Aircraft carrier for Russia: faster than you expect


Light aircraft carrier "Vikrant" may well serve as a model for Russia


According to some indirect signs, the top political leadership of the state has moved from dreams of a hypothetical aircraft carrier to specifics. There is no talk of designing a new ship yet, but now the possibility of building it is being discussed already from practical utilitarian positions, and not “in general”. In this regard, a comment.

The need for carrier ships in local wars was perfectly shown by the Americans in Vietnam. With all the superiority of the US Air Force in the number of delivered to the target aircraft weapons aviation The Navy had a tremendous advantage in the flexibility of its application and, if necessary, in the response time of the aircraft to ground forces.

There were two points in the Gulf of Tonkin: Yankee Station, on which aircraft carriers operating against North Vietnam were deployed, and Dixy Station, with which aircraft operated over South Vietnam. Often, it was the Navy's planes that covered the newly discovered target faster than anyone: they were closer to flying than the Air Force's planes from ground-based air bases.

Prior to this, during the war in Korea, carrier-based aircraft actually saved South Korea from occupying the DPRK. At a certain point, the troops of South Korea remained virtually without airfields, and the only "place" from which the troops at the Busan bridgehead could be supported by aircraft were American aircraft carriers.

In the USSR and Russia, with our defensive installations, the role of an aircraft carrier has always been seen different - firstly, as an instrument of defensive warfare and the defense of its territory, and secondly, as an air defense carrier, first of all whose air group must fight enemy aircraft. These views were summarized in the article. “Coast Defense Carrier”. True, in the end, our only aircraft carrier had to fight as a strike, striking along the coast. Unsuccessfully.

Some comments regarding this ship are also given in the article. “The carrier issue. The fire at Kuznetsovo and the possible future of aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation. ”

This, however, is not about Kuznetsov. It's about the opportunities that Russia has in building a new aircraft carrier ship. They were also briefly mentioned in the second article mentioned. Due to the fact that the question is beginning to be translated into a practical plane, we will study it in more detail.

Big and atomic?


There is a rule: the larger the carrier, the better. Firstly, the larger the dimensions, the lower the influence of pitching and less restrictions on flights. Secondly, the larger the deck, the less accidents and other incidents on it. Both of these claims have been repeatedly verified by US Navy statistics.

This applies to Russia more than to anyone else. We have the most difficult climatic conditions in those theater of operations, where aircraft carriers will have to operate in a defensive war, with the strongest excitement - the Barents and Norwegian Seas. We still have in service the Su-33, very large by all standards aircraft, which requires space on the deck.

And purely for tactical reasons, a powerful air group with heavy aircraft for various purposes, including auxiliary ones, can be deployed on a large ship. The light ship has problems with this. A strong air group is much more useful in the struggle for supremacy in the air and at sea than a weak one, this is obvious.

In addition, Russia is a world leader in the production of nuclear power plants for surface ships and ships. Right now, tests are underway for the newly built Arctic icebreaker with an atomic power plant, and this power plant is built as a fully electric one - the nuclear reactor feeds steam turbine generators that run electric motors. This is a serious backlog for warships of the future, although for an aircraft carrier, the icebreaker’s power plant is, of course, small and weak. But who said that you cannot create a more powerful one? Nuclear power plants give Russia the theoretical opportunity to create a ship with a displacement of 70-80 thousand tons, which in terms of efficiency will be comparable to American aircraft carriers and will surpass all the rest. There is only one problem with such a ship - Russia cannot build it, without regard to existing technologies and available components.

Those who monitor the military shipbuilding in our country know that almost no projects were built without any serious problems and serious difficulties. Even a seemingly completely domestic “Karakurt” came across a shortage of diesel engines, and now also a “muddy” lawsuit from the Ministry of Defense to the Pella plant, which in fact showed the ability to build warships in Russia quickly. Even small BMZ ships in our country are born in agony, either due to the incomprehensible technical policy of the Navy, or due to the fact that it begins to be influenced by the corruption interests of certain influential defense industry workers, up to the appearance of new ship projects, a chronic inability is imposed on it In the recent past, the Ministry of Defense has established more or less sane financing of shipbuilding programs, collapse among subcontractors, collapse of cooperation between suppliers from other CIS countries and Russian enterprises, sanctions for deliveries ku of components, and much more.

Everyone is to blame there, but the result is important to us: even simple projects in these Augean stables are born with pain and suffering. It’s out of the question to jump immediately to such a difficult task as an aircraft carrier, but even promptly restoring order in this area will not help to remove all organizational issues instantly.

Russian shipbuilding is undergoing a stage of degradation of control and truly large projects (and the 70-80 thousand-ton nuclear aircraft carrier is a very large project), it "will not master".

The second problem is that such a ship is nowhere to build. It’s just nowhere, and that’s it. What is needed to build such a ship? Firstly, a slipway or dry dock of appropriate sizes, with a supporting surface strong enough to support the mass of the ship. In the case of the dock, after it is filled with water, the draft of the ship should be less than the depth of the water in the dock. Further, it is necessary that in the water area or basin where the ship will be taken out of the dock or rolled off the slipway, there should also be sufficient depth. If this is not the case, then you need an appropriate floating dock. Then, sufficient depth should be at the construction wall, where the ship will be completed, and in addition, it should have a suitable length. For reference, it is worth mentioning that the American AVMA Enterprise, the first nuclear aircraft carrier in the world, similar to the hypothetical ship described, had a displacement of approximately 74000 tons, had a length of 342 meters, a waterline width of 40, a maximum of nearly 79, and a draft of 12 meters.

It is also desirable to have cranes with a loading capacity of 700-1000 tons to assemble the ship in large blocks, and the route for the ship to leave the plant at sea should not have obstacles limiting the height and draft of the ship, and should in principle be possible for a ship of this size.

The final touch - all this should be where there are allied enterprises, developed communications, labor that does not need to be imported from anywhere, where domestic steel can not be delivered very expensive. That is, frankly, all this must happen in the European part of Russia, otherwise the already expensive ship will become insanely expensive.

Today, there are no such shipyards in the European part of Russia. Moreover, there are no such shipyards that could be brought to compliance with the above requirements within a reasonable time and for a reasonable price. Most likely, we will talk about the construction of a new shipbuilding complex, moreover, a complex unnecessary for anything else - Russia will build any other ships without it.

The third question is purely military. For domestic fleet even the much simpler ship - “Kuznetsov”, is an organizational challenge of such strength that it is not clear who will defeat anyone - whether, after all, “Kuznetsov” and its air group will turn into a deadly combat vehicle, or the ship will slowly finish off, and without making it a full-fledged combat unit. In its current state, the Navy simply cannot master the Russian Enterprise and cannot control it.

And not without reason, many informed officers are confident that the construction of such a ship will take at least twenty years and will require unpredictable costs. But there may be design errors, the topic is something new for our country (again).

All these factors require the project as simple as possible, as little as possible, and preferably, at least a little familiar with domestic industry. And also - a feasible one for the development of the Navy, which, however, needs to be prepared for such a ship, putting things in order at all levels, and restoring centralized control, burning with red-hot iron those who found a synecure in the service and healing this type of aircraft as a whole. And, of course, the planes on it should fly if not the same ones that today can land on the Kuznetsov and take off from it, then at least their modifications.

All this sharply limits the choices, and in general, in fact, reduces them to one single one.

Russian "Vikrant"


In 1999, work began on the light aircraft carrier Wickrant in India. Russia took an active part in this program, and some documentation for this ship is available in the Nevsky Design Bureau. For the construction of the ship, of course, it is not nearly enough, but domestic experts have some idea of ​​the design of this ship.

The Wikrant, according to Western data, has a displacement of 40 tons, that is, it is about as heavy and large as the American UDC of the Wosp and America types. At the same time, its air group is almost twice as large and consists of MiG-000K airplanes mastered by Russian industry and Kamov Design Bureau helicopters. At the same time, up to twenty fighter jets are declared as part of the air group, which is very good, and incomparably better than any UDC with vertical lines.

The Vikranta gas turbine is fully gas turbine, it is equipped with four General Electric LM2500 gas turbines with a capacity of 27500 hp. each one. The turbines work in pairs on adder-gearboxes, and the latter on the valolin line, of which the ship has two. The advantages of such a scheme are its simplicity and unification - adder-reducers are much simpler than some CODAG-type reducers, where you need to synchronize a high-speed turbine and diesel, and the ship has only one engine type.

The power of one gas turbine engine of this ship is 27500 hp. This is the same as the domestic M-90FRU. Of course, to use the turbine as a march, it will have to be reworked, but it is much easier to create engines from scratch and the M-90FRU will serve as a base here.

The construction of a domestic version on domestic turbines seems to be much simpler from the point of view of where such a ship needs to be built.

As a plant where such a ship can be built, it seems most suitable, oddly enough, Baltic factory.

The slipway “A” of the Baltic Shipyard has a length of 350 meters and allows building hulls with a width of at least 36 meters, and with some reservations, a few more. Its carrying capacity is guaranteed to withstand the aircraft carrier, the length is also more than sufficient. The question is wide.


Stapel "A". The width of the hull on the slipway is up to 36 meters, if you move the cranes to the bow of the hull, more and more. Photo by Vyacheslav Stepanov

And here the construction of the Wikrant building speaks its word. We look in what form it was launched. In order to reach this stage, the Baltic Shipyard does not need any reconstruction at all, it can be done right now at the available facilities. The water depth at the outfitting embankment and its length are also sufficient for this building.


Wikranta hull on the water

The problem is how to finish building the ship further. "Wikrant" was completed at the dock, and without large and powerful cranes, as the Americans do or as they did in the USSR at the factory in Nikolaev. But we don’t have such a dock.


