In the West, predicted the Russian Federation "the future without aircraft carriers"


The authors of the western military-political YouTube channel Covert Cabal criticized the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR in a new video. In connection with the recent fire on the aircraft carrier, they recalled the “long stories problems ”of the ship and from the very first minute they asked the provocative question that“ is it time to write off Kuznetsov? ”


A brief walk through the history of the USSR Navy, the review recalled that, unlike the American aircraft carriers created to dominate the seas, Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers were designed to defend the Union’s coast from NATO ships and submarines. Which in many respects determined their unusual appearance.

It is also noted in the West that although the Kuznetsov is not out of date at all - it is much younger than the first American Nimitz class aircraft carriers - there are too many problems with it. Frequent boiler failures, aircraft crashing into the sea, fuel spills and other incidents are mentioned. Particular attention is paid to the recent fire. The viewer was told that after every major accident in the press (obviously the western one), talk begins about the cancellation of the ship.


The reasons why the aircraft carrier remains in the Russian Navy, the authors saw several. And the very first they called "propaganda." It is noted that all the strongest powers have aircraft carriers - the United States, Britain, France, China, India.

Another reason, according to the channel, is to maintain the skills of the aircraft carrier cruiser team and specialists in shipyards for the construction of the next full-fledged aircraft carrier.

The authors of the channel completed their "research" with the conclusion: Russia has so far focused on the construction of submarines, frigates and corvettes.

And the future of the Russian naval fleet seen without aircraft carriers

- the author concludes.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Azazelo 26 December 2019 16: 45 New
    • 9
    • 7
    +2
    The West, something predicts everything, blames, sets the conditions ..... it would be better if we got down to business ....
    1. Hunter 2 26 December 2019 16: 50 New
      • 19
      • 19
      0
      Quote: Azazelo
      The West, something predicts everything, blames, sets the conditions ..... it would be better if we got down to business ....

      Vanging is generally a win-win and profitable business ... you need to learn from it!
      I predict the West - Kirdyk! I’ll clarify the time later ... laughing
      Building a modern Aircraft Carrier for Russia is a matter of the country's naval prestige!
      1. Nkv3 26 December 2019 17: 03 New
        • 21
        • 20
        +1
        You are not the first to predict.
        171 years ago, the two founders of socialism in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” also predicted the inevitable collapse of capitalism, and, consequently, of the West, along with mattresses.
        Almost two centuries have passed since then ...
        But capitalism is still waiting for its kirdyk ...
        1. Yarr_Arr 26 December 2019 17: 21 New
          • 15
          • 2
          +13
          Igor, you must admit: capitalism, which was 200 years ago, and how Marx described it, has long disappeared.
          So you are only partly right ...
          A lot (both quietly and obviously) of the bourgeoisie were adopted from socialism.
          1. rocket757 26 December 2019 17: 26 New
            • 17
            • 2
            +15
            Quote: Yarr_Arr
            A lot (both quietly and obviously) of the bourgeoisie were adopted from socialism

            I clarify, they didn’t adopt it, but the working class snatched the rich from blood.
            Capitalism provided for the workers nothing but almost slave labor!
        2. Ross xnumx 26 December 2019 19: 20 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Quote: Nkv3
          171 years ago, the two founders of socialism in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” also predicted the inevitable collapse of capitalism, and, consequently, of the West, along with mattresses.
          Almost two centuries have passed since then ...
          But capitalism is still waiting for its kirdyk ...

          May I ask? You gave this example for what? To imagine capitalism as some kind of immortal future for humanity? I can give you one example too. Throughout their existence, the ideologists of capitalism present their economic structure as something most perfect and democratic.
          However. As soon as the “predictable” crisis begins, these guys move from words and beliefs to military coercion, shooting and bombing ...
          No matter how much the world exists, parasites have always been, are and will be in it. Only it is unlikely that they will be of paramount importance in the world.
        3. hrych 26 December 2019 22: 50 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          For 200 years, such a miserable feudalism lasted more than a millennium, and the slave-owning formation totals several millennia ... And in the 20th century capitalism merged with socialism. Therefore, there is a social network in the countries, in the form of pensions, benefits, holidays, etc. There is an 8-hour working day, etc. the present system can no longer be called pure capitalism. The planning system and subsidies are working at the state level. And socialism did not die, but capitalism changed beyond recognition.
      2. Vita vko 26 December 2019 20: 06 New
        • 13
        • 5
        +8
        Quote: Hunter 2
        Building a modern Aircraft Carrier for Russia is a matter of the country's naval prestige!

