attack ships, which, with their attack, must break attacks on our submarines.


      He is not the only one doing this; he is closing down those areas where coastal aviation does not have time.

      As for the enemy’s attacks, this is vice versa good - we can, if we act wisely and not be afraid of losses in surface ships, arrange a massacre of carrier-based enemy aircraft, and stupidly interrupt it. That is, to play the same game that the Americans wanted to play with our marine missile aircraft.
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 21 December 2019 11: 15
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa

        As for the enemy’s attacks, this is vice versa good - we can, if we act wisely and not be afraid of losses in surface ships, arrange a massacre of carrier-based enemy aircraft, and stupidly interrupt it. That is, to play the same game that the Americans wanted to play with our marine missile aircraft.

        Can the four times superiority of the enemy, which the Americans can provide?

        Quote: timokhin-aa

        He is not the only one doing this; he is closing down those areas where coastal aviation does not have time.

        He will not be able to close. There will not be enough strength at the same time to repulse the enemy’s attacks on themselves, to defend the AWACS aircraft and to search for the anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy (simply MIGs will be connected by battle).
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 December 2019 12: 50
          -1
          Well, he will not fight alone, there is coastal aviation. In any case, the views on its combat employment in the Navy are now exactly that, and I generally agree with them, although KMK fot needs to slightly reduce optimism about efficiency. But on the whole, the direction of thinking is correct, there are no teachings, it’s bad.
  • Vadmir
    Vadmir 20 December 2019 09: 01
    0
    The "large" frigates of the 22350M project and the modernized nuclear submarines of the 949AM project, which are being created now, will be able to become a fully-fledged escort for the future Russian aircraft carrier.
    According to 949AM, I agree, but the 22350M is not quite - for a non-nuclear compact aircraft carrier, of course, it is suitable for a full-fledged nuclear aircraft carrier, atomic destroyers are needed, we do not have as many bases as the United States. He doesn’t disgrace himself with tugboats, going on a combat mission with towing speed. We are still discussing the future, the future.
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 20 December 2019 10: 20
      0
      Why nuclear destroyers? Will look at it in the USA. They also rushed to build an atomic escort for the atomic aircraft carriers. They built, operated ... and decommissioned all nuclear-powered cruisers. Instead, they began to build gas turbine, but massive cruisers and destroyers. The nuclear destroyer is a small batch "white elephant", and the fleet needs large batch workhorses. In addition, the nuclear ship needs an appropriate coastal infrastructure.
      His Navy has the same experience in operating atomic cruisers pr.1144. It cannot be called successful. 2 out of 4 will go to needles, although they could serve if they were used correctly
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 20 December 2019 11: 33
        +2
        Quote: Cympak
        The nuclear destroyer is a small-scale "white elephant"
        And the nuclear submarine in the US Navy is this elephant?

        Quote: Cympak
        In addition, the nuclear ship needs appropriate coastal infrastructure.
        How do American submariners survive in their bases?
      2. Vadmir
        Vadmir 20 December 2019 18: 27
        +2
        Built, exploited .... and decommissioned all nuclear-powered cruisers.
        US bases around the world really do not need to have unlimited range. We have a different case. Yes, and we can’t take in quantity, Russia is not the USSR and not China.
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 07
      -1
      Well, our aircraft carrier is non-nuclear and there is still something to live to see the escort of the future hypothetical.
  • VicktorVR
    VicktorVR 20 December 2019 09: 14
    +1
    In any case, building a nuclear aircraft carrier is a long business, and it will obviously be necessary (in a good way) not alone, i.e. the newly created production will be loaded for 20 years. Maybe during this time (for several aircraft carriers) it will pay off?

    Will it not be possible to build civilian vessels at the same factory (tankers, etc.)?
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 22 December 2019 19: 34
      0
      And can you predict a qualitative leap in weapons for 20 years in advance? Who will need an aircraft carrier in 10-12 years of construction, which has become outdated by a decade?
      1. VicktorVR
        VicktorVR 24 December 2019 07: 26
        0
        A little strange question ... But is there any sense at all in starting construction even if the initial term is 10 years? If aircraft carriers really need at least two per fleet, then the construction time should be 4-5 years maximum, ideally three years. And production loading for 20 years is provided.

        On the other hand, China and India have aircraft carriers that are "outdated" for more than a decade, and their rivals in the region are somehow not happy about this.
  • Avior
    Avior 20 December 2019 09: 14
    +3
    The article is interesting because the aircraft carrier is supposed to be used as the basis of expeditionary forces against a relatively weak enemy
    Honestly, some of Kuznetsov’s capabilities against the Americans at sea cause skepticism, and there seems to be some reason for this.
    But, in my opinion, the author omitted several important questions.
    1. There is a telegram channel along Kuznetsov, in particular according to its air group. I do not know how much the truth is written there, but I have not seen the refutation anywhere. It is about the fact that pilots of the regiments of an air group instead of completing a full course of combat training actually devote the main time for flight hours to practicing take-off and landing, and there is a situation where majors and lieutenant colonels do not have the corresponding class. Those who are interested can read it themselves, it would be interesting to see a comment from a specialist about this.
    2 it also says that in fact for a relatively short time Kuznetsov can’t take more than 7 cars into the air - again, I would like to see a comment that knows how true this is.
    3. IMHO, there is a common underestimation of the problem of creating catapults. In fact, today they are only made by Americans. This is a complex device that steam that electromagnetic. Complicated, both in terms of creation and operation. Actually, the experience of the Syrian campaign showed that even with a much simpler aerofinisher everything is not so simple, and with the catapult there are more problems.
    At the same time, the plans of the Chinese for their program of aircraft carriers show that they see non-catapult aircraft carriers only as transitional to catapult.
    4. It is more correct to attribute Kuznetsov to training and combat ships and to his primary combat tasks include participation in expeditionary campaigns, and not the fight against the AUG and NATO aviation in the north.
    Moreover, for expeditionary tasks, an escort and an air group and the level of training of an air group are required much less than for the fight against NATO.
    In the framework of the fight against NATO in the north, leaving only relatively simple tasks like patrolling, operational strengthening of coastal aviation when necessary, etc.
    5 in the future, it is required to create a VTOL aircraft based on existing and UDC capable of receiving it. This, in my opinion, is much more realistic than the projects of aircraft carriers of 100 tons.
    Especially if you build it on civilian technology, as the Spaniards did.
    Moreover, such a UDC in the world is becoming a trend for states that do not have enough money for full-fledged aircraft carriers, or who do not want to spend money on them.
    For expeditionary tasks, such a UDC would be a suitable solution, for the rest, for example, covering the coast, an essential auxiliary unit capable of providing an operational reserve, if necessary, close to a possible place of battle.
    To ensure the construction and operation of such a UDC is incomparably simpler and cheaper than a full-fledged aircraft carrier a la Nimitz.
    hi
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 13
      -1
      It is about the fact that pilots of the regiments of an air group instead of completing a full course of combat training actually devote the main time for flight hours to practicing take-off and landing, and there is a situation where majors and lieutenant colonels do not have the corresponding class.