"Vikrant" after completion leaves the dock

The Baltic plant on the outfitting embankment has only portal cranes with a lifting capacity of 50 tons and a floating crane of the German company Demag with a lifting capacity of 350 tons. And sponsons will have to be mounted on which the flight deck and the "island" lie. Speech about the large-block assembly cannot go here. However, there is no way to diverge with the blocks especially on the slipway, but “almost nothing” will be afloat with the blocks.

On the other hand, it may make sense for this project to update the cranes and install a crane more powerful at the plant on the embankment near the outfitting wall - this will probably be the only thing that needs to be reconstructed to build a light aircraft carrier.

Is it possible, in the end, to complete the "Russian" Vikrant "at the outfitting embankment? Yes, it will just be difficult, much more difficult than assembling the whole thing on a slipway or at least in the same dock as the Indians did. We'll have to build the ship in small blocks or sections, raise them with a floating crane, weld afloat, it is possible to re-moor the ship. Maybe - a lot of times.

This will complicate the construction, make it somewhat more expensive, increase the risks for workers during the docking of hull parts, and increase the construction time. Alas, the price of infrastructure failure is usually just that. However, the construction of a light aircraft carrier by this method is POSSIBLE. In contrast to trying to repeat Kuznetsov, or to build a normal large aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant, a certain Russian Enterprise.

The next problem will be the passage of the ship under the western high-speed diameter.

The height limit for passage under the WHSD is 52 meters. In addition, a pipeline runs along the bottom of the Sea Canal, which limits draft to 9,8 meters. Thus, either the ship will have to be in these dimensions, or it will have to be completed after passing under the WHSD, as an option, to reinstall the mast with the radar with the same floating crane. The downside will be the inability to return to the factory without disassembly, if there is such a need ... well, this is a good reason to immediately make it right, so that no need arises!

One way or another, the construction of the ship in the Vicrant’s displacement, with a similar in power but domestic power plant, with the same air group and at a reasonable time at the Baltic Shipyard, is real.

There is, however, one problem that must be resolved before the first ruble is spent on the Russian “Vikrant”.

Contour problem


The Vikrant can be built at the Baltic Shipyard, there is some documentation for it, the engineers who participated in its development still work, the power plant can be quickly created on domestic turbines, it was created for serial Russian ship planes and using domestic components ... but it is too small for the Barents Sea.

By simply reproducing such a corps, Russia risks getting a ship that can be used in local wars somewhere in the south, but it will be useless to defend its territory. It will be wrong and you cannot do that.

The problem is pitching. In our latitudes, the sea waves are often too great. And the specificity of an aircraft carrier ship is that no rolling stock dampers are enough to minimize harm from it. Dimensions are needed, namely the length and width of the waterline and draft.

At the same time, it was experimentally established that these parameters at Kuznetsov are the minimum. And “Kuznetsov” has only one length along the waterline the same as “Vikrant” at the extremities. And the draft with a width, of course, is also greater.

Thus, we formulate the problem - it is necessary to build an aircraft carrier with a non-standard shape hull, in which the ratio to the dimensions along the waterline (main dimensions) to the sizes at the extremities would be completely different from that of the "Wikrant". In principle, this task cannot be considered unsolvable.

We're watching.

Aircraft carrier for Russia: faster than you expect

Above is a real "Wikrant", below is an approximate version with a "long" waterline

As you can see, even “eye estimation tells us that at least the length of the ship along the waterline is easy to increase. Of course, a drawing cannot be a guide to action, such things must first be estimated using calculations, then using models in a test pool, and nothing else. But the direction in which one needs to think is obvious, how obvious it is that at least partially the task becomes solvable. How long will the waterline increase? Compare.


As you can see, the reverse slope of the stem and the changed shape of the stern in theory make it possible to almost catch up with Liaoning, which, in turn, is slightly larger than Kuznetsov. Questions remain regarding width and draft. The slipway of the Baltic Shipyard allows you to build a hull that will be even wider than Kuznetsov’s waterline, but the GEM question intervenes - it should give speed, the ship can never be slow.

Draft is also a problem in some way - it cannot be lower than 9 meters, because otherwise the ship will not be held under the WHSD. This limitation is probably also surmountable, in the end, an icebreaker under the WHSD was carried out, although everything there was also “close to the bottom” of the draft. But here again, hydrodynamics can say its word ...

Thus, the necessary condition for the construction of such a "mobilization" aircraft carrier is the following.

It can and should be built if it is possible, due to non-standard design solutions, to provide contours with which the ship would have the same restrictions on the use of unrestrained aircraft as the Kuznetsov at smaller sizes and sufficient speed for a combat aircraft carrier. If studies show that this problem is solvable, then we can say that the “carrier rebus” in Russia has been solved. Imperfect, but with our economy, industry, organizational skills and technology, this will be almost a miracle.

If it turns out that the task is unsolvable, then for our society it will be a challenge of such proportions that in order to answer it we will have to radically change, creating another economy, industry, “covering” all our weaknesses in mentality, organizational abilities, and intellectual the level of both power and society.


Modern Russia will master the Wikrant, but the Russian Enterprise or Nimitz will be able to master only a completely different Russia. This option also cannot be considered unrealistic, we are one of the fastest growing societies on the planet, but it is better to leave the discussion of this option outside the scope of this article.

Thus, all of the above is true, correct and necessary if the problem of contours is solved. This is a matter of principle for the creation of a new domestic aircraft carrier. Without this, you should not even start.

Catapult


The fundamental difference between the "Russian" Vikrant "from the Indian should be the presence of a catapult launch. The dimensions and displacement of the ship make it possible to have a couple of catapults on it, and the amount of heat in the exhaust gases of four turbines of 27500 hp. each, it is quite possible to have a waste heat boiler of sufficient power for these catapults to work from it. Nonsense about freezing a pipe with steam at a temperature of 200 degrees Celsius is better left to children from kindergarten, but the main advantages of a catapult should be remembered.

Firstly, it is an opportunity to launch heavy aircraft, which immediately makes it possible to use DRLO aircraft, transport aircraft, tankers and anti-submarine vehicles on a ship, if all this is ever created. Without a catapult, the creation of such aircraft will be much more complicated and expensive, and their take-off weight will be seriously limited.

The second, and this is even more important in the case of Wikrant, is the reduction in the length of the deck required to launch the aircraft.

The "Vikrant" is shorter than the "Kuznetsov" and a very significant fraction of the length of the deck is reserved for it to start. For a ship of this size, this significantly complicates takeoff and landing operations and maneuvering on the deck, and, as a result, greatly reduces combat effectiveness. If there is even an opportunity at Kuznetsovo (technical, it’s not done at all) to provide takeoff from the front right starting position simultaneously landing another aircraft, then at Vikrant this is unrealistic.


One can also see how inconvenient it is to take off the ship now and how good it will be with a catapult


Another perspective is aircraft at launch positions. This is said to be "not an option"

Catapult in the nose is the solution to the problem. It reduces the deck length required for take-off to 100 meters and frees its central part.

Russia never built ships with a catapult, but the catapult for the Ulyanovsk TAVKR at the Proletarsky Zavod was made at one time. A lot of time has passed since then, but that old catapult is proof that, if necessary, we can at least have a factory where it was made, and it works.

Thus, the fundamental difference between the domestic "Wikrant" from the Indian should be the absence of a springboard and the presence of a pair of catapults. Without this, a ship, even with “finished” contours, would be flawed, with low combat efficiency.

Price issue


"Wikrant" stood up to India at $ 3,5 billion. With better shipbuilding capabilities than Russia, without sanctions, with near-zero climatic and low logistics costs, with cheap labor and the ability to buy components on the world market, rather than piece-making them with pilot lots, paying for the cost of OCD, figuratively speaking, for every nut. How much is the same ship adjusted for building a hull using mid-century technologies (at best) and everything else that Indians don’t have, but we have (and vice versa) will cost Russia?

More recently, the media disseminated with reference to some “source in the defense industry complex”, which remained unnamed, that the cost of building an aircraft carrier in Russia would be between 300 and 400 billion rubles.

I must say that this is very close to reality, and, alas, we are not talking about the domestic counterpart of Nimitz. It is worth starting from the fact that it is precisely 400 billion rubles that this will be the “upper” price of the ejection “Vikrant” of domestic production. If we consider that from the moment the final decision on the development of the ship is made to the last transaction from the Ministry of Defense, the contractor will take 10 years, without inflation, the ship will rise to the country at 40 billion rubles a year for a decade, and its entire cost will be "eaten up" »A significant share of fleet costs in the new GPV. Up to 10%.

How to lower prices? First, apply the method of "design at a given cost" wherever possible.

Secondly, saving on the design of subsystems, using simple engineering solutions.

We give an example. If our ship has two valolines and four gas turbines, then it means two gearboxes. Moreover, it is necessary to provide a different direction of rotation. Today, the Star Reducer manufactures various reducers for warships - right and left.

But the Americans on the "Springs" at one time simply set the gas turbine "mirror", differently positioning the turbines of the right and left sides in order to achieve rotation of the valines in opposite directions. At the same time, the ship did not have an inter-gear transmission, which also reduced the cost, and our ship should do the same. It is possible to arrange the rudders so that the shutdown of one of the valines could be compensated by the angle of the rudder.


An amateur picture, but the location of the Spryuans State University is clearly shown

Save on decoration, alloys (everywhere only steel) and the like. In addition, it is worth developing the same turbines with an eye not only on the aircraft carrier, but also on future URO ships and, more broadly, on a single turbine for the Navy, again, as was done by the Americans. In part, this will save some of the price of an aircraft carrier.