        Prestige is certainly cool! Pensioners and the poor will be something to be proud of in the gap between thoughts, where to find work, how to feed the children and bring them to school. By your logic, it’s still possible for the sake of prestige to propose making islands in bulk, otherwise Russia has a "small" territory.
        Therefore, one should not think about prestige, but about expediency, in particular, how much the carrier fleet will help to defend Russia's interests in the far sea zone.
        1. bayard 27 December 2019 01: 35 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: Vita VKO
          Therefore, you need to think not about prestige, but about expediency

          yes Exactly .
          Quote: Vita VKO
          how much the carrier fleet will help defend Russia's interests in the far sea zone.

          If he - the carrier fleet appears, it will help not "by how much", but "by how much", because the effectiveness and combat stability in the presence of aircraft carriers in the KMG increases several times.
          But in order for the effectiveness of our fleets to be “multiplied” by including aircraft carriers in their composition, this fleet of the distant sea and ocean zone needs to HAVE. And in order to have it, it is necessary to BE ABLE to build it.
          And be able to.
          After stagnation of several (three) decades, it is impossible to take and immediately begin to rebuild cruisers, destroyers and aircraft carriers. The industry must master the production of ships of different classes in increasing (displacement and complexity), and not vice versa.
          And with the restoration of competencies in this very necessary matter, we have serious hiccups. First of all, for GEM for them. By the availability of shipyards ready for this and a sufficient number of trained personnel.
          Therefore, the sequence of works on the laying of ships is seen as such:
          - MRK, corvettes for BMZ;
          - frigates, BDK for DMZ;
          - destroyers, UDC for health;
          - aircraft carriers and large maritime transports-skaters at the final stage of the program.

          The first three points are already being implemented and will be largely implemented in the next 10 years.
          The last item is possible to implement no earlier than in 8 - 10 years. In the sense of laying these ships.
          You cannot build a fleet in another way - it is being built for a long time, in stages, it requires the necessary infrastructure and costs a lot of money.

          And aircraft carriers are needed, without them, the fleet in far seas has nothing to do. Therefore, "Kuznetsov" will be repaired and returned to service.
          Relishing its problems is not worth it - the ship did not receive proper care and repairs all its already considerable, but not too burdened with services life. Replacing boilers and overhaul of power plants, air finishers, replacing avionics and shipboard systems will extend the life of the ship and the possibility of a full (!) Service.
          In order to transfer the baton to new ships of the revived aircraft carrier fleet of Russia in 15-20 years.
          These are the requirements of life, and therefore it will be so.
          On another it is impossible .
          Enough money.
    2. smart ass 26 December 2019 17: 17 New
      • 10
      • 13
      -3
      It's time to write off, we don’t need aviks
      1. bayard 27 December 2019 01: 53 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        If you have aircraft carriers and you do not need them - write off. Who is bothering you?
        And if you
        Quote: Clever man
        It's time to cheat

        Then I’m just wondering why you are still pulling?
        You have big problems with their repair and maintenance.
        You have incomplete air groups on them, and the technical condition of the available aircraft does not shine.
        In your country, a permanent crisis, the budget deficit per year is at least a trillion of your wonderful dollars.
        Government debt exceeded GDP and became "non-repayable."
        Society is split, inflated and is on the brink of civil war.
        You are not loved in the world and are burdened by you.
        Your military is losing morale and professional skills.
        ....
        Therefore, it is not surprising that you yourself acknowledge that
        Quote: Clever man
        Aviki we do not need


        WRITE OFF. yes
        It will immediately become easier for you.
        And everything will be fine with you. good
    3. Karaul73 26 December 2019 18: 18 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      But you don’t see that they are just busy and busy? Strengthen the European grouping, bring discord into the family of Slavic gosudartv, start a butch in Asia.
  2. Snake catcher 26 December 2019 16: 48 New
    • 15
    • 9
    +6
    You don’t untwist us the USA for an arms race .. We can do without aircraft carriers.
    But you have tens of trillions of foreign debt! These things are not cheap AUGs and are now useless ..
    So, if you only frighten Somali piers, but not Russia, China, the DPRK, etc.
    1. Vladimir1155 26 December 2019 21: 08 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      American "external" debt is not a problem for America, because they owe it to their billionaires, owners of several banks of the US Federal Reserve, and the whole world also gives them, and Russia also gives them a third of the GDP, .., so there are rumors the fall of the US is premature. Although they will collapse, but when we do not know .... because it is planned to create a great Israel, and the EU and the USA into the furnace ....
      1. bayard 27 December 2019 02: 23 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: vladimir1155
        because it is planned to create a great Israel, and the EU and the US in the furnace ....