      There is, but it is fixable, the article says about the need for combat training.

      it also says that in fact for a relatively short time Kuznetsov can’t take more than 7 cars into the air - again, I would like to see a comment that knows how true this is.


      This is easily refuted by a commonplace calculator.

      IMHO, there is a common underestimation of the problem of creating catapults. In fact, today they are only made by Americans.


      The prototype was made at the Proletarian plant in 1990, I even saw a photo.

      It is more correct to attribute Kuznetsov to training and combat ships and to his primary combat tasks include participation in expeditionary campaigns, and not the fight against the AUG and NATO aviation in the north.


      One doesn’t interfere, it’s enough to have several aviation regiments with different training
      1. Avior
        Avior 21 December 2019 10: 38
        +2
        . This is easily refuted by a commonplace calculator.

        I have a calculator, but there we are talking about real flight support options
        Is there any information how much realistically, but not theoretically, can quickly take to the air?
        The prototype was made at the Proletarian plant in 1990, I even saw a photo.

        30 years ago?
        Forget it means everything is new
        Yes, and that version never really lifted planes into the air, the maximum cart on the ground, and what happened then And how suitable it is for real use, no one knows
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 December 2019 12: 48
          -1
          In my opinion, such teachings never existed at all, but we can estimate the veracity of what is written on Twitter.

          3 starting positions, with pre-installed airplanes + 3 aircraft behind the gas detectors can be installed at positions in 10 minutes at most, another aircraft can be pumped out to the runway so that it starts at its own thrust. Total we have 7 aircraft. Then - the start, the first three take off from the lifts once every 30 seconds, for a total of 1,5 minutes, then in two or three minutes the next three rolls onto the stops to the starting position, the last on its engines follows the gas pickup, another 1,5 minutes on start, and then the same cycle for the last aircraft.

          total for cars pre-installed on the deck - 1,5 + 3 + 1,5 + 3 = 9 minutes.

          If a bike about 7 airplanes and no more were real, then the first of those flying up to this moment would have to be led up to the glide path.

          Which is clearly nonsense.

          But how many cars can actually rise in one take-off, when operating, for example, a radius of 350 km is an interesting question.
          And I would like for him to be raised at some exercises.

          30 years ago?
          Forget it means everything is new
          Yes, and that version never really lifted planes into the air, the maximum cart on the ground, and what happened then And how suitable it is for real use, no one knows


          It seemed to be pulled by a plane on the ground, but without taking off from the ground into the air. Nevertheless, even so - far from zero. We will not start from scratch.
          1. Avior
            Avior 21 December 2019 13: 21
            +2
            this is all theory, but how is it in reality?
            someone for some reason wrote exactly 7.
            that's how it looks there
            1. The key parameter of a floating airfield is how many aircraft and how long it is able to lift into the air. What air power can an aircraft carrier concentrate over the sea?

            According to the results of the first military service of Kuznetsov, representatives of numerous research institutes held a special closed scientific conference. The main conclusion of research and testing of all ship systems was disappointing. It turned out that the simultaneous rise with TAVKR more than seven aircraft - is unsafe. In other words, Kuznetsov is not able to safely service more than seven aircraft taking off from it simultaneously. All discussions about the possibility of a massive ascent from the TAVKR of the entire wing - well, or at least 24 devices - are just naval tales.

            https://t.me/s/voenvz?q=%23%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8F
            I, of course, understand that there are neither signatures nor seals, but I have not seen evidence to the contrary
            Yes, there is something to read without it, not as the ultimate truth, but simply for information
            It seemed to be pulled by a plane on the ground, but without taking off from the ground into the air. Nevertheless, even so - far from zero. We will not start from scratch.

            specially rummaged, only carts
            once argued on this subject with Andrey and Chelyabinsk, somewhere there are links, too lazy to rummage
            1. timokhin-aa
              21 December 2019 14: 16
              -1
              I, of course, understand that there are neither signatures nor seals, but I have not seen evidence to the contrary
              Yes, there is something to read without it, not as the ultimate truth, but simply for information


              The opposite is proved by the calculator.

              Seven is the level of Chakri Narubet.

              And even the carts are far from zero. There is something to build on anyway.
              1. Avior
                Avior 21 December 2019 15: 59
                +2
                A calculator is a theory
                And practice is practice
                1. timokhin-aa
                  21 December 2019 17: 21
                  -1
                  There were no exercises on ultimate productivity, so seven is no less than theory than not seven.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 22 December 2019 09: 41
                    +1
                    Maybe we just don’t know what?
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      22 December 2019 14: 37
                      -1
                      There is a probability, but I think that the Navy in one form or another would give some information, or it would leak.

                      But she is not - not at all. Given the fact that after the collapse of the USSR, we never had a 100% ready-made regiment, and still a mess on the flight deck, most likely they just never tried.
                2. LeonidL
                  LeonidL 22 December 2019 19: 36
                  0
                  Calculated! How cute in the age of AI! Well done Mr. Timokhin!
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    22 December 2019 21: 32
                    -1
                    Each task has its own tool.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 20 December 2019 09: 18
    +2
    the idea of ​​basing him in the North Sea was especially touched .... on a barrel, probably, or in the Baltic, exactly three centimeters of his draft is less than the depth of the sea channel ..... however, any burden can be placed somewhere so as not to interfere .. But not in the sea!
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 20 December 2019 21: 28
      +2
      Of course, we remember your dislike for surface ships, but here you are probably right. The aircraft carrier in the Marquise puddle will look ridiculous. And this is at best, at worst they will land him aground at the very first attempt to give full speed and we will have another megaproject. Deep water canal from Kronstadt to Arkhangelsk. wassat
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 21 December 2019 17: 21
        -1
        Cruise liners with a displacement of 140000 tons enter St. Petersburg.
      2. timokhin-aa
        21 December 2019 17: 22
        -1
        The aircraft carrier in the Marquise puddle will look ridiculous.