Alas, the main way to reduce the cost of the ship - a series - is unlikely to be available to us. In order for the production costs of the ship to begin to fall from serial production, you will have to order at least four ships of this type. The budget of Russia will not withstand such loads. Only a completely different country can afford such a thing. It will be very good for us if in the next 15-17 years we get a couple of such ships. Just great.

conclusions


Today, there is a technical possibility of not very expensive (relatively large aircraft carrier with nuclear power plant) to build one or two light, about 40 tons of aircraft carriers, structurally similar to the Indian aircraft carriers "Vikrant", but equipped with a catapult launch. Prerequisites for success are:

- availability of necessary capacities, albeit in some way “problematic” - of the Baltic Plant;
- the presence of part of the documentation "Vikrant" and people familiar with this ship;
- the possibility of creating a power plant based on serial turbines;
- the ability to create an aircraft for an ejection launch based on the serial MiG-29K;
- the presence of a plant that once manufactured a catapult.

The disadvantages of the project are:

- the impossibility of large-block construction at the Baltic plant;
- the difficult process of completing the ship at the completion wall;
- the need for final completion after the launch of the ship under the WHSD and the inability to return the constructed ship back to the factory without partial disassembly;
- the corresponding appreciation of the ship.

At the same time, the ship’s cost can be partially reduced due to design decisions and the use of “uniform” design and development tests for this and other ships (turbines).

The fundamental condition is the possibility of giving the hull of the ship such contours with which it would have the same restrictions on the use of aviation as the Kuznetsov and sufficient speed for the warship. If this condition is not met (which is possible), then the construction of such a ship cannot begin.

And if it is done, then, it seems, we have a chance to get out of the carrier deadlock.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia commons, Glory Stepanov (gelio-nsk.livejournal.com), Military Today, Bellingcat
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lexus 27 January 2020 02: 33 New
    • 42
    • 15
    +27
    Dreaming is not bad. Just do not much fly away.
    1. Hunter 2 27 January 2020 03: 04 New
      • 42
      • 12
      +30
      The author in the article simply analyzed the capabilities of Russian shipyards of their equipment and projects comparable to these capabilities.
      No decisions were made on this issue.
      In my opinion - First you need to build an appropriate shipyard, and then think about which Russia needs an aircraft carrier.
      1. Lexus 27 January 2020 03: 15 New
        • 39
        • 6
        +33
        Alexander always writes sensibly. Will they hear?
        I remember he laid out in the comments on the shelves where the miscellany in the Navy comes from.
        Very similar to the truth, alas.
        1. Lexus 27 January 2020 04: 38 New
          • 12
          • 3
          +9
          Very similar to the truth, alas

          This phrase refers to a discussion of varieties. Skipped to a new paragraph by accident.
        2. Serg65 27 January 2020 14: 39 New
          • 10
          • 2
          +8
          hi Приветствуем!
          Quote: Hunter 2
          You must first build the appropriate shipyard

          bully Aleksey, an old national sign ... where future Vladivostok and Sevastopol will be laid in the near future, future aircraft carriers will build there!
          1. Vladimir Mashkov 2 February 2020 13: 28 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And there is another option: to return that shipyard where you can build ... Of course, you have to restore, but still the cost is less than building a new one ...

            And the article is very good and interesting! I believe that Russia simply needs to have at least two large aircraft carriers and six helicopter carriers. Least.
        3. Serg65 27 January 2020 14: 40 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: lexus
          Very similar to the truth, alas.

          laughing How interesting!!!!!
        4. g1v2 27 January 2020 20: 50 New
          • 7
          • 4
          +3
          I hope no. The fleet already has enough money to spend. Such an expensive toy is a luxury for him. In the future, when everything you need is built and the fleet thinks where else to spend unnecessary money, you can return to this project. But in the next 20 years it is definitely not needed.
          1. Garris199 28 January 2020 04: 36 New
            • 7
            • 3
            +4
            Plusanul.
            We have 2 (two) modern frigates in the ranks.
            We have not built a single ship of the 1st rank.
            Timing for the same 22350m is not at all rosy, and this can be said already mastered technology.
            New ICAPL - 2pcs
            And for some reason, we need an aircraft carrier in 20 years for 400 lard.
            Give me a piece fleet !! So what?
      2. K-612-O 27 January 2020 06: 44 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        An option could be a shipyard in Karelia, which is now being built, there will be a 400 meter dry dock.
        1. Povelitel_buri 27 January 2020 11: 03 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Quote: K-612-O
          A shipyard in Karelia may become an option

          Firstly, this is still not a full-fledged shipyard, but a shipyard for the manufacture of gravity platforms - i.e. there will be far from that set of production necessary for the construction of ships.
          Secondly, dry docks there are not quite suitable for placing ships - the jumper is then earthen - it will take a long time to dig up and dig in.
        2. NOMADE 27 January 2020 13: 04 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Talks slipped through that they might use the Star in Big Stone, there just dry docks for 400 meters are being completed (if I'm not mistaken in size), as well as in the presence of cranes of 1000 tons (Goliaths). They also talk about the construction of a metallurgical plant (they encountered the same problem that the author of the article mentioned - it is expensive and difficult to carry large sheets for large modular assembly of tankers and gas carriers)
      3. Kalmar 27 January 2020 09: 55 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Hunter 2
        In my opinion - First you need to build an appropriate shipyard, and then think about which Russia needs an aircraft carrier.

        So after all, this shipyard should just correspond to the type of ships that it is planned to build on it. Those. the aircraft carrier in this thought experiment is still primary.
      4. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 21 New
        • 16
        • 0
        +16
        The problem is that without this shipyard we can do with any project other than an aircraft carrier. And to build an entire shipyard for the sake of several ships is a shame, and money is a pity.
        1. Serg65 27 January 2020 14: 41 New
          • 7
          • 2
          +5
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          building an entire shipyard for the sake of several ships is a shame,

          Alexander, have you completely buried the Gulf?
          1. bayard 28 January 2020 03: 23 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            And for such (medium) aircraft carriers, the Gulf is just that. There is a dry dock for 400 meters and supertankers and lighter carriers built there ... including one atomic. In May, two UDCs of 25 tons should be laid there right away — a good warm-up for the aircraft carrier VI 000–40 thousand tons. The climate is ideal (among the available options), the Krymsky Bridge was built to provide logistics, its own areas are sufficient and can be expanded if desired. Overhead cranes for large assembly can be ordered in the same place as for the Star - in Korea. By 50, the UDC should be launched and the stocks to be emptied - during this time you can prepare all the documentation, equip the production, conclude cooperation agreements ... and the construction of 2024 UDCs will be good practice.
            1. Mityay65 28 January 2020 04: 21 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: bayard
              And for such (medium) aircraft carriers, the Gulf is just that. There is a dry dock for 400 meters and supertankers and lighter carriers built there ... including one atomic.

              What I like most about the Gulf variant for the UDC and the aircraft carrier is that the Gulf is not part of the USC, and therefore does not bear the burden of UEC inefficiencies accumulated over the years and may well create good competition, which, in my opinion, is simply necessary for our economy and the navy in the fight against state holdings such as UEC, UAC, Roscosmos, Rosatom, and, of course, USC.
          2. timokhin-aa 28 January 2020 14: 29 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            His Ukraine was buried almost completely. Then from there Pella managed to deflate people. The bay come to life for many years.

            Plus the risks of changing shoes in Erdogan's jump.
            Plus, according to ukrov, there isn’t enough strength of the plate at the slipway, well, here I did not check.
            Plus, in the Soviet Union and Ukraine, steel was delivered there from Ukraine, and now? And how much money will gobble up logistics?

            There are a lot of risks.
            1. Serg65 28 January 2020 14: 53 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The bay come to life for many years

              1. Do not rush to live, Alexander wink
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Plus the risks of changing shoes in Erdogan's jump.

              2. The closure of the Bosphorus can lead to hostilities, but he needs it?
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Plus according to ukrov

              3.According to the Russian media, on May 9 they lay 2 UDC
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Plus the fact that during the USSR and Ukraine steel was delivered there from Ukraine

              4. And do they produce steel in Severodvinsk in Severodvinsk itself? Or For the Shipyard of St. Petersburg, steel is made from ore mined in the Leningrad Region? In my opinion, CherMK is almost equidistant from all the GCC of the European part of Russia.
              1. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 11: 32 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                2. The closure of the Bosphorus can lead to hostilities, but he needs it?


                Firstly, hostilities may begin for another reason, and the closure of the Bosphorus will already be a consequence. Therefore, I would not risk it.

                3.According to the Russian media, on May 9 they lay 2 UDC


                These are not aircraft carriers though.

                4. And do they produce steel in Severodvinsk in Severodvinsk itself? Or For the Shipyard of St. Petersburg, steel is made from ore mined in the Leningrad Region? In my opinion, CherMK is almost equidistant from all the GCC of the European part of Russia.


                From Cherepovets to St. Petersburg 540 kilometers, to Severodvinsk 930, and to Kerch 2000.
                1. Serg65 3 February 2020 13: 04 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Firstly, hostilities may start for another reason,

                  I don’t argue, China was bent even without a single shot !!!!
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  These are not aircraft carriers though.

                  No, of course, but these are harbingers ... a trial balloon, so to speak!
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  to Severodvinsk 930, and to Kerch 2000.

                  The difference in money is 40 thousand rubles per wagon ... is this critical? Compare the cost of heating in Severodvinsk-Peter and Kerch, the difference eliminates all transportation costs!
                  1. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 14: 02 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    The difference in money is 40 thousand rubles per wagon ... is this critical?