        If the US and the EU are in the furnace, then excuse me, who will contain and defend Great Israel?
        It is one thing to exist on the money of Germany with reliance on American military power and the formation of a military budget from American aid ... and quite another ... all by ourselves ...
        After all, you say that the USA and the EU are in the furnace. repeat
        And in what territory will this grandiose Empire be created?
        In the Middle East Palestines, they have little land.
        And with resources not very ... For the Empire.
        Q \ In Ukraine?
        But you have to invest there (for the sake of the Empire) very ... really invest ... But if the EU - FSE, Germany - FSE, "in the furnace"!?
        Who will pay for this wonderful banquet?
        Russia ?
        China?
        If the US and the EU are in the furnace?

        And it is even beneficial for them to overwhelm the US financial system - for the sake of writing off their debts and restarting the world finance system.

        But I remember the thesis of the “General Crisis of Capitalism” from the course of POLITECONOMY ... it was a long time ago, but the deceased is still awake and does not lie down in a coffin ...
        Till .
        After all, everyone is mortal.
        Even empires.
        Even the great ones.
        Even the empires of David and Solomon ...
    2. valeryb 27 December 2019 09: 50 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Zmeelov
      You don’t untwist us the USA for an arms race .. We can do without aircraft carriers.
      Yeah, this is how the mihan gets up and how it turns around and ... nothing. mikhan he mikhan is.
  3. bars1 26 December 2019 16: 50 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    ,, Kuznetsov ,, was created for the air defense of surface ships carrying heavy anti-ship missiles, designed to combat the AUG USA. You can say the cruiser guard.
  4. Cowbra 26 December 2019 16: 54 New
    • 14
    • 6
    +8
    Guys, I’m not a sailor and not a flyer even once. So I’ll say nonsense, well. which I think. So, the Russian Federation. Well, suppose. aircraft carrier. Where is the basing? You can’t enter the Black Sea at all. In the Baltic, an aircraft carrier ... Well, you understand, get it from any coast. Northern Fleet? Yeah. and precisely - "in the mouth." Where will an aircraft carrier get there?
    Well, do we need them?
    1. Hunter 2 26 December 2019 16: 58 New
      • 15
      • 11
      +4
      Quote: Cowbra
      Guys, I’m not a sailor and not a flyer even once. So I’ll say nonsense, well. which I think. So, the Russian Federation. Well, suppose. aircraft carrier. Where is the basing? You can’t enter the Black Sea at all. In the Baltic, an aircraft carrier ... Well, you understand, get it from any coast. Northern Fleet? Yeah. and precisely - "in the mouth." Where will an aircraft carrier get there?
      Well, do we need them?

      Pacific Ocean! Asia is the most dynamically developing region of the world! In the Asia-Pacific region there are a lot of mutual insults and contradictions, as well as territorial claims! So at KTOF - Aircraft Carrier, It definitely will not be superfluous! hi
      1. Snake catcher 26 December 2019 17: 53 New
        • 11
        • 5
        +6
        Quote: Hunter 2
        So at KTOF - Aircraft Carrier, It definitely will not be superfluous!

        When there is extra money, then I agree .. And it’s just a promotion of Russia to an arms race that could undermine Russia economically! Are you shouting about it here?
        You are kind of military and you must understand how expensive it all costs
        1. Ross xnumx 26 December 2019 19: 31 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Zmeelov
          When there is excess money, then I agree ..

          But in Russia there is no extra money? Ha ha ha ...
        2. valeryb 27 December 2019 09: 55 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Zmeelov
          And so it’s just the promotion of Russia to an arms race that could undermine Russia economically! Are you shouting about it here?
          That’s exactly why these aircraft carriers, and why airplanes? Whether it’s a cart or combat sofas. Well Meehan, and what to do, Meehan he Meehan is.
    2. kit88 26 December 2019 17: 36 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      Quote: Cowbra
      You can’t enter the Black Sea at all.

      And why is that?
    3. New Year day 26 December 2019 17: 44 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Quote: Cowbra
      You can’t enter the Black Sea at all.