        And who said that it needs to be driven there? You have some kind of meaning seen in the written apparently.
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 21 December 2019 19: 39
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          And who said that it needs to be driven there? You have some kind of meaning seen in the written apparently.

          So you said it! laughing

          Are you sure that Kuznetsov can squeeze through even the Danish straits under a bridge? You recall that the unfortunate Baltic battleships of the type of Sevastopol in the amount of four pieces, all the war stood at the base in Helsingfors leaving only for exercises, but at the same time had six (6!) Naval accidents and several months of repair at the docks. With a displacement of only 23 thousand tons. Poor Rurik II, through the efforts of Byakhirev, brought 40 tons of Baltic pebbles in his belly and repaired for six months in the Kronstadt dock with a displacement of only 17 thousand tons. And you, without batting an eye, recommend transferring an aircraft carrier of 53 thousand tons to the Baltic .. Do you not like aircraft carriers so much that you decided to finish it off completely ??

          Well, there’s a separate question for the air group .. If they don’t know how to fly on a polar night, then why are they needed at all !?
          1. timokhin-aa
            21 December 2019 21: 39
            0
            So you said


            Do not indicate the place in the text?

            Are you sure that Kuznetsov can squeeze through even the Danish straits under a bridge?


            The height of the navigable span of the Bolshoi Belt Bridge is 65 meters, the overall height of Kuznetsov is 64,5, taking into account the draft with normal VI, at max. upset somewhere 62,5. Must pass.

            And you, without batting an eye, recommend transferring an aircraft carrier of 53 thousand tons to the Baltic ..


            Have you definitely read the article you are commenting on? And he is not 53000 tons, he is more.

            Well, there’s a separate question for the air group .. If they don’t know how to fly on a polar night, then why are they needed at all !?


            And why do we need people who do not know how to fly airplanes? Why are military schools and institutes needed? Why spend kerosene on preparation? Can't a cadet fly? Nafig it back to the citizen, business something.
            Let only those who can already take the plane into the air and lift and land back arrive.
            Yes?
            1. Saxahorse
              Saxahorse 21 December 2019 22: 21
              +1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Do not indicate the place in the text?



              Are you sure you are re-reading your article before publishing? Or again, literary blacks?

              2. Why do we need a drama about the impossibility of conducting combat training during the polar night? The ship is also mobile. It can be transferred to the North Sea, can be transferred to the Baltic Sea. What prevents, for example, from transferring “Kuznetsov” to the Baltic, there they can receive air regiments, train pilots in take-offs and landings on an aircraft carrier, day and night, flying in conditions as close as possible to combat ones - but in a calm Baltic? With sunrises and sunsets, not a polar night?
              1. timokhin-aa
                21 December 2019 23: 02
                -1
                What I don’t like about people is the reluctance to think, along with the obsessive desire to speak out.

                What is "Marquis's puddle" in your opinion?
                1. Saxahorse
                  Saxahorse 22 December 2019 20: 52
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  What I don’t like about people is the reluctance to think, along with the obsessive desire to speak out.

                  Please look in the mirror .. I reminded you that the battleships were in Helsingfors (Helsinki).
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    22 December 2019 21: 33
                    +1
                    You comment on what the article did not have and is not. And with enthusiasm, with a twinkle, fun.

                    Well, who is to blame for you?

                    From principle, I will not point you to a mistake until you find out what the Marquis of Puddle is and where it is.
                    1. Saxahorse
                      Saxahorse 22 December 2019 23: 11
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      You comment on what the article did not have and is not. And with enthusiasm, with a twinkle, fun.

                      Are you delusional or have you really not read "your" article? I quoted you a whole paragraph, but as I see it still doesn't get it ..
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        23 December 2019 11: 09
                        +1
                        It doesn’t reach you that the Baltic Sea is not the Marquise Pool (part of the Gulf of Finland)
                      2. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 23 December 2019 21: 56
                        -1
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        It doesn’t reach you that the Baltic Sea is not the Marquise Pool (part of the Gulf of Finland)

                        Is that all you have to say to justify your ridiculous idea?
                      3. timokhin-aa
                        23 December 2019 23: 02
                        0
                        What a ridiculous idea?
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 20 December 2019 10: 33
    +4
    in most attacks, surface ships took the first blow (which proves their ability to survive under air strikes), but the bulk of the Argentine aircraft were destroyed by the carrier-based Harrier at the exit of the Argentines from the attack, which allowed the British to win the war of attrition between the Royal Navy and aviation Argentina.
    In our life, not all logical chains are straightforward. The British ships took the blows on themselves, but their ability to survive does not prove this, the Harriers did a lot of things there, but it is difficult to consider this activity a success, and despite this obvious set of fiasco on the English side, they won. Normal life situation. Actually not the first time. Take the same Vietnam. On all sides, the Americans had complete superiority, everywhere they were more effective and efficient - but they lost.
    Until now, one has to listen to the opinions of admirals that the operation of a large ship in the North is somehow a special problem. But why is this not a problem with icebreakers?
    This is just a fire theme! In general, I think that increasing the combat capability of the northern fleet should not begin with the construction of an aircraft carrier, not with the recruitment of air regiments. We need to start with sorting (roughly speaking). I think everyone can imagine how any of the military towns in those parts looks visually. Who does not represent - can google. And compare with how the Norwegian villages look literally 200 kilometers from our "Vidyaevs" and "Polar". This comparison will be lethal. And even without this comparison, a quick glance at the atmosphere of our northern towns is trash, post-apocalyptic. You can't live there! It is impossible to live in such conditions, it is a mockery of people. A jetty for an aircraft carrier - yes, we do. But we must start with the fact that sailors and officers should live no worse than the Norwegians. And it's not only about asphalt, a communal apartment, but also about the fact that it's stupid to paint houses in bright colors like those of the Norgs! After all, this is everything for the people on whom the life of the whole country depends, the life of all officials in Moscow - and they live in the most difficult climate in a terrible atmosphere of devastation.
    Why are shipboard regiments not permanently based in some service-friendly region?
    Because if the regiments are based in a region convenient for service, then all of them will be located in the Krasnodar Territory. This is our country. And the naval regiment should be based in 10 minutes of flight from its carrier. And the fact that the region is not convenient for the service, so it is necessary to correct the "devastation" in another place. Make it convenient! Arrange! The air regiment can be transferred to Krasnodar, and the civilians who live there do not have to create "convenience for the service" or what?
    The third problem remains - where to build.
    Why the author did not remember about "Sevmash" I do not understand. The only living plant in the country that works without stopping and knows how to do everything in general. Form giant blocks of hulls, drive metal in large volumes, know how to work with the atom and with turbines, there is all the infrastructure, there is a reserve in areas, there is an open exit to the ocean, while the boundaries of potential friends are extremely far away (obviously farther than in Kerch or the Baltic ). Make a new "aircraft carrier" shop instead of the White Sea naval base. This is a minimum of cost and time. Or, again, the "uncomfortable" climate? So it is necessary to emigrate to Key West then, and not think about aircraft carriers. We have 90% of the country in such a climate - settle down where it is given from above, or die out.
    1. Avior
      Avior 20 December 2019 11: 17
      +1
      . Take the same Vietnam. On all sides, the Americans were completely superior, everywhere they were more effective and efficient - but they lost.