                    Well, tell me how many cars there ... Let for example 30000 tons out of 40. These are 428 open wagons. 17 million rubles only in the transportation of steel. And carry almost everything.
                    And also to restore the Gulf after Ukraine.
                    And the risks with straits.
                    1. Serg65 4 February 2020 08: 33 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      17 million rubles only in the transportation of steel.

                      And now consider how much heating and steam supply costs in Severodvinsk for 60 months (roughly 5 years in construction)! Find out how much the icebreakers will chop off the ice around the aircraft carrier standing at the outfitting wall!
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      And also restore the Gulf after Ukraine

                      what Etozh ktozh invented to lay two UDC on factory ruins ???
                      1. timokhin-aa 4 February 2020 11: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And now consider how much heating and steam supply costs in Severodvinsk for 60 months (roughly 5 years in construction)! Find out how much the icebreakers will chop off the ice around the aircraft carrier standing at the outfitting wall!


                        So I'm for Peter, not for Severodvinsk.

                        Etozh ktozh invented to lay two UDC on factory ruins ???


                        I’m also thinking - who thought of it? They MRK can not finish building themselves.
                      2. Serg65 4 February 2020 11: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        So I'm for Peter

                        what Is winter much shorter in St. Petersburg?
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        They MRK can not finish building themselves.

                        Well, let's see, Alexander wink
                      3. timokhin-aa 4 February 2020 13: 20 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Is winter much shorter in St. Petersburg?


                        She is much warmer there.

                        Well, let's see, Alexander


                        And horrified.
                      4. Serg65 4 February 2020 13: 26 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        She is much warmer there.

                        3 months and not lower than -5?
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        And horrified.

                        laughing I have a feeling that when you open your eyes in the morning you are already horrified!
  2. Firelake 27 January 2020 14: 50 New
    • 14
    • 6
    +8
    They need at least 4 (ships in 2 fleets). In short, this is unrealistic. Build one. Years over 20. It will become obsolete during the construction process. In short, all these avics are crap. It's easier to rivet. But books are needed, but he is not.
    Bottom line: the usual chatter before the election.
    1. timokhin-aa 28 January 2020 14: 29 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      UDC will be almost the same in complexity and price as the above AB, if we talk about large UDC, like the Americans.
      1. Firelake 28 January 2020 18: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        We do not need like the United States. We need like ours. I’ll tell you more: something military more than 30k we will not master now.
  3. NEOZ 28 January 2020 16: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And build an entire shipyard for the sake of several ships

    welcome
    in your article the minimum TTX AB is indicated ... and I get the impression that de Gaulle is more likely to fall under them than Vikrant.
    Why is de Gaulle bad compared to Wickrant?
    1. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 11: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      At a price, in short.
      1. NEOZ 3 February 2020 11: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        At a price, in short.

        for that on de goal there is yak44 .....
        and unlimited swimming range ...
  • Reklastik 27 January 2020 17: 47 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Maybe first the economy, then the answer to the question, why the ship, and then the shipyard for its manufacture?
  • Chaldon48 28 January 2020 00: 24 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    You need to start by updating the machinery, and ensure that these new machines are no worse than foreign and domestic production.
  • NordUral 28 January 2020 10: 51 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    First you need to start thinking about it, but they are not capable of it.
    The real people's power will come and decide what is needed first and whether the country of Russia needs aircraft carriers in general.
  • sailor roman 28 January 2020 11: 20 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I believe that it is necessary to build not only a shipyard, but also a whole complex of industrial enterprises, experimental design bureaus, etc. ... all over Russia.
  • NEOZ 28 January 2020 16: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Hunter 2
    In my opinion - First you need to build an appropriate shipyard, and then think about which Russia needs an aircraft carrier.

    of course not!
    First we determine the aircraft carrier, then and only then we build the shipyard !!!! and if we conclude that we do not need avik, then the money for the shipyard in the pipe? and if the shipyard built is smaller than the required avik, will the money go back to the pipe? ... and if the shipyard turns out to be large and could cost less, then the difference in the resources spent is back to the pipe?
    1. Essex62 28 January 2020 23: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Why into the pipe? So it will be, as you described, but it won’t go into the pipe, they’ll "master" it, seize it.
  • 3danimal 8 May 2020 05: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I agree. As well as having an appropriate economy as a whole.
  • The leader of the Redskins 27 January 2020 07: 47 New
    • 15
    • 12
    +3
    Not an article, but a fairy tale about Ilya Muromets:
    "... the hero lay on the stove for thirty-three years, and then once! He got up and defeated everyone! ..."
  • Bar2 27 January 2020 11: 58 New
    • 9
    • 6
    +3
    The need for carrier ships in local wars was perfectly shown by the Americans in Vietnam


    a good approach, but during the Vietnam War there were no anti-ship missiles such as the p-700, p-800, p-1000. The aircraft carrier will not approach this distance, then the question is, how to use these ships?
    1. alstr 27 January 2020 17: 24 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      It should also be noted that Vietnam itself is in fact a continuous coast. the maximum distance from the coast to the border is a maximum of 500 km (this is such a small appendix to China).
      And the rest of the country is a maximum of 200 km from the coast.

      In such circumstances, aircraft carriers really give an advantage if the country does not have any significant fleet.
      1. Bersaglieri 28 January 2020 12: 44 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        ... but if Vietnam had Redoubts? It’s strange that the USSR didn’t put them in order, so to speak, “to test new weapons in combat conditions”. At that time, the P35 was practically unreceptible anti-ship missiles. And the range is 300 km.
        1. Essex62 28 January 2020 23: 30 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Because the leadership of the USSR always included the head when taking any serious foreign policy action. Analyzed, calculated the consequences from a different angle (Nikita does not apply). The sinking of one of the Essexes, or God forbid the Americas or Interprise, would have turned into a fun mix in all directions. NATO, at that time, was a very serious force and was 100% ready for a fight. The calm and peaceful work of the peoples of the USSR is the main task of the country's leadership. Helped Vietnam enough. Lyuley they hung mattresses on their own.
          1. isaira 29 January 2020 00: 24 New
            • 1
            • 5
            -4
            Quote: Essex62
            Because the leadership of the USSR always included the head when taking any serious foreign policy action.

            Yeah. So seriously thought through everything, that as a result of the thoughtfulness of the leadership of the USSR and grunted.
          2. Bersaglieri 29 January 2020 15: 35 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Loss of flexibility ... heh .. That means the sinking of large units during the war in Spain, or the destruction of airdromes in Taiwan during the Japanese-Chinese period - it worked. If the political impotence could be overcome, then there would be no problems. For the armament was delivered to a third country, and it used it. That's it :) It's like with Exocet during the Falkland War: did Britain make a claim to France for Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor and Glamorgan? :)
            1. Essex62 31 January 2020 14: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Is it Leonid Ilyich, comrades, political impotent people? Remind who the first mattress flower beds of the Allies wound on the tracks? The bourgeois brawler for a penguin island that nobody needs anyway is an internal affair of the gad system. The purely hurt ambitions of sirs and peers. Maybe they drove impudent, according to a relative, to the paddling pools. In opposition to Sisitem, this was not disclosed. USSR Masons would not forgive the sinking of the aircraft carrier trough. It is clear that it was not a hook from a burrow that lionfish slammed into the side of the conventional Independence. He has okromya Kalash and there is nothing. Two Systems and prestige! This is not a game, everything is very serious.
    2. timokhin-aa 28 January 2020 14: 30 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      1. Which of our opponents have such missiles?
      2. Which of the potential opponents in the Russian Federation has a carrier for such missiles?

      Thinking is good.
  • Svetlana 27 January 2020 17: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Dreaming is good and necessary. It is the dreamers who move us all up the ladder of progress.
  • nickname7 28 January 2020 07: 47 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    They promised it, now they promise to promise.
  • Alexey LK 31 January 2020 15: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: lexus
    Dreaming is not harmful

    Ok, but what prevents the design of an aircraft carrier with a two-story flight deck? Take off from the bottom, sit on the top?
    1. Magog 2 February 2020 00: 17 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      In this case, the lower deck is not needed: a pair of "corridors" for an ejection launch. True, the height of the landing deck should be even higher in comparison with the banal layout, again the weight and, as a result, a large draft of the ship. Everything must be considered. I like the idea!
      1. Alexey LK 2 February 2020 00: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Magog
        I like the idea!