      Why?
      Although formally aircraft carriers do not have the right of passage, in fact aircraft carriers of the USSR exited the strait. On the other hand, call the ship not an aircraft carrier and there are no problems. Violations of the Montreux doctrine have been more than once:
      2008 - during the armed conflict in South Ossetia, an American military ship with a significant displacement entered the Black Sea. In this regard, the question arose of the applicability of the Montreux Convention
      In February - March 2014, the USS Taylor frigate frigate spent 33 days in the Black Sea instead of those allowed by convention 21.
      1. Vladimir1155 26 December 2019 21: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        you can go ..... but why go there? there that there are no airfields in the Crimea?
      2. Cowbra 27 December 2019 15: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Although formally aircraft carriers do not have the right of passage, in fact aircraft carriers of the USSR exited the strait.

        Stop talking nonsense! Therefore, they are not aircraft carriers. A cruisers. For the aircraft carrier through the Bosphorus does not have the opportunity. According to that crap Montreux contract
        Thus, formally, aircraft carriers do not have the right to pass through the straits, since article 10 stipulates the conditions of passage only for light surface, small and auxiliary ships, and specifically stipulates that besides them, only battleships (article 11) and submarines (article 12) ) Aircraft carriers are de facto excluded from the list of ships entitled to pass the straits.
  5. evgen1221 26 December 2019 16: 55 New
    • 15
    • 12
    +3
    With the continuation of the anti-Russian policy of our authorities, the country will remain not only without Aviks, but also without the state itself.
    1. Sidor Amenpodestovich 26 December 2019 17: 13 New
      • 14
      • 16
      -2
      As of the end of this year, the share of new weapons in the Russian Armed Forces amounted to over 68%, and reached 82% in the nuclear triad. The exercises are constantly held.
      Are these also elements of the anti-Russian policy of our authorities?
      Or do they lie, and in fact everything is very bad there too?
      Or does one Kuzhugetych work, and the rest only saw and pulled away?

      Oh, got it! Prepare the army to suppress riots! The bloody regime is preparing to defend itself bloodyly. Yes?
      1. Стена 26 December 2019 17: 23 New
        • 19
        • 4
        +15
        The number of ground forces of the Russian Federation is 280000 people, the number of the Russian Guard is 340000 people.
        1. Alexey RA 26 December 2019 17: 56 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          Quote: Wall
          The number of ground forces of the Russian Federation is 280000 people, the number of the Russian Guard is 340000 people.

          And let's divide the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation even more and compare the number of WGs with motorized rifles. laughing
          Do not forget that the OMON, SOBR, VVO, FSUE Okhrana, the naval units of the former explosives, and the aircraft of the explosives are now also RG.
          Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Protection” of the Ministry of Internal Affairs alone is 53 thousand people in the state and 40 thousand people really. And this is at the time of inclusion in the WG, and after all, after that the following were transferred to the WG-shny FSUE:
          - FSUE “Departmental Protection of Industrial Facilities of the Russian Federation” (18 thousand employees).
          - FSUE Svyaz-Security (number of 15653 people in 72 branches).
          - FSUE “Departmental Protection” of the Ministry of Energy of Russia (more than 18000 employees in 41 branches).
          - FSUE Departmental Protection of the Ministry of Agriculture of Russia (more than 300 employees).
      2. rudolff 26 December 2019 17: 36 New
        • 13
        • 3
        +10
        Do not repeat other people's nonsense, even if they come from the highest officials. Up to 68% in the Navy, as before the moon in an unambiguous pose.
        1. Sidor Amenpodestovich 26 December 2019 17: 39 New
          • 3
          • 11
          -8
          RF Armed Forces as a whole.
          You should be careful.
          Where is your data from? What reliable source? Can you vouch for the authenticity of the first and second?
          1. rudolff 26 December 2019 17: 44 New
            • 12
            • 1
            +11
            We are talking about the Navy here, and Putin said about 68% of the Navy at the beginning of this month. And about 70% next year. That's for the reliability of these fake numbers, I definitely can not vouch.
            1. Sidor Amenpodestovich 26 December 2019 17: 53 New
              • 3
              • 6
              -3
              According to the data at the end of this year, the share of new weapons in the RF Armed Forces amounted to over 68%,