      Not sure if this is a valid example.
      Losing the Americans in Vietnam is the political decision of the Americans themselves.
      It has nothing to do with combat capabilities.
      If the British decided not to send ships to the Falklands, or recalled them during the conflict, they would also lose
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 20 December 2019 11: 39
        +3
        Quote: Avior
        Losing the Americans in Vietnam is the political decision of the Americans themselves.
        That is, if the Americans had made a political decision to win in Vietnam, then they would have won? laughing
        1. Avior
          Avior 20 December 2019 12: 09
          +1
          Without any doubts
          Even if nothing would remain of Vietnam
          Actually, if you are in the know, formally they just left there
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 20 December 2019 12: 16
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            Without any doubts

            Well, this is again a kind of "spherical in a vacuum" scenario with nuclear bombings sucked out of your fingertips. In practice, they lived there for almost 10 years under the conditions of a political decision to "win" and nothing happened. Because in practice, efforts to achieve victory are not commensurate with the value of possible success. Vietnam in those conditions was not possible to win. No way.
            Quote: Avior
            Even if nothing would remain of Vietnam

            Not much is left of him. If you recall how much damage was done to the ecology of this small country.
            Quote: Avior
            Actually, if you are in the know, formally they just left there

            Yes, I know. Such a purely formal dropping of helicopters into the ocean from aircraft carriers. Little nothings of life. Just gone. Voluntarily.
            1. Avior
              Avior 20 December 2019 13: 49
              0
              They did not need nuclear weapons for this
              It was enough political will
            2. Avior
              Avior 20 December 2019 15: 26
              +3
              . Such a purely formal dropping of helicopters into the ocean from aircraft carriers.

              You confuse cause and effect
              Event dates look
              hi
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 16
      +1
      Because if the shelves are based in a region convenient for service, then all of them will be located in the Krasnodar Territory. We have such a country. And the naval regiment should be based in 10 minutes of flight from its carrier.


      Meaning? What is the military sense in this? If the AB performs combat training missions on it and so there is an air group, if there are exercises on rotation of air groups, then the okiap can be in the north, but the rest of the time it can really be in Krasnodar, I don’t see any problem.

      Why the author did not remember about "Sevmash" I do not understand.


      Because we need to build not only aircraft carriers.
  • Arthur 85
    Arthur 85 20 December 2019 11: 38
    +1
    Five years on a turbine. Stunned.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 17
      +1
      This is from the decision to the readiness for mass production.
  • exo
    exo 20 December 2019 12: 03
    +1
    A good, in my opinion, objective article. Interesting, but in the North we do not have a shipyard that can build an aircraft carrier? The same, Severodvinsk. But nuclear powered ships can be built in St. Petersburg. Fortunately, their height and draft are not a problem for the city of Bridges.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 20 December 2019 12: 05
    0
    In many ways I agree with Timokhin. However, I strongly disagree with the conclusions that new capacities are needed only for aircraft carriers. But what about modern bulk carriers, LNG carriers, tankers? Their sizes are similar to aircraft carriers. And what is important, such vessels are constantly in demand and are in demand.
    Although the author is simply not in the subject as he is more attached to the navy
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 20 December 2019 22: 40
      -1
      What, how and what is a person who does not have a naval education, who is not and has never been a naval officer, or an officer in general, "tied" to the Navy?
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 December 2019 09: 18
        +1
        This is you to yourself, right? I have at least a certificate for weapons, you can’t even see this. laughing
  • iouris
    iouris 20 December 2019 12: 19
    +1
    A country with a population of less than 250 ... 300 million people. cannot develop. First, give a scientific forecast of the quantitative and qualitative structure of the population in ten to fifteen years. After that, it will be possible to talk about the future of the state and its fleet.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 19
      +1
      Are you talking about South Korea? Or about what? There are THREE countries in the world, with a population of more than 300 million people.
  • Maxwrx
    Maxwrx 20 December 2019 12: 42
    -1
    95 billion could be a very real amount.
    it burned not 4 good 3-room apartments (150 meters each is a rarity), but 600 square meters. And burned for a whole day.
    There was nothing particularly valuable, but there is the case itself, the metal. And if it is recognized as unsuitable for operation, then you will have to cut out a whole piece to build a new one and reconnect everything (stretch all the cables)
    When the British lengthened their aircraft carriers, their repair cost up to half the cost of a new one. Given that a new blacksmith would be worth $ 5 billion, $ 1,5 billion is a third of the cost. When compared with the British, the overall logical price.
    Again, if the commission declares the part of the corps unsuitable, while this is all fortune-telling on coffee grounds
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 20
      +1
      And if it is recognized as unsuitable for operation, then you will have to cut out a whole piece to build a new one and reconnect everything (stretch all the cables)