        Thank you! wink But of course you are talking about the corridors in vain - planes on the deck should have the opportunity to maneuver, including because in hangar rooms not all operations can be done. But the main thing - a two-story deck could just help to avoid the need for a catapult, because there will be more room for take-off. To do one and the other is perhaps too much.
        1. Magog 2 February 2020 00: 47 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Two decks are practically two aircraft carriers "one on another"! Two weights, double draft, what to do with tipping balancing, etc. ? Where to find a place for hangars, warehouses, elevators, ...? Yes, and you can’t walk with the corridors.
  • Tibidokh 27 January 2020 03: 22 New
    • 31
    • 7
    +24
    400 billion rubles and this will be the "upper" price of the ejection "Vikrant"

    In Russia, often, the top price increases by an order of magnitude. It is simply unprofitable for some managers to complete the project on time. It is profitable to receive money, keep it in your account for a year. At the end of the year, start spending as quickly as possible. Then sue, then change subcontractors / subcontractors. Then blame the West and the "fifth column".
    An aircraft carrier is needed. But we need “healthy” pensions for the Russians. It’s better to first clean up your minds, and then take on such an ambitious project.
    1. bessmertniy 27 January 2020 03: 55 New
      • 11
      • 16
      -5
      I’ll allow myself the naive question: isn’t it easier and cheaper to buy today some ready-made model aircraft carrier than to build your own unique one in 7-10 years? what Do we need an aircraft carrier now or far away? repeat Or does the global arms market offer anything worthwhile like that? request Or do we really have money at their seams? sad Or will our “friend” Trump not give in at half the price to two or three aircraft carriers that the Americans today have for fun for some reason !? Yes, for the sake of such a deal, he may even cancel the sanction !!! wassat
      1. Tibidokh 27 January 2020 04: 57 New
        • 23
        • 20
        +3
        Replacing “Trump” with “Xi JinPing” and “Americans” with “Chinese” would add a little adequacy to your comment.
        But all the same, in conditions when the retirement age is being raised, the funded part of the pension is frozen, and for seriously ill children they receive money by SMS, we don’t need an aircraft carrier for nothing. It is better to spend money on maintaining an aircraft carrier and an air group on social programs and medium and short-range missiles.
        1. Avior 27 January 2020 09: 28 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          China has no catapult aircraft carriers yet
          And no one except the French and the States.
          Have already tried to buy from the French smile
          1. Tibidokh 27 January 2020 11: 05 New
            • 5
            • 7
            -2
            Quote: Avior
            China has no catapult aircraft carriers yet

            So I did not offer to buy from China, I just hinted at the inadequacy of the proposal to buy an aircraft carrier from the United States.
            Quote: Avior
            Have already tried to buy from the French

            It’s better to buy an MRI device at the hospital, and "surrender" a thousand or two medium-range missiles.
            1. NEOZ 28 January 2020 16: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Tibidokh
              a thousand or two medium-range missiles.

              the average range to the states will not reach ....
              1. Tibidokh 28 January 2020 18: 51 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                To their missiles and anti-missiles in Europe and Asia it will reach itself quite well.
          2. bars1 27 January 2020 20: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Are the French catapults not American?
            1. Avior 28 January 2020 00: 14 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              the aircraft carrier of the French of its construction, but the catapults on it and some other equipment are American
        2. nickname7 28 January 2020 07: 52 New
          • 0
          • 7
          -7
          . for treatment of seriously ill children raise money

          Liberals and suddenly sick of the people. Did they give you such a training manual, put pressure on pity?
      2. Grandfather Crimea 27 January 2020 07: 45 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        If you buy, then not at the striped. And who are they superfluous? This 64 will certainly not solve the problem. Can joint construction?
        1. bessmertniy 27 January 2020 07: 58 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Maybe, but only with us. Experience with the Mistral has already shown that placing our orders for such vessels abroad is risky enough.
      3. shahor 27 January 2020 17: 50 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: bessmertniy
        Yes, for the sake of such a deal, he may even cancel the sanction !!!

        What? They just launched the Kennedy-sistership of Ford. Yes, Trump for such a deal ... well, I do not know ... will lift all sanctions. And if we still promise to name this vessel, Trump, then we will also receive a couple of Berks in addition. One trouble is to moor this tub where? It will be necessary to rent part of the base in Norfolk.
        Yes, and the crew at the same time ...
      4. Alf
        Alf 27 January 2020 21: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: bessmertniy
        Isn’t it easier and cheaper whether today or tomorrow to buy a ready-made model aircraft carrier,

        And who will sell? Americans?
        Quote: bessmertniy
        Or does the global arms market offer anything worthwhile like that?

        Maybe offers. But not for Russia. Does the Mistral Example say nothing?
    2. EvilLion 27 January 2020 10: 10 New
      • 3
      • 11
      -8
      And in your USA how many times does the price increase?
      1. Tibidokh 27 January 2020 11: 06 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        Who is yours? I am not in the USA.
        1. EvilLion 27 January 2020 12: 37 New
          • 5
          • 16
          -11
          Where are you? You talk about Russia as something outside.
        2. Serg65 27 January 2020 14: 46 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Quote: Tibidokh
          I am not in the USA.

          And talk like the USA what
  • Vladimir_2U 27 January 2020 03: 25 New
    • 19
    • 5
    +14
    Bullshit about the "death of aircraft carriers" is the same bullshit as about the "death of tanks." An article for only one analysis of the production capabilities of construction would put three advantages.
  • Stalllker 27 January 2020 03: 51 New
    • 15
    • 4
    +11
    I don’t understand why he needs “now and tomorrow”. You need to build a grouping, and this will exceed far beyond 500 lard.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 08: 08 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      Out of touch with the aircraft carrier in 2022, Nakhimov and the four project 22350 frigates will be in service.
      In 2025-2027, two more will be added to them.

      So let's type in one group.
      1. ZAV69 27 January 2020 15: 35 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        But what, all for the sake of Avik in the ranks? Why the hell then is needed if you have to drop everything and build an Avik?
        If Avich wanted to build, then first you need to invest in a shipyard and you don’t have to build it in the European part, you can build it in Vladik too, it’s useful to the plant, even though you need to rivet the same supertankers
      2. Stalllker 27 January 2020 16: 52 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Yes you?! Six ships are enough and all the latest ships need to be sent, but what about protecting interests in the vicinity of Russian borders ???? And somehow it does not fit into our doctrine Shock aircraft carrier group !!!! laughing
      3. bayard 27 January 2020 17: 55 New
        • 12
        • 5
        +7
        Greetings to Alexander! Thanks for the news! good
        I understand that from Klimov firewood? Well, it doesn’t matter from anyone, what’s important about!
        I’ll try to explain right away where such optimism came from in the plans. This is due to the changed financial opportunities and the started personnel cleaning. Changes to the Constitution abolish the primacy of "international" legislation and the mandatory implementation of decisions (and "recommendations"!) Of such structures as the World Bank, IMF and the like. So ... there will be ... no amazing "budget rule" established for Russia from these structures - when all the money from oil revenues at a price higher than $ 40. could not be included in the budget and used domestically. They were obliged to drag this money into the "capsule" abroad - to keep it in securities and foreign investments.
        And now, Russia will be able to spend all the money earned on itself.
        Including the weapons program.
        For aircraft carriers, the development of the defense industry and other necessary things.
        It is from these new opportunities that the wings of new plans grow. And God forbid.

        Now on the topic of the article - about where you can build and which project to choose.
        First about the project. The construction of a medium-sized non-nuclear aircraft carrier was recently proposed by one of the St. Petersburg design bureaus with a displacement of 40-50 thousand tons on gas turbines and the cost of building one of them was estimated at 1,5 - 2 billion dollars. without an air wing. Well, at a cost there may be options and the head will definitely be more expensive. But even if you determine the value of 2,5 billion dollars. apiece on average, this is not even bad.
        Of course, no “Wikrant” will suit us - this is Indian creativity, they started it themselves, and when they realized that they weren’t pulling it, they turned to our specialists ... that they could correct it in the project, but in general it’s disabled from birth.
        We have experience not only in the construction of Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers, but also experience in the restructuring / modernization of Vikramaditya, moreover, it is quite successful. And in terms of size and VI, we need an aircraft carrier with a displacement closer to 50 tons rather. something closer to Kuznetsov. With a catapult on a sloping deck and a springboard on the bow, an air wing of 000 MiG-24 \ 29K \ KUB fighters, at least a pair of YAK-35 type AWACS (preferably 44 pcs.) And from 4 to 3 helicopters (depending on the BZ) .
        And there are projects of such ships ... in any case, they were in the archives of the Design Bureau too.

        Now about where to build.
        Already in the photo you presented, it can be seen that the Baltic Plant is not suitable for this from the word at all - there simply is no place there. Neither for the large-site (and without it there is nothing to take), nor the space for the modernization of the plant - even if demolishing around the building there will still be no sense ... the bridge still. The only convenient logistics ... well, and personnel ...
        Severomorsk also does not fit - on the climate.
        But there is one GCC, which is also in the south in the resort climate, and the slipway is for supertankers and giant lighter carriers, and a 400 m long MLC.
        Of course I'm talking about the Gulf of Kerch. Yes, the plant did not work for a long time and only comes to life, but the basic infrastructure is available, it is the European part of the country and it will not be so difficult to recruit personnel for the country to “work and live in Crimea”.
        And there, by this May, they pledged (promised) two UDCs with a displacement of 25 tons - a great warm-up before this work. The slipway period for the first will end in the year 000, and this time is enough to prepare a project, find \ organize cooperation, prepare \ collect personnel, and acquire skills in the construction of UDC.
        A huge plus is that at least two hulls can be assembled on slipways at once ... and there is an opportunity to expand the area.
        And the fact that the construction of only a series makes sense, I absolutely agree with you. Therefore, it is necessary to lay a series of 4 such ships. And lay as tight as possible. Now a huge plant is being completed in Bolshoi Kamen, it is being retrofitted including giant bridge cranes for large-site assembly. The same cranes are needed in the Gulf to speed up the work and improve their quality, especially since Gazprom complained that it would have few Far Eastern capacities and needed another super-ship. So what's the matter? To expand the "Gulf", to equip, to collect / train personnel, and there will be enough work. When all the aircraft carriers and UDCs are built, tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers, lighter carriers should be built ... yes, you never need a good big ship.
        But atomic aircraft carriers are best built in Big Stone. But only after the completion of a series of 3 atomic super-icebreakers "Leader" By then, the experience of building a series of medium-sized aircraft carriers will appear, and the experience of building large ships with nuclear power facilities is the same as the future "Storm" or "Manatee" will appear, and frames on " The star "a hand on large buildings will fill their hand ... Yes, and serve them - there.