              Quote from my comment.
              Do you think that since it is about the fleet, a step to the left, a step to the right is an attempt to fly away, i.e. get off topic?
              And then, 68 and 70 are not numbers, but numbers. The numbers are from 0 to 9, and all that comes next is numbers.
              PS You did not name your source.
            2. Svarog51 27 December 2019 04: 05 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Rudolph, my respect hi As soon as we talk about aircraft carriers, there are two opposite points of view. You can not even read. But I, in fact, wanted to ask another. Here "Ulyanovsk" was built in Nikolaev, it is with the nuclear power plant under the project. And how were they going to equip this GEM? And how to navigate through the straits? It seems that according to international rules, he can’t be in the Black Sea? Please explain, otherwise my picture doesn’t fit in my head. Well, purely hypothetically, if completed. request
              1. rudolff 27 December 2019 10: 01 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Good afternoon! This question, even among experts in the law of the sea, will cause a dispute. Or a fight.
                Remember when Dmitry Donskoy and Peter the Great came to Kronstadt on Navy Day? Then, too, spears were broken, many lawyers argued that such a call of two warships from a nuclear power plant into the Baltic Sea is impossible. Especially a strategist. And nevertheless came. And they build atomic icebreakers there. Although the neck is not much larger than the Bosphorus in some places.
                Now about Black. If you do not recall all kinds of environmental agreements, prohibitions, the main documents governing the passage of the Black Sea straits - three. These are the famous Montreux, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Turkish Regulation. Montreux was signed in the 30s, so there is no talk of any ships, ships with nuclear power plants. The UN Convention does not prohibit the passage of ships from nuclear power plants through foreign terrorvody. A condition is the presence of documents on board confirming the safety of the installation. You may need permission to pass. But the Black Sea straits are not even terro-waters, they have international status. But the Turkish Regulation is really malicious. But, firstly, it began to operate somewhere in the 90s, if my memory serves me right, and in the 90s, changes were made to it. And secondly, it contradicts Montreux and is not quite legal from the point of view of international law. This is all jurisprudence. But in fact ... the Soviet-Turkish brawl. You give us permission to pass the aircraft carrier, we will give you some kind of contract or political concession (Greeks, Cyprus, Kurds ...). Do you think we have called the current Kuznetsov a cruiser purely to deceive the Turks? They are not such fools to buy a couple of dozen Granites on board. Just agreed, brawl.
                Regarding the nuclear power plant, remember the history of the Northern Sea Route. Which is a lighter carrier. It was built in the 80s. With nuclear power plants. In ... Kerch.
                Something like this. But experts in the law of the sea would better explain everything to you. I'm not special.
                what
                1. Svarog51 27 December 2019 10: 10 New
                  • 6
                  • 0
                  +6
                  Thank you. hi Now it’s more or less clear what’s what and how. good Actually, I don’t need all the details, it was important to understand the principle itself. And I didn’t remember about the Baltic, but now it’s clear from it.
  6. Kerensky 26 December 2019 17: 03 New
    • 6
    • 8
    -2
    Well, I would say this: an aircraft carrier is a jetty for planes. Russia now has opportunities grab and hold any airdrome anywhere our ball. In three waves (air defense suppression, landing and landing) we can create an “aircraft carrier” even in the middle of the jungle, even in the middle of the ice.
    Correct me if not right ...
    1. Hunter 2 26 December 2019 17: 11 New
      • 11
      • 4
      +7
      An aircraft carrier is, first of all, the basis of the Navy's Attack Group, consisting of Many Combat Ships (with the tasks of PLO, Air Defense, ABM, Assault Rocket, and Landing). The ability to demonstrate the flag and conduct combat operations in any region of the world, by the forces of the navy.
      1. New Year day 26 December 2019 17: 49 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Quote: Hunter 2
        The ability to demonstrate the flag and conduct combat operations in any region of the world, by the forces of the navy.

        not a very unimportant factor!
      2. Vladimir1155 26 December 2019 21: 14 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: Hunter 2
        Aircraft carrier is, first of all, the basis of the Navy's Striking Group, consisting of Many Warships

        where did you see them?
        Quote: Hunter 2
        The ability to demonstrate the flag and conduct combat operations in any region of the world, by the Navy

        what for? the flag can demonstrate both the BDK and the frigate, and the rest ... don’t tell my slippers
      3. Kerensky 26 December 2019 22: 12 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        An aircraft carrier is, first of all, the basis of the Navy's Attack Group, consisting of a set of Warships (with missile, air defense, missile defense, missile and landing assault missions).

        Alex.
        These ships need a “tail to corner” aircraft carrier.
        These ships are NOT. And we know very well that before the arrival of the general, "foreplay" (a couple of colonels) arrives. Are you determined to build an aircraft carrier and ... keep it against the wall in anticipation of the readiness of an escort. Sabotage and sabotage smelled!
        The ability to demonstrate the flag and conduct combat operations in any region of the world, by the forces of the navy.