      The cable routes there had to be changed under the contract, and such a fire is not enough to lose strength.
      1. Maxwrx
        Maxwrx 23 December 2019 19: 09
        0
        We are not specialists to reason enough or not. I rent a room 450 meters and I can imagine the volume of fire and it seems very large. In fact, a tenth of a ship of the same level burned and burned for a day. There will be no metal strength there, the question is whether the entire part will change or only this compartment will be cut.
        1. timokhin-aa
          23 December 2019 21: 26
          +1
          Do not invent please. In the absence of pressurization, the temperature of the fire in a confined space may not be sufficient to lose the structural properties of steel.
          1. Maxwrx
            Maxwrx 23 December 2019 23: 43
            0
            Well, how can I say, as I specifically read now, they mainly use st3, it is not structural in any way, but unlike st 45 it is cooked and processed faster and cheaper. Throw a piece of st3 into the oven for a day and take it out after a day (be sure to stew it sharply, and not cool down) and compare it with another piece. St3, the melting point is 1300 ˚С, the combustion of fuel oil without pressurization is 1125 ˚С (+/- depending on the composition), there is not much difference.
            1. timokhin-aa
              24 December 2019 12: 16
              0
              combustion of fuel oil without inflation - 1125 ˚С (+/- depending on the composition), not much difference.


              There fuel oil was poured in the hold and burned on 120 squares, in the remaining places the change houses and cable routes burned. In addition, you forget about such an important thing as the flow of air to the fire. In confined spaces, the combustion temperature is determined precisely by the presence of an oxidizing agent, in our case, atmospheric air.
              It could not be missed there, which means that the combustion temperature was typical for fires in confined spaces, usually it’s 700-900 degrees, we will take 900 adjusted for fuel oil.
              The next point that you did not take into account is the good heat transfer mentioned in the article. The fire with cable channels did not just heat a "piece" of steel - it heated a piece of steel weighing tens of thousands of tons. Heat transfer from steel is very good and the heating communicated to the structural elements of the ship was immediately "transferred" further along the structure of the ship, reducing the heating of the steel structures in the place of heating.

              As an everyday example - find a large monolithic object made of steel, for example, an excavator bucket, pour a bucket of fuel oil on it, set it on fire and add fuel oil to the fire for several hours, and then just throw combustible waste there - cardboard for example - such an example is much closer to a fire at "Kuznetsov".

              In the worst case, you will have to cut a piece of skin a hundred tons and digest it on the old power pack. Although I doubt even that.
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 20 December 2019 12: 49
    0
    Those who influence everything receive dividends from everything, but they are not personally responsible for anything

    Here the men settled. I would like that. It is possible without influence, only dividends.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 12: 54
      +2
      They weren't put there in the dashing nineties for that. The guys work quite hard, and the results are obvious, for example, the disruption of the modernization of 3rd generation submarines in the late 90s, an eight-year delay in the adoption of UGST torpedoes, the delivery of the Boreyev fleet to the fleet, with a state where they are unable to use modern torpedoes (that the same UGST or for example UET), the successful sabotage of the modernization of minesweepers in 2008-2013 - they had to plow like damned.

      But it seems that "at the top" they are beginning to ask questions, and whether this is all sabotage.
  • S-400
    S-400 20 December 2019 12: 53
    +3
    A lot of letters, started for health, finished for peace :(
    Quote:
    Of course, we must keep in mind a possible war with the United States and its allies.

    Of course they should NOT. God forbid, there should be a conflict "with the United States and its allies" about "Kuzya", as a combat unit, you can forget, its combat value in a serious conflict is zero within the margin of error.

    "Kuzya" is needed precisely to demonstrate the flag and for a hypothetical (for now, but who knows) local turmoil a la the British-Argentine conflict. And that's where he will be needed and how!
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 20 December 2019 22: 38
      -3
      So I wrote about it! Well, just "VO" acts as a platform for people who are hungry for sea battles like the last century and are not at all afraid of an atomic war, such cheerful militarists. But they read articles and comments everywhere and easily use them as an illustration of the bestial aggressiveness of the Russians. What are Timokhin's passages about the occupation of Norway! About mining the Baltic! Yes, just a gold mine for the local media! ... Maybe this is the main goal of numerous opuses?
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 December 2019 09: 22
        0
        For reference - an analysis of Leonidl's personality from his own words and his personal confession of why he is on "VO" - here:

        https://topwar.ru/165313-fregat-perri-kak-urok-dlja-rossii-sproektirovannyj-mashinoj-massovyj-i-deshevyj.html#comment-id-9923471

        do not succumb to the provocation of Leonidle.

        This is now your signature on every comment, Leonidle. laughing
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 22
      0
      Of course they should NOT. God forbid, there should be a conflict "with the United States and its allies" about "Kuzya", as a combat unit, you can forget, its combat value in a serious conflict is zero within the margin of error.


      No, it’s not true, his task is to win several tens of hours, during which the NATO BPA will not be able to freely sink the submarines leaving under the ice. At least within the framework of the current military doctrine.
      Well, in general, you can argue with you, but you need a card with intermediaries)

      "Kuzya" is needed precisely to demonstrate the flag and for a hypothetical (for now, but who knows) local turmoil a la the British-Argentine conflict. And that's where he will be needed and how!


      One does not contradict the other in any way.
  • 5-9
    5-9 20 December 2019 13: 29
    -1
    The fleet has been de facto turned into “naval units of the ground forces,” which cannot but affect the attitude of its senior officers to service.


    Ohhh ... poor thing, how they suffer, what a psychological trauma ... Create the Main Ministry for the Navy, transfer all the suffering officers to admirals .... and at the same time expose what bad dancers usually interfere with, or even through years, it turns out that even this prevents them from drowning, not burning, and further on the list ...

    Yes! And let them do what they want. Here the progressive Goering did not force his pets to fight in the interests of land rats .... they flew as they wanted! And as the planes ended, they created airfield divisions, which they also put on the OKH and OKV and fought to their satisfaction. Our seafarers (with ships we have worse than with planes with the Germans at the end of the war) are also reduced to marine divisions - let them decide for themselves what to do
    1. Avior
      Avior 20 December 2019 15: 29
      0
      It may be at OKH, but they entered OKV as an integral part
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 23
      +1
      And, which is characteristic - not a single counter-argument in essence.