        Now about the GEM for a non-nuclear medium aircraft carrier.
        Four M-90FRU turbines will be clearly not enough - their total maximum power will be no more than 110 l / s. It’s just nothing. At “Kiev”, “Minsk” the power of the power plant was 000 thousand l / s, at “Kuznetsov” - 180 200 l / s, and at the same time it lacked speed - 000 knots of maximum speed for an aircraft carrier ... not enough. It is necessary to steadily maintain high speed during flight support - to facilitate take-off / landing. Therefore, it must be put on an electric stroke and a battery of gas turbine generators. If we talk about the M-29FRU, there will be ten of them (taking into account the power losses in the "electric transmission" and the need to power the electric catapult), which is not surprising, the big ship will have large turbines. The Chinese destroyer 90 of the project has four gas turbine power generators with a capacity of about 055 MW. This is approximately 100 l / s for 220 - 000 thousand tons of displacement.
        On a ship of such a size as AV VI 45 000 - 50 000 tons, one can even put \ adapt a gas turbine + generator from the corresponding capacity of gas turbine power plants. But you need to look at options for power and adaptability. The Chinese have 4 turbines of 32 - 000 l / s each. And on AB there is also domestic consumption, and catapults. Here is a GEM such as 37 for our empirical AB would fit perfectly. But only on the move. For domestic energy and catapults, this is not enough.
        But the main leitmotif of today is the cautious revival of hope. winked A lot of news comes about what they forgot to hope for ... Here we have in Donbass ...
        And in the world ...
        It looks like the forecasts for this year that “It will be fun and scary” are beginning to come true - it really is becoming ... more fun ... and more unexpected ... Even some kind of fighting enthusiasm appears ...
        1. Avior 28 January 2020 00: 39 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Changes to the Constitution abolish the primacy of "international" legislation and the mandatory implementation of decisions (and "recommendations"!) Of such structures as the World Bank, IMF and the like.

          But was there a binding enforcement of IMF decisions?
          1. bayard 28 January 2020 01: 28 New
            • 6
            • 3
            +3
            It was not just obligatory - this obligation was written down in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which we quickly fashioned by the US emissaries in 1993. After the execution of the Supreme Council.
            And the president of Russia was called the "guarantor of the Constitution" and had to observe it. Not the interests of the state and its people, but the constitution written by the Americans.
            Hence the "pension reform", and tax increases, toughening the rules, juvenile justice, the budget rule (cutting the budget), taxes on mushrooms and berries (wild plants), US consulting companies that make up the laws for the Duma, untouchable at key posts ..., devaluation of the ruble twice in 2015, offshore rule and law ... a ban on the use of the death penalty, sex education of children, the law on the Central Bank (as a branch of the US Federal Reserve, which is not controlled by the Russian authorities, financial controller for Russia), etc., etc. . , etc.
            All this is the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993.

            An ideal slave is that slave who does not know about his slave status.
            Or did you think this government and president, on their own initiative, are mocking the people? Are you mocking me? When, for no reason, for some reason they voice some new muck and try to somehow justify it clumsily? ...
            This is the evil will of those to whom we were sold by Judas Gorbachev, Yeltsin and others like them. This is the real Igo.
            Prescribed in the 1993 constitution
            And now this Igo is canceled.
            And this is a historic moment. hi
            1. Octopus 28 January 2020 09: 33 New
              • 5
              • 9
              -4
              Enchanting. Are these really such people, or do Prigogine’s have such a sense of humor?
              Quote: bayard
              quickly emissaries of the United States crafted in 1993. After the execution of the Supreme Council.

              Sun shot the Americans? What wonderful people do everywhere.
              Quote: bayard
              the president of Russia was called the "guarantor of the Constitution" and had to observe it

              And How? Did it work out?
              Quote: bayard
              Hence the “pension reform”, and tax increases, toughening the rules, juvenile justice, the budget rule (cutting the budget), taxes on mushrooms and berries (wild plants)

              Nevermind Americans give themselves. Crimea surrendered, and on mushrooms and berries they recouped, what petty.
              Quote: bayard
              untouchables on key posts

              The Americans sent us Mutko and Rogozin. Where do they get it?

              And the Americans also taught to steal, steal Russian.
              Quote: bayard
              not controlled by the authorities of the Russian Federation, financial controller for Russia

              Is this Nabiullina or something that is not controlled by the Russian authorities?
              Quote: bayard
              Or did you think this government and president, on their own initiative, are mocking the people? Are you mocking me?

              You will not believe...
              Quote: bayard
              now it is Igo - is canceled

              Oh, let's live!
              1. bayard 28 January 2020 14: 40 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                [quote = Octopus] These are really such people, [/ quote]
                [quote = Octopus] You won’t believe ... [/ quote]
                [quote = Octopus] Sun shot by the Americans? What wonderful people, everywhere in time. [/ Quote]
                The Supreme Council was shot at by the tanks of the Kantemirov division, which at that time was commanded by General Evnevich. By order of Judas Yeltsin. But there were Boxer mercenaries, and unknown snipers ... and they shot from the roof of the American embassy - a heavy machine gun, tracer, there are shootings and they are well known.
                I do not share your opinion that the Americans [quote = Octopus] are wonderful people,
                but they really
                [quote = Octopus] have time everywhere. [/ quote]
                But for you this is an attempt on your religious feelings.
                Sorry . smile
                I knew Brother Evnevich well ... and some deputies of the Armed Forces ... and those who stopped this massacre then ... and took the deputies out of the burning building on their buses ... and took them under my protection, placing them at my base. ..and before that, he did not fulfill the criminal order of the traitor Yeltsin about the assault on the armed forces and the physical extermination of his deputies ...
                And you and your comrades (although it is unlikely you, rather your parents) then stood on the embankment, applauded every shot and chanted "Crush the Russian reptile"?
                I have no doubt.
                [quote = Octopus] Americans don’t give a damn to themselves. Crimea surrendered, but on mushrooms and berries they recouped what petty. [/ Quote]
                Crimea we took.
                Own and mine.
                But Obama still walks with his legs from resentment.
                I sympathize with your grief.
                [quote = Octopus] And the Americans also taught to steal, steal Russian. [/ quote]
                No, you yourself ... taught Russian. yes
                [quote = Octopus] Is it Nabiullina or something that is not controlled by the Russian authorities? [/ quote]
                Have you read the law on the Central Bank? I advise him to go not long left.
                [quote = Octopus] Eh, let's live! [/ quote]
                I would be in your place ... I did not promise. bully
            2. izaira 28 January 2020 16: 33 New
              • 1
              • 4
              -3
              Quote: bayard
              It was not just mandatory - this obligation was recorded in the Constitution of the Russian Federation

              Bosh what.
              "I have not read the Constitution, but condemn."
              1. bayard 28 January 2020 17: 22 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                The supremacy and bindingness of the implementation of INTERNATIONAL legislation over Russian.
                Did not read?
                In the constitution?
                or
                Quote: izaira
                "I have not read the Constitution, but condemn."

                Incidentally, this is not your constitution.
                Right ?
                So why let bubbles in someone else's pond?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. bayard 28 January 2020 18: 04 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    [quote = izaira] Read [/ quote]
                    ] The supremacy and bindingness of the implementation of the international legislation over the Russian. [/ Quote]
                    And-and-and? smile
                    [quote = izaira] And where does the IMF? [/ quote]
                    Is the structure international? What are the relations between Russia and the IMF and how are these relations regulated?
                    We are reading ...
                    Decisions and recommendations ... binding?
                    For execution?
                    Are we reading?
                    Are all contracts and obligations with an international status MANDATORY for execution in Russia?
                    According to the constitution?
                    We carefully read smile
                    We look at the examples ... carefully ... what preceded the "Pension Reform" ... whose recommendations ... are urgent ... what? What preceded the increase in VAT?
                    And juvenile justice WHAT STATUS HAS?
                    And-and-and ... continue to fool around? wink
                    Apparently this is your favorite pastime. lol
                    1. izaira 28 January 2020 18: 10 New
                      • 2
                      • 5
                      -3
                      Oooooooooooooooooooooooo
                      This is no longer for me, not my case.
                      This is for "people in white coats."
                  2. PSih2097 28 January 2020 21: 04 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Man, your opponent is right, the constitution of the Russian Federation is vicious in the first place for citizens of the Russian Federation ...
        2. Sergey S. 31 January 2020 17: 49 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: bayard
          A lot of news comes about what they forgot to hope for ... Here we have in Donbass ...