        Is this the goal of the AUG? Demonstration of the flag? Grooms can't?
        I thought warships were needed for battle.
        Here you are talking about military operations. Where could we deploy AOG (as a tool) and what will we do there?
    2. New Year day 26 December 2019 17: 45 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Quote: Kerensky
      Correct me if not right ...

      and then what? special
      Quote: Kerensky
      ... anywhere in our ball
      ?
      BDK is not enough to supply this point
      1. Kerensky 26 December 2019 22: 19 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        BDK is not enough to supply this point

        We have transport aircraft. She is already there. There is an outfit of forces to capture and hold the airfield. That is why we need to fence a bunch of sides if they have no use. How many years will the AUG creation program take?
        1. pin_code 27 December 2019 04: 12 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          how much will the same transport planes and tankers for them be for you to land troops anywhere in the world? and fighter cover? and, again, you need to refuel ... and so the aircraft carrier with together with the UDC and the escort will come out cheaper and the combat stability is higher by multiple.
          1. Kerensky 27 December 2019 12: 03 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            and so the aircraft carrier with together with the UDC and the escort will come out cheaper and the combat stability is higher by a multiple.

            Andrei.
            Will not work. He is vulnerable even in the AUG. It is enough to damage the deck and he will go home .... Yes, and you need to have the infrastructure at home ...
            how much will the same transport planes and tankers for them be for you to land troops anywhere in the world?

            Landing way? 100 boards. You can talk about 100 sides per day. For the first day (day D, hour H, and full F), you can transfer air defense / missile defense systems and close the topic. The same S-400 and Armor will unfold a couple of hours after leaving the ramp. We have experience of landing brigades / divisions.
            1. pin_code 27 December 2019 12: 10 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              and transport aviation with refuellers is not vulnerable? I don’t argue about infrastructure. but no one says that it needs to be built right now. after 5-8 years at best. Yes, and the deck still needs to be damaged to begin with.
              1. Kerensky 27 December 2019 12: 17 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Yes, and the deck still needs to be damaged to begin with.

                Have you tried? So, for a laugh .. It is covered with cunning cement. If a chisel and a hammer ... A couple of decimeters a day can be picked ...
            2. pin_code 27 December 2019 14: 28 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              who will let you plant 100 bots a day? I’m not sure that there will be greenhouse conditions, otherwise it may turn out that 5-10 will “land”, and the rest will fly home. and this is an optimistic scenario.
    3. Good_Anonymous 27 December 2019 20: 13 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Kerensky
      Russia now has the ability to capture and hold any airdrome anywhere in our ball.


      That’s right in any? Kennedy Airport in New York?
      1. Kerensky 28 December 2019 09: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        That’s right in any?

        Basil. Yes. Reykjavik can be borrowed in two hours. Kennedy? Also a couple of hours. To occupy is not a thing - it is important to keep.
        1. Good_Anonymous 29 December 2019 14: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Kerensky
          . Kennedy? Also a couple of hours.


          And how? Tell us a little about it. Only not at the level of "100 boards per day", but taking into account the available forces.

          Quote: Kerensky
          To occupy is not a thing - it is important to keep.


          You said that this is possible. How exactly?
  7. Podvodnik 26 December 2019 17: 04 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    Quote: evgen1221
    With the continuation of the anti-Russian policy of our authorities, the country will remain not only without Aviks, but also without the state itself.

    What is such an anti-Russian policy? What are you talking about? How can something that is not by definition be anti-Russian? Domestic policy? No, I have not heard. He opened the window, not visible.
  8. Lord of the Sith 26 December 2019 17: 06 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    And how many “western partners” have icebreakers, for example, eh?))
  9. 1536 26 December 2019 17: 10 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    And without ships, submarines, boats and tugboats ... However, in the West they forget that Peter I, for example, smashed the Swedish fleet in the Baltic Sea on oar galleys. And he smashed well.
    In the West, they are going to fight until the end of the century? They do not learn anything except good cuffs and pendels, but for this aircraft carriers are definitely not needed.
    1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 21: 13 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      The era of aircraft carriers will end when hypersonic anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missile launchers appear - there is little to wait.
  10. knn54 26 December 2019 17: 12 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    If you disable the ONLY shipyard in the US that builds and repairs nuclear carriers, what future awaits the same Yankees.
  11. rocket757 26 December 2019 17: 30 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    The aircraft carrier is a very specific system, as part of the colonial fleet it was justified. Now, without radical changes, its leading role is not so obvious.
    We will see how this technique will change, what role it can play in the future.
  12. Igor Borisov_2 26 December 2019 17: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    My opinion, and this opinion I voiced on the forum. I was at the naval salon, then there were no sanctions yet. The Dutch offered their Johan de Witt project for much less money. We did not see any Mistral in St. Petersburg ....... This ship is similar to the M, Moskalenko and I. Rogov, which we profiled ..........
  13. Igor Borisov_2 26 December 2019 17: 53 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Before you build an aircraft carrier, build three destroyers and three frigates .........
  14. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 17: 53 New
    • 2
    • 7
    -5
    And what for they are not needed! We need a BDK with a battalion-tactical group on board and 3 Ka-52s (a kind of advanced Ivan Gren) and in addition to it a helicopter carrier with a displacement of 10-15 Ka-52s equal in displacement (I don’t know exactly how many helicopters can be crammed onto it) and a company of special forces. Even with these ships the mountains can already be turned!
    1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 21: 14 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Russia needs large transport ships and helicopter carriers.
      1. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 21: 22 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        At first, Ivan Gren and a small helicopter carrier will come down. drinks
  15. mark2 26 December 2019 17: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    . In the West, predicted the Russian Federation "the future without aircraft carriers