      Can the fleet then saw at all?
  • Mikhail Drabkin
    Mikhail Drabkin 20 December 2019 15: 20
    +1
    Thanks to the author for a smart, thoughtful, reasoned article. In the subject, with a soul!
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 24
      +1
      Please.
  • karabass
    karabass 20 December 2019 19: 12
    -2
    He repairs that dead poultice. The kingdom of heaven is to our aircraft carrier. Exhausted
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 24
      +1
      Plus a year and a half to repair and nothing more.
  • Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 20 December 2019 20: 15
    0
    In general, the tonnage does not affect the pitching, the size of the ship, the ratio to the wavelength affects the pitching, and the size of the aircraft carrier relative to the wave is the size of the takeoff, the draft with the tonnage changes. By the way, the power plant can also be a steam turbine from a fuel oil boiler.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 26
      +1
      In general, tonnage does not affect the pitching, the size of the ship affects the pitching,


      They are interconnected.
      I somehow had a dialogue on whether it is possible to give a light AV the same pitching behavior as Kuznetsov with a rather high-ranking person from the 1st Central Research Institute with contours.

      The answer is no.
      1. Andrey.AN
        Andrey.AN 21 December 2019 14: 13
        0
        It's not about the contours, purely in size, if the wavelength does not exceed half the length of the ship, the wave does not pump the ship. And of course you can not go into international waters, I mean that sometimes the absence of this opportunity may not be convenient, you can’t go through the strait or take refuge in the bay from bad weather for repairs, you never know.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 December 2019 14: 47
          +2
          It's not about the contours, purely in size, if the wavelength does not exceed half the length of the ship, the wave does not pump the ship.


          Not a specialist in hydrodynamics, but I want to note that there are several types of pitching
          1. Andrey.AN
            Andrey.AN 21 December 2019 15: 40
            0
            And about the contours, you can add horizontal rudders on the nose, probably, like on a submarine.
  • Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 20 December 2019 20: 52
    0
    For an aircraft carrier, a nuclear power plant is not very convenient in international navigation, it is more difficult to agree on entering into someone’s waters.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 27
      +1
      You can simply not go there.
  • Tests
    Tests 20 December 2019 22: 01
    +4
    exo (alexei), dear, 10 years ago there was talk about the modernization of plants in Severodvinsk, but there was nothing further than chatter. The Olympic Games and the World Cup in football, they are more necessary for the country. "Vikramaditya" was taken out of the Sevmash filling pool only thanks to the skill of those who worked on the tugs of the Sevmash water workshop - the pool gates are very narrow ... Tomorrow Sevmash is 80 years old. Finally, they remembered and announced on television that the Sukhona floating dock, that orders from shop 55 to the pool are being taken out, like Brezhnev in the old Soviet joke "Star, very, very old, super old!" and it's time to seriously repair it. And then "suddenly" it turns out that the new boats will not be launched into the water ... In St. Petersburg, they have already handed over for scrap, for almost 30 years, many of the machines without which the nuclear submarine cannot be built, and there are no personnel, as, alas, in Nizhny Novgorod and Komsomolsk - on the Amur ...
    Yes, yesterday it was announced on city television that of the 50 guys who served in Sevmash in the research and production company of the first draft, 45 after the DMB, settled in Sevmash and work. Even though the personnel problem for the workers was solved, it pleases.
    On the Day of the Chekists, what else pleases and distresses. 1. Pleases! The city found the money and began bank protection at the house number 9 on the Kudma River Embankment (this is the first mortgage house built according to the Sevmash program for its employees), and then the sewer wells were washed up and one of them hung in the air, less than 10 meters remained to the asphalt, to the walls of the house - a little more ... 2. Upset! For some reason, the descendants of the Chekists did not ask questions to specialists from the capital construction department of Sevmash and the department of the chief architect of the city that they allowed the construction of a multi-storey building BEFORE bank protection at the river’s turn with our tides - ebbs and ice. The capital construction department of Sevmash in Moscow, 3 years after settling in the house, tried to beg money from OSK for the bank protection, to which it received a legitimate answer that the bank protection is designed first, then the shore is strengthened, and then, after 2 winters, after freezing and thawing of the soil, conduct surveys and consider how many floors you can put the house on and on what foundation.
  • LeonidL
    LeonidL 20 December 2019 22: 33
    -2
    The discussions on "VO" remind me historically of the events of the last century. Then, too, the praise of Mahan's school about "owning the sea" began - ended with Tsushima. Timokhin was in awe of this theory in one of his articles, but it worked and works for a very specific country - the United States and was first tested in conjunction with the Monroe Doctrine. Timokhin called the United States a continental power, the same as Russia. Only on the continent, the United States has no opponents and access to the ocean is everywhere and everywhere. And the RF? It is enough to look at the map - everything is completely blocked. After Tsushima, they decided to build the fleet anew ... they started, as always, with disputes, what is needed and more important than the GMSH or the MGSH? The situation after the first revolution is like a bastard - liberization, the Duma, freedom ... That is why all the "experts", from "talker birds" in the Duma to St. Petersburg intellectuals from jurisprudence, governesses and governesses, kaufers and polishers, were chatting ... "Well, of course, I'm not a professional in naval affairs, but I think ..." The plans were shocking in bulk - "the maximum plan was to build 40 battleships, 20 cruisers and 180 destroyers!" Replace battleships with aircraft carriers - does it look like anything? Another plan is, on the contrary, for the Baltic, 72 small (100 tons) destroyers and 30 (80 tons) submarines - such as bake more than a few. Admiral (future) Kolchak then also "noted" an innovation in theory: Abandon all ships of any class except ... battleships. "War at sea is waged by linen ships, all the rest is only a more or less useful addition" ... Replace with aircraft carriers ... It also reminds me of something ... and they blabbed it out until 1912 when, in fact, they began to do something. As a result, they made a kind of cross between the Baltic battleships of the first brigade and stood idly in Helsinfors and started revolutions ... and Goeben frolicked on the Black Sea due to the delay in the introduction of battleships. By the way, the only classic naval battle took place there, when the heroic Admiral Ebengard did not lure the German into an ambush of a brigade of pre-dreadnoughts, himself being on an old battleship that served as a decoy. In the same battle, the Russian artillerymen of the old battleships covered the German without zeroing in from the first salvo, he did not accept the battle and fled ... But the landing in the Straits, scheduled for 1916, was shifted to 1917 and ... covered himself with a statement cover. Provisional government of the next bird-talkers "war to the bitter end, ... but without annexations and indemnities"! It's amazing, why then should Russia fight? The Bolsheviks did not invent this "without". Such a small historical information about the "usefulness" of the public and amateurs in discussing strategy and tactics in-m business, shipbuilding and everything else.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 09: 29
      +1
      For reference - an analysis of Leonidl's personality from his own words and his personal confession of why he is on "VO" - here:

      https://topwar.ru/165313-fregat-perri-kak-urok-dlja-rossii-sproektirovannyj-mashinoj-massovyj-i-deshevyj.html#comment-id-9923471

      do not succumb to the provocation of Leonidle.