          Thank you for your deep insight into the reality of the day.
          Without a political component, apart from a real military threat, only madmen or fools talk about aircraft carriers.
          And our situation is such that I recall the words of my father-in-law. twice disabled Yelikoy Patriotic:
          - I'll give everything so that June 22 does not happen again.
  • beeper 27 January 2020 03: 54 New
    • 19
    • 4
    +15
    I really liked the author flight of thoughtbravo! good
    Of course, Nikolaev with his battleship-aircraft carrier slipways is immediately dreamily remembered .... winked
    By the way, as a Soviet engineer, a design engineer used to search and find (one way or another avoiding obstacles) non-trivial ways out of artificial and “natural” technical dead ends by available means.
    Therefore, the idea offhand, just as one of the options-aircraft carrier catamaran layout, because in this case the required stability of the entire structure can be achieved with a much lower overall displacement due to the spaced apart widths of two similar hulls available in their large-block construction in existing docks?
    The airfield deck (like the "tower") can be made separately, also large-block.
    Before assembling the entire structure of the aircraft carrier together, it will be possible to pre-assemble and test the deck with the below-deck structures with a catapult, and with all take-off and landing equipment, like a coastal test bench, while the hulls supporting it will be built and equipped.
    This will speed up and reduce the cost of construction, and reduce the time it takes to commission a finished aircraft carrier.
    The aircraft carrier can be supplied to the sea with dies in hatches between the hulls, just like UDC functions are possible.
    Prerequisites will be created for the subsequent modernization and production of the model series.
    I have always been inspired in shipbuilding by the examples of the organization of the German large-block construction of submarines and American Liberty transports! good
    In addition, in achieving goals it is absolutely not necessary to follow stereotypes and copy an existing one (and therefore a priori obsolete!), If it is possible to work our own ways — in concepts and organization, designs and devices, in technologies, applications, .....! yes
    1. Vladimir_2U 27 January 2020 04: 18 New
      • 5
      • 7
      -2
      Quote: pishchak
      also large block
      The author seems to have pointed out the impossibility of large-block construction.
      Quote: pishchak
      aircraft carrier catamaran layout
      Immediately, in the case of narrower buildings, the problem with hangars and elevators, and with wide buildings, in many ways is the same, which in no way can be solved, which does not contribute to reducing the price. And the price of R&D of such a ship will be simply sky-high, again in my opinion, because we can’t talk not only about a large series, but about a series in general, there are no more than a couple of pieces.
      1. beeper 27 January 2020 04: 59 New
        • 10
        • 7
        +3
        hi What are the problems with hangars? Indeed, with a wide (between spaced apart, for the required general stability, relatively narrow, high-speed contours and ratios, hulls) flight deck, the deck spaces for hangars will be just as wide!
        Even lower beneath them, to the "ceiling" above the water, you can attach marching and transport assault ramps — these are already issues of the concept of the future use of the ship, as well as logistics of supply and combat ....
        Ammunition cellar and storage of fuels and lubricants in the underwater hulls.
        In the space between the hulls, where there is less sea turmoil, cargo hatches with high-performance crane facilities (or the same aircraft lifts, but universal, lowering below the hangar deck, to the level of reception of supply cargoes) for quick reception of cargo from supply vessels, from high-speed container ships ...
        Typical hulls with the usual ratio of length and width are possible, with the appropriate organization of work, quickly build-assemble by large-block method in many shipyards (and in different places) - super wide stocks and docks are not needed for this!
        Then fit them to a specially equipped outfitting wall and mount on them, the same large block, a deck with hangars and elevators, a catapult and a tower!

        As for finances, no matter how many billions you give, the greedy “effective managers” will “master” everything (to no avail for the assigned business!) ", If there is no tough, uncompromising demand for it smile Rogozinsky "Roskosmos" with kleptokosmodrom or Chubais "nanoindustry" an example!
        Stalin's "Cadres decide everything!" always up to date! wink
        1. Vladimir_2U 27 January 2020 05: 47 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          Quote: pishchak
          Indeed, with a wide ..... flight deck, the under-deck spaces for hangars will be just as wide!
          Without touching politics, what is the height of the hangar for the normal maintenance of the Su-27, or at least the MiG-29 in your opinion? I’ll answer, 7,2 meters!
          So, for clarity, the photo!
          https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/118297.html
          Imagine the total height of the flight deck, reinforcements under it (I have no doubt that only the thickness of the flooring is at least 5 cm steel, but this is only for normal operation), rooms for elements of the catapult, hangar ceiling, hangar ceiling reinforcements, hangar itself, hangar flooring ( you also know not a couple of millimeters of steel) reinforcements of the hangar flooring and finally the bottom, or how to call it correctly in the case of a catamaran. This monster is somehow coming out! Not even considering the weight!
          Quote: pishchak
          Stalin's "Cadres decide everything!" always up to date!

          Stalin would be the first to twist a finger at his temple, looking at this monster, I have no doubt.
          1. beeper 27 January 2020 06: 57 New
            • 6
            • 5
            +1
            hi You, Vladimir_2U, are absolutely wrong (for some reason, “attracting” the Stalinist phrase quoted by me: “Cadres decide everything!” Not to the human organization of design and construction, but to physical dimensions the aircraft carrier under discussion ??! winked )-Joseph Stalin really loved the big and powerful warships, and certainly I wouldn’t turn a finger at the temple! smile
            The history of Soviet battleships of the Soviet Union type and heavy cruisers of the Kronshtadt type can be guaranteed, not to mention the projects of the first Soviet aircraft carriers!

            The height of the hangar must be taken for the future, that is, with a margin! The flight deck also has a margin of no less than 70 mm.
            Taking into account all the required room heights, reinforcements of decks and reserves for modernization, no excess should be exceeded from the usual aircraft carrier freeboard height. winked

            In addition to developing crazy design ideas, I thought about the possibility of using such a catamaran layout to give our hypothetical aircraft carrier increased operational mobility-maximum knot speed of 40 ÷ 50 (or even more, due to the use of the "air cushion" effect, as in our skeg missile-carrying "Borax") ??! what
            It would be great to try to realize this speed effect in such a large tonnage, although it’s clear that simple “scaling” cannot be done (but the benefits of such a quick movement of the “floating airfield”, which are now inaccessible to any carrier power, are too tempting!)!

            It's still speculative only option! As my practice shows, in the process of designing or manufacturing, new, more optimal and more viable solutions begin to "come to my senses", it opens general information field(to which we are all "connected" and in which there is already everything that was, even in past civilizations, what is and what will be! yes ) and many ideas, already in working order, are scooped from there.

            In addition, I like the ideas of the famous participant of the Tsushima campaign, ship engineer and shipbuilder Kostenko, who at the beginning of the last century proposed a “wave” configuration of the bottom for his project of a promising Russian “dreadnought”!

            I’ll tell you my "datszybao", dear Vladimir_2U, is "The eyes are afraid, but the hands are doing!" wink What is yours ?!
            1. Vladimir_2U 27 January 2020 07: 14 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Quote: pishchak
              What is yours ?!
              And mine "Dreaming is not harmful" )) One of the conditions. My will, I would not have refused the "Star Destroyers" with a red star on board. But in reality one needs to look at things. )))
              1. beeper 27 January 2020 07: 27 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                hi Yes! Dreaming is good for our human Soul! yes
                As for the "Star Destroyer", it’s not such a pipe dream, you just need to directively redirect financial flows from empty "efficient" embezzlers (who even have an official salary higher than, for example, the director of NASA) to the real creators of technology! smile
            2. EvilLion 27 January 2020 10: 13 New
              • 2
              • 8
              -6
              Something in Stalin did not appear after the Second World War, the desire to revive the "Soviet Union". Apparently, the conclusions were drawn correctly, including and if possible (they failed everything that can be) in general to build them.
              1. beeper 27 January 2020 10: 39 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                hi I only illustrated with this example that JV Stalin did not turn his finger at the temple, looking at the large-tonnage warships, but was very located towards them! wink
              2. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 16 New
                • 8
                • 1
                +7
                Something in Stalin did not appear after the Second World War, the desire to revive the "Soviet Union".


                YES just the opposite
                1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 12: 13 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  YES just the opposite

                  There was really no special desire to finish building 23 at the temporary detention center. Because, theoretically, with enormous exertion of forces, one could complete the Leningrad one from the three pre-war LCs. But they decided not to tear the veins.
                  And for the next pr. 24, Stalin generally cooled:
                  ... if you now have nothing special to do, take care of the battleship ....

                  © IVS
                2. EvilLion 27 January 2020 12: 34 New
                  • 0
                  • 6
                  -6
                  At least one was completed in 8 years from the 45th to the 53rd?
                  1. ZAV69 27 January 2020 15: 41 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    The little shavens completed Wenguard. And at 54 he was sucked. He served 9 years in total ..... and at 60 he generally served on needles.
            3. Machito 27 January 2020 14: 31 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              And two more catamaran hulls to interconnect with hydrofoils. Accelerate this bandura to 100km / h.
      2. nickname7 28 January 2020 09: 10 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        . In my opinion, it’s not solved in any way, the problem with hangars and elevators, and with wide buildings is in many ways the same as nothing

        You don't seem to understand what a catamaran is. Let’s look at civilian ships, a catamaran with the same length as a yacht, has 3-4 times more internal volume and the deck, it has wider and higher resistance to pitching.
    2. Nfl1.6 27 January 2020 08: 32 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      I voiced this idea a couple of times here .. Moreover, we already have a couple of finished buildings with a nuclear power plant ..
      1. beeper 27 January 2020 09: 10 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        hi We are dreamers! But with the human dream it all starts!yes
    3. SVD68 27 January 2020 08: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Are there catamaran projects of several tens of thousands of tons? Is it possible to swim on them in principle?
      1. beeper 27 January 2020 09: 03 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Why not! For more than a hundred years, the Kommuna emergency rescue vessel, although it cannot be called so big, but nonetheless, the concept has paid off.
        The effect of the mutual attraction of the catamaran hulls at speed is known.
        With a large relative length, an additional influence of wave interference in a narrow interbody space is possible, of course, there are difficulties, but they can be solved, like many technical problems.
        It is possible that in the process of developing an advance project and performing preliminary tests of models in the mail pool, a completely different optimal layout will “come up”, for example, a trimaran “need to be taken and done”, begin to deal with this problem and it will show how and what! yes
        The main thing is to correctly formulate the problem, determine the ultimate goal, methods of achievement and benchmark intermediate criteria!
        1. Looking for 27 January 2020 14: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It has a displacement of 40 tons, that is, it is about as heavy and large as the American UDC of the Wosp and America types. Well, there’s nothing to bring it as an example.
    4. fif21 27 January 2020 16: 13 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      Quote: pishchak
      Therefore, the idea offhand, just as one of the options, the catamaran layout of an aircraft carrier,