    With proper alignment, the East can guarantee the future of the West without aircraft carriers.
  16. lopvlad 26 December 2019 17: 58 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    predicted the Russian Federation "the future without aircraft carriers"


    the presence or absence of aircraft carriers acquires or does not acquire a fateful character for a state, depending on the territorial location of that state, the territories where that state wants and projects its military force, the tasks specified in the military doctrine of the state.
    Analyzing all of the above, you can arrange the country as necessary for them aircraft carriers
    1) this place, of course, is occupied by the USA, for which the absence of aircraft carriers = the absence of the USA.
    2) this place, if not strange, is occupied by China.
    3) the two countries are divided by England and France.
    4) Russia is located only here. For projecting military force, for example, off the Syrian coast, we have enough ordinary ships, and for what poses a danger to us, it’s not necessary to sail far. Enemies and opponents, during the period of “democracy and freedom of speech,” pulled their infrastructure to ours shores by sea and to our land borders by land.
    What should we send the aircraft carrier to the shores of the United States and hope that it will frighten someone there and why the USSR, without its aircraft carriers, almost until its destruction successfully projected its military force around the world?

    At the moment, Russia is actually a besieged fortress (NATO has located its military bases around the entire perimeter of Russia, where it could) in which it is necessary to strengthen the gaps in defense + do not forget about the "long arm" which is guaranteed to strike the enemy from air and space, as well as from under water (nuclear triad). The aircraft carrier in a hypothetical military conflict between the US and Russia will be the highest priority target for the enemy.
    So that Russia does not build aircraft carriers at all? No, it’s necessary to build, so in the modern world the presence of aircraft carriers, largely due to the fact that they were advertised by the United States, has become a sort of standard of prestige and a sign of a superpower. Only countries with serious industrial potential and financial resources are able to build and maintain aircraft carriers later. The cost of maintaining an aircraft carrier is directly a vacuum cleaner that draws money from the treasury. Therefore, it is necessary to build but not in the near future.
  17. withoutreverse 26 December 2019 18: 04 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    In the West, predicted the Russian Federation "the future without aircraft carriers"
    -In Russia, they predicted the West "a future without hypersound" and that.
    1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 26 December 2019 20: 25 New
      • 2
      • 6
      -4
      Have you already drawn your pictures in Russia? And then in every news about the Russian hypersound of photography of American products, it is embarrassing.
  18. Inspector 26 December 2019 18: 23 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    With the advent of hypersonic rockets, this is the cult of Cargo. Their place is next to the thunderstorm of the seas with battleships.
    The real weapons are Poseidons.
    1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 27 December 2019 19: 38 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      In which Russian museum can I see the battleship? The Museum of Hats has seen, this is not.
  19. Terenin 26 December 2019 18: 36 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    In the West, predicted the Russian Federation "the future without aircraft carriers"

    Well, if the west predicted belay

  20. Alexander Naydenov 26 December 2019 19: 25 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    we don’t need these huge targets to death. one aircraft carrier costs one caliber missile on the deck - and there is no aircraft carrier. aircraft carriers - this is the last century.
  21. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 20: 28 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    After the fires on aircraft carriers America and Enterprise, with hundreds of casualties among their crews and emergency parties from other ships, the Yankees did not write them off and continue to build aviks to this day ... but they are silent about their losses, as if they weren’t as if the Miami nuclear submarine had not burned down in 2012, followed by decommissioning, as if there were no other jambs
  22. Arkon 26 December 2019 20: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    How many aircraft carriers do we need? One? Two, just in case?
    Well, we had the "Kuznetsov" in Syria. Did something help? No. As there are no foreseeable tasks to fight anywhere without a foothold on earth. Well, simply, if we do not have a bridgehead on earth, then we have nothing to do at this point on the globe.
    Russian geopolitical positioning is fundamentally different from American. We simply do not need aircraft carriers for our current and future tasks.
    One or two - just in case. And that’s it. And we’ll build one or two, somehow ...
  23. malyvalv 27 December 2019 05: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the form in which the current aircraft carriers exist, they are not needed. With the development of modern communications and UAVs, huge aircraft carriers are an anachronism. Even the most modern Ford and Queen Elizabeth are built keeping in mind the thought of the multitude of manned aircraft on board. This is the last century. Good targets and no more.
    An aircraft aboard an aircraft carrier is usually nothing more than a return first stage for launching missiles. The UAV will cope with this no worse, it will land back more accurately than any pilot. Given the lack of need for a pilot to be on board, it will be much smaller than a conventional airplane and not require any catapults. And accordingly, a giant-sized aircraft carrier is also not needed. From this point of view, Kuzya is much more in line with the appearance of the aircraft carrier of the future. He just needs a UAV filling. Long-range reconnaissance at a speed similar to that of the MIG-25. UAV type UAVs for air defense. Attack drone type Hunter capable of launching a dagger. While the filling is brought to mind, it is better for Kuse to stand at the pier. Nothing wrong.
    1. Pustogolov 27 December 2019 13: 39 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      See that he does not rot in your joke.
  24. IC
    IC 27 December 2019 13: 36 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Regarding the reason for the presence of Kuznetsov in the fleet, the authors are right. Similarly, this applies to fleets of other countries. Kuznetsov’s use in the far zone is absurd. He did not design for this.
    Given the fuel consumption of the ship’s vocational school, it should be accompanied by a large tanker and a powerful escort. And also have the appropriate base abroad.
    For a serious war, aircraft carriers have long lost their significance. Chasing the United States is pointless science fiction given the stagnating economy.
  25. Archivist Vasya 27 December 2019 14: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And what is this about that? Yes, we will not have aircraft carriers after Kuzi, and to hell with them is not critical. You just need to build other ships - frigates, destroyers and cruisers. And faster, more!
  26. nikolai55soot 27 December 2019 15: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I think it’s too early to rejoice at you: I proposed two secretive (secret) aircraft carriers; a) an underwater full-profile airdrome that rises from the depths of the ocean in an alarm in a matter of minutes - will receive, refuel, hang up weapons and send even a Tu-160, and in a matter of minutes it will sink and lie on the ground (wait); b) an aircraft carrier of 20 diesel submarines, which are docked in a matter of minutes; c) an aircraft carrier from the link (or regiment) of the TTS (heavy transport aircraft), which are docked in the air (like the ISS) .... Rejoice!
  27. ABM
    ABM 27 December 2019 17: 03 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: nikolai55soot
    I think it’s too early to rejoice at you: I proposed two secretive (secret) aircraft carriers; a) an underwater full-profile airdrome that rises from the depths of the ocean in an alarm in a matter of minutes - will receive, refuel, hang up weapons and send even a Tu-160, and in a matter of minutes it will sink and lie on the ground (wait); b) an aircraft carrier of 20 diesel submarines, which are docked in a matter of minutes; c) an aircraft carrier from the link (or regiment) of the TTS (heavy transport aircraft), which are docked in the air (like the ISS) .... Rejoice!


    BUT THAT COULD BE IN THE SPACE DIRECT FROM UNDER WATER! (admiringly)
  28. Radikal 27 December 2019 21: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Azazelo
    The West, something predicts everything, blames, sets the conditions ..... it would be better if we got down to business ....

    How? winked
  29. Radikal 27 December 2019 21: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Hunter 2
    Quote: Azazelo
    The West, something predicts everything, blames, sets the conditions ..... it would be better if we got down to business ....

    Vanging is generally a win-win and profitable business ... you need to learn from it!
    I predict the West - Kirdyk! I’ll clarify the time later ... laughing
    Building a modern Aircraft Carrier for Russia is a matter of the country's naval prestige!

    Hooray. sad
  30. MPK105 10 January 2020 00: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I look confidently into the future. We will have a mighty fleet, an ocean fleet. To all enemies to spite.