      This is now your signature on every comment, Leonidle. laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. bk0010
      bk0010 21 December 2019 21: 17
      -1
      My comment has disappeared, I repeat. After the "professionals" have done their work under Tsushima and in the RYA in general, it is not surprising that the public is worried about issues related to the fleet. At a minimum, this did not allow the naval money to be let down again on the grand-ducal whores, but forced to make a sane fleet, which, unlike the fleet of "professionals", was not sunk during WWI (although he did not achieve much success either, but with such a balance of forces in the Baltic this is normal).
  • g1v2
    g1v2 20 December 2019 23: 29
    0
    Not a fan of aircraft carriers and not a supporter of their construction, but the article put a plus. Purely for the argument. Logic is at least present. request
    Well, and so, in my opinion, Kuzyu should be transferred to the Pacific Fleet or to the Black Sea Fleet - where it is warmer and where the pilots will have at least some sort of raid. It is more logical for Pacific Fleet, since it is the ocean fleet. But the Black Sea Fleet is closer to possible places of application. But Kuzya does not fall under the convention, since he is not an aircraft carrier, but an aircraft carrier cruiser.
  • IC
    IC 21 December 2019 00: 15
    0
    In many ways, the author of the article can agree.
    Carriers and other large submarines are needed only for local wars, military diplomacy and parades. In today's big war, they will be immediately destroyed.
    Most of the participants in the discussion forget the main thing. The country's economy is in stagnation. No need to compare with China. It is also futile to try to compete at sea with the USA, which also make many mistakes in their fleet development program. But their defense budget is $ 700 billion.
    In the USSR there was enough money for the construction of a large fleet, but there was always not enough for the appropriate infrastructure for the operation and repair of the fleet. A pier for Kuznetsov, a typical example.
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 22 December 2019 19: 42
      0
      If you read my comments, you will see that I adhere to approximately the same positions.
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 21 December 2019 07: 18
    +1
    About a science fiction novel.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 21 December 2019 13: 46
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    In any case, the views on its combat employment in the Navy are now exactly that, and I generally agree with them, although KMK fot needs to slightly reduce optimism about efficiency. But on the whole, the direction of thinking is right

    That looks like this is not surprising. The idea of ​​a "fortress fleet" is "definitely Russian". So the fortress aircraft carrier appeared.
    But there are big doubts about the correctness of such thinking.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 December 2019 17: 25
      -1
      Well, in the case of a hypothetical clash with the United States, the deployment of submarines will need to be covered. Then "Kuzyu" could have been used in a different way, but first he must live up to this.

      Although, if you train well, you will probably survive.
  • LeonidL
    LeonidL 21 December 2019 23: 09
    -1
    Quote: bayard
    And to build aircraft carriers (if we decide) it is necessary precisely with a series. And it’s a dense series, then we’ll manage for 12-15 years (from the moment of laying the head one) ...

    In 12-15 years, can you imagine how armament and aircraft technology will go forward, how the geopolitical situation will change? Aircraft carriers are already floating targets. AUG works great against third world countries. And they even went against the DPRK, threatened ... but it turned out they joked like that, turned around, so what? Let the restored "Kuznetsov" play the role of a representative (it is not capable of more). Even if the Russian Federation tries to re-enter Africa very tightly, it will meet the Chinese who entered Africa for a long time ... Most likely, they will have to fight with them ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 December 2019 14: 42
      -1
      Carriers today are floating targets. AUGs work great against third world countries. And even against the DPRK they went, threatened ... but it turned out to be a joke like that, they turned and so what?


      And this man calls himself a retired naval officer, well, the joke is just some kind of joke.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 December 2019 21: 22
          -1
          Aircraft carriers, dearest Mr. Timokhin, rarities of the last century.


          The Navy has a different opinion on this.

          never serving a word at all


          You’re talking about this for yourself, okay? You are a sick person who at one time was stupidly not allowed even close to the military registration and enlistment office, because of complete medical unsuitability and incapacity. Do not align other people with yourself.
          And yes, my certificate ALLOWS me to have a weapon and a driver’s license, and yours DOES NOT ALLOW you to have the same thing.
          Catch the difference?

          In general, I normally counted you. You already do not deny laughing
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Connor MacLeod
    Connor MacLeod 22 December 2019 19: 53
    0
    Yesterday I wrote in the next branch, I repeat:

    Carriers are expensive ... We need to build landing helicopter carriers. On each side there is a battalion of marine corps with equipment and 10 attack helicopters. 3 landing ships land a brigade of marine corps with the support of the army aviation brigade. Landing is preceded by a massive strike with cruise missiles from ships and submarines. Here is a doctrine. Cheap and cheerful.

    https://topwar.ru/165981-dorogoj-nash-tavkr-admiral-flota-sovetskogo-sojuza-kuznecov.html#comment-id-9957100
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 December 2019 21: 26
      +1
      It is very difficult to fight like this. If there is no aviation, then the enemy, even with the wretched Air Force, will dominate in the air everywhere outside the coverage area of ​​naval air defense. With more or less sufficient numbers, he will be able to force URO ships to shoot anti-aircraft missiles in several attacks and then the entire fleet will turn into a target.
      You can fight without aircraft carriers in narrow "niche" situations. A good headquarters can create such.
      But the landing operation is not included in this list of possible situations. UDC is not a replacement for an aircraft carrier, it is UDC.
      Cruise missiles are also not a panacea, an adversary can disperse the aircraft during the threatened period and carry out its constant relocation to prevent it from catching on the ground.
      1. Connor MacLeod
        Connor MacLeod 22 December 2019 22: 33
        -1
        Well, the fact of the matter is that most developing countries tend to have very modest air forces. The bill goes to dozens of aircraft. Especially when it comes to countries torn by internal armed conflicts.