      A good idea! Trimaran is also possible. But the meaning of building an aircraft carrier? Does Russia have a colony? Does Russia intend to defend its interests on other continents by military means? A real theater of operations for aircraft carriers the Pacific Ocean, but the islands of Shikatan, Iturup ...... these are unsinkable aircraft carriers. Explain to me why Russian aircraft carriers? request
  • Nikolaevich I 27 January 2020 03: 59 New
    • 6
    • 12
    -6
    In addition, Russia is a world leader in production. nuclear power plants for surface ships and ships. Right now, tests are underway for the newly built Arctic icebreaker with nuclear power plant, and this power plant is built as a fully electric - atomic reactor feeds steam turbogenerators, from which running electric motors work. This is a serious backlog for warships of the future, although for an aircraft carrier, the icebreaker’s power plant is, of course, small and weak. But who said that you cannot create a more powerful one? Atomic power plants give Russia a theoretical opportunity to create a ship with a displacement of 70-80 thousand tons, which in terms of efficiency will be comparable to American aircraft carriers ... Wishing the Author ... more delicate with expressions ... technical! There was a lot of time ... (late 40s-early 50s of the last century ...), when, even, other "academics" did not have a clear understanding: "what is it like now?" ! (This is me about the beginning of the "nuclear era"!). And what can I say about the "zhurnalyugi"? So they started to jump on the pages of journalistic publications "atomic" names: atomic bomb, reactor, ship, plane ... After that, of course, we figured out a bit what was happening and "corrected" in some places ... "nuclear" names began to be introduced! But by that time, some "atomic" names, as they say, had "grown into the skin"! Thus, among the "intelligent people and, more generally, literate ..." since then it has become customary to say: a nuclear reactor, a nuclear power plant, a nuclear ... (bomb, warhead, weapon ...), nuclear explosion, war .. .. But the original names remained, which became "traditional": nuclear power plants, nuclear submarines, ships (icebreaker, aircraft carrier, cruiser ...). No, I do not categorically say that it is "illiterate" to use: an atomic reactor, an atomic bomb .... but these expressions are more correctly attributed to outdated words, anachronism words!
  • Ezekiel 25-17 27 January 2020 04: 09 New
    • 8
    • 14
    -6
    Yes, Russia needs an aircraft carrier. In the light of the experience of combat use of aviation in Syria, it should accommodate an air group of about 40-50 aircraft, which is akin to an air group based at Khmeinim air base. That is, approximately the same as the aator sees him.
    1. svp67 27 January 2020 05: 43 New
      • 15
      • 1
      +14
      Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
      Yes, Russia needs an aircraft carrier

      Russia, first of all, needs an understanding of what it wants, not today or tomorrow, but for years to come. And this means creating a state development strategy for both the Armed Forces and the fleet in particular.
  • Graz 27 January 2020 05: 09 New
    • 10
    • 7
    +3
    we don’t need aircraft carriers in the next 20 years, it’s just stupid to spend money and effort on old things when there is a transition to new technologies in aviation, replacing drones and drones, aviation connections in the future, while the concept of aircraft carriers and their external and interior view with content.
    Therefore, a big minus in this I will put to all guardians of this floating technological rubbish and junk at the change of generations of weapons
    1. LeonidL 27 January 2020 08: 24 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      Before building an aircraft carrier group (otherwise everything is meaningless) you need to understand the perspective geopolitical goals of the state. If the vector of interests is aimed at the serious and long-term development of Africa and Latin America, it is necessary to seriously think about protecting your interests in these regions, first of all, on creating full-fledged naval forces, large military-aviation bases, auxiliary fleets, etc. Accordingly, on increasing recruitment into the sea infantry, in specialized military schools of the Navy for the officers of the AUG and everything else. Consequently - the restoration and creation of new schools. Moreover, you need to start in advance so that the officers and at least the midshipman and foremen participate in the creation and development of ships from scratch. We need new classes and schools for training crews, coastal barracks, DOSs, Navy officers' houses, infrastructure, schools, shops, etc. etc. We need to clearly understand where and how to base an aircraft carrier. If his tasks are in hot latitudes, to build under this climate - then it is hardly worth driving it periodically to the North. Those tasks are huge and you need to start solving them BEFORE, and not to catch up. Now you can’t get out on one bare patriotism. But this is if a decision is made at the highest level of power - to have their own interests beyond the usual Syria and to decisively protect them in the event of a threat. (Alas, in Syria, the “Kuznetsov” showed only the advantages of ground-based aviation, not to reproach pilots and sailors, not to mention the “details” that accompany the campaign.). For the "big nuclear war" (God forbid!) Aircraft carriers, and other surface ships, are nothing more than floating targets. Especially aircraft carriers. And there will be no time for their application, as well as real goals. Everything will begin and end too quickly. And then you just have to wave your hands with clubs.
    2. nickname7 28 January 2020 09: 18 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      . transition to new technologies in aviation with replacement by drones and drones

      Another strategist.
      EW resets all your drones.
      1. Graz 28 January 2020 09: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Firstly, whose Rab and whose Drones,
        secondly, it’s now electronic warfare, especially ours, is better than jamming systems in the control of drones, and what will happen in 10 years no one will say, and which side will have an advantage
        (which country is in technology, and which side is attacking or defending)
  • Ross xnumx 27 January 2020 05: 12 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    Thank you, Alexander! good
    This article is one of the few attempts to show not only the current state of affairs in Russian shipbuilding, but also a thorough analysis of the reasons for its "deplorable" state in matters of building aircraft carriers specifically.
    The attempt was excellent. Not only that, it directly indicates that you can engage in projections for as long as you want, and the path to the finished product lies (albeit not easy) through the construction of facilities. Most importantly, it is indicated that Russia needs not just a barge with a runway, but a full-fledged aircraft carrier (aircraft carrier) with all the necessary equipment, capable of operating in our northern latitudes ...
    Maybe you need to finish organizing one-time demonstration competitions, and invest money and effort in the necessary programs?
    1. Nemchinov Vl 29 January 2020 23: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: ROSS 42
      Maybe you need to finish organizing one-time demonstration competitions, and invest money and effort in necessary programs?
      ..- "wonderful toast"- as it was said in one of the films, but ...?! Are the aircraft carriers the very ones necessary programs ?! Personally, I don’t have such confidence !!
      Well, if you carefully, according to the article, -
      Quote: ROSS 42
      ... Most importantly, it is indicated that Russia needs not just a barge with a runway, and a full-fledged aircraft carrier (aircraft carrier ship) with all the necessary equipment, capable of operating in our northern latitudes ...
      , and to your koment ... That, to me personally it just seemed to me that uv. A. Timokhin, indirectly hinted that a full-fledged and expensive product (with a VI of 70-80 thousand tons) would be desirable, but expensive, and there will be no capacity in the foreseeable near future (and money ...). .. ?!. And it’s possible to swing at “something like that” (with a VI of 40 thousand tons), but ... ?!. They can then say that the “problems of small size” make themselves felt (storms, a short runway for takeoff, etc., etc.) ... ?!. .... Then WHY ?!.
  • rocket757 27 January 2020 05: 31 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Conclusions .... the opportunity exists, everything else, as it were, is a question of questions !!!
    We will see the process (circus) promises to be interesting!
  • Gardamir 27 January 2020 05: 45 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    They began to dream not at all, but specifically, and therefore the aircraft carrier will soon be. Bravo to the author.
    Only the author did not say why the Russian aircraft carrier. Many writhing patriots are still envious of America. Well, about the Americans it’s clear that they still can’t forget the bombing in Pearl Harbor.
    But science and industry are not standing still. Since then, airplanes have been flying on. Satellites appeared, UAV. And the generals all think in terms of the beginning of the 20th century.
  • Slavutich 27 January 2020 06: 01 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    It would be nice, as it were.
    It remains only to find the shipyard.
  • 75 Sergey 27 January 2020 06: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What is being built in Murmansk?
  • pmkemcity 27 January 2020 06: 45 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Prior to this, during the war in Korea, carrier-based aircraft actually saved South Korea from occupying the DPRK. At a certain point, the troops of South Korea remained virtually without airfields, and the only "place" from which the troops at the Busan bridgehead could be supported by aircraft were American aircraft carriers.

    The vector of "tolerance" is initially directed in a different direction. The DPRK did not “occupy” anyone, it freed. There weren’t any American aircraft carriers at the Busan bridgehead, as well as the "South Korean troops" (I don’t consider rabble troops).
    And now the criticism is essentially:
    1. Without a clear statement of the purpose of such a ship, it does not make sense to begin its construction;
    2. The construction of an aircraft carrier without a new aircraft is extremely stupid;
    3. Such a ship is also not needed without the design and construction of a whole "flotilla" of specialized escort ships;
    4. For the construction of a single ship, the block method is not only useful, but also harmful;
    5. And to give "acceleration" and "perestroika" of consciousness, I note that a decent engineer for such a matter would be happy to even go on a "long trip" to Bolshoy Kamen. And the "dishonest" will go there on a "Komsomol" ticket (if the Motherland needs to be). Why not move the sofa to the opera and scratch the parquet.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 01 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      1. It has long been given
      2. MiG-29K has great modernization potential
      3. In the years 2025-2027, the Navy will have 6 project 22350 frigates and the Nakhimov cruiser, from which the escort needed in the local war is collected.
      4. Not really, it would be much cheaper. But that is, that is.
      5. Well, you would have gone, but others would not have gone, plus everything needs to be dragged there from steel to turbines, and this is also money.
      1. pmkemcity 27 January 2020 11: 14 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        1. It has long been given

        Take a peek at least!
        2. MiG-29K has great modernization potential

        Necessarily (!) A new deck aircraft is needed, and that’s it. All juices were squeezed out of the 29th, he has no potential. I consider the attempt to adapt