        How many Assad airplanes are for example? How much does Haftar have? twenty? thirty? In short, a significant portion of such air forces can be destroyed by a sudden missile strike. Silently concentrated several diesels or one Ash tree and struck. With one volley of Ash, for example, you can neutralize the 20 closest air bases to the landing site (30 calibers each).

        Even if after such an attack the enemy will have a dozen aircraft, they are unlikely to be able to pose at least some threat to our strike expeditionary group. One frigate carries 32 missiles, corvette - 16 missiles. Three frigates or two frigates and two corvettes are 96 missiles in total. Well, let's see what’s going to end faster with our rockets or with their planes?
        1. timokhin-aa
          23 December 2019 11: 14
          +1
          How many Assad airplanes are for example? How much does Haftar have? twenty? thirty? In short, a significant portion of such air forces can be destroyed by a sudden missile strike. Silently concentrated several diesels or one Ash tree and struck. With one volley of Ash, for example, you can neutralize the 20 closest air bases to the landing site (30 calibers each).


          You are actually proposing to build a fleet capable of fulfilling strictly one task - the creation of a bridgehead on the territory of some insolvent state.

          I note that it can throw serious gangs of savages on this bridgehead, for the destruction of which aviation will be needed in advance.
  • Connor MacLeod
    Connor MacLeod 22 December 2019 20: 16
    -1
    Another quote:

    Well, there’s an option for the poor - for the marine corps battalion with equipment we already have Ivan Gren, we continue the series of up to 9 ships (3 each for the Black Sea Fleet, Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet), we can only figure out a small helicopter carrier with a displacement of 10 tons - 000 tons, which will carry 15-000 helicopters, without paratroopers (one each at the Black Sea Fleet, Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet). It is quite realistic.

    https://topwar.ru/165981-dorogoj-nash-tavkr-admiral-flota-sovetskogo-sojuza-kuznecov.html#comment-id-9958883
  • Connor MacLeod
    Connor MacLeod 22 December 2019 20: 23
    -1
    Possible scenario for the use of an extreditional shock group:

    Libya for example. An internationally recognized government keeps on snot under the blows of the Haftar army. You can equip the PNE with weapons as much as you like, this will not change the situation, it’s like a bottomless pit. We need a military operation against the LNA formations. Such a scenario, for example:

    We land 3 battalions of marine corps in the rear of the Haftar troops (for example, Tobruk, Benghazi, Sirte). The operation is supported by the Black Sea Fleet operations team in the Mediterranean Sea, delivering missile strikes against targets along the coast. Mainly on direction-finding command points, demoralizing and disorganizing the enemy. Attack helicopters make their way to the Marine Corps, grinding the enemy’s manpower and armored vehicles. We reinforce the bridgeheads due to the transfer of troops from the territory controlled by the PNE. We expand the bridgeheads, cut the supply lines and split the Haftar troops into several groups isolated from each other.

    A couple of weeks after the start of the operation, Haftar will request peace. The situation turned over 180 °.

    https://topwar.ru/165981-dorogoj-nash-tavkr-admiral-flota-sovetskogo-sojuza-kuznecov.html#comment-id-9959181
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 December 2019 21: 28
      +1
      We supply Haftar with weapons and mercenaries.

      Well, in general, the situation looks like this - seeing all this, "Haftar", for the sake of appearance, lifts a couple of MiGs into the air, after which the aviation of our western "partners" begins to work - anonymously. In the style of "flying green men".

      As an option.
      1. Connor MacLeod
        Connor MacLeod 22 December 2019 22: 55
        -1
        There is more and more information that he is cooperating with the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, which is tantamount to cooperation with the Americans. I won’t be surprised if all these trips to Russia are just a dust in the eye and at the very last moment he breaks us. Please note that Qatar and Turkey support the PNS. Most likely some gas interests are involved here - for example, there are plans to build a gas pipeline from West Africa, and they probably want to block this project. By the way, this project is also not profitable for us. Not to mention the fact that international law is on the side of the PNS, so it would be nice to support a legitimate government and strengthen stability in the region.

        As for the "flying green men", well, something is not visible either in Ukraine or in Syria ...
        1. timokhin-aa
          23 December 2019 11: 16
          0
          not in Syria ...


          We arrived there suddenly and immediately with the means of controlling the air situation.
          And you offer something completely different.
          It’s unlikely that they will give us more to pluck the prey from the American claws like this. They also learn from mistakes.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 26 December 2019 22: 43
    0
    Restoration of Kuznetsov does not prevent anything !? And the lack of a dock also does not interfere? the author is simply in his repertoire - I’m the most-most here, and you are sitting, listen to me.
  • rica1952
    rica1952 19 January 2020 14: 03
    0
    All these projects with an aircraft carrier are not realistic for today's Russia for two not yet overcome reasons: 1 the Russian economy is in stagnation and there is no way out of this situation for Russian there is no money. 2 technically, the Russian Federation is not ready to build such military equipment due to lack of technology in many respects. The disparity of tasks solved by this technique is not unique. Therefore, all these projects will remain on paper until better times.
  • remal
    remal 18 February 2020 02: 32
    0
    Thus, Russia has a chance in five years to get the right turbine for a light aircraft carrier

    For 5 years, Russia has a chance to get Kuznetsov after repair, in about the same form that he had before.
  • kamakama
    kamakama 27 October 2020 13: 59
    0
    Forgive me, I still did not understand, about the transfer to St. Petersburg and back, either an air wing or a ship - the Baltic Sea from the point of view of tactics is a lake, like Crimea is an island.
    1) During one such trip, the straits are closed and everything ... a big target in the middle of a puddle
    2) Excuse me, but how to train pilots to fly in the polar night? or is it meant to be used only on a polar day?
    3) Petersburg, equally (or even more) like Murmansk, is a border city. That is, when attacking the enemy, the air wing is interrupted right away (Pearl Harbor is straight), and the aircraft carrier is empty and completely useless. Well, any movements of the air wing to / from Murmansk are visible at a glance, as they occur along the border. Is that the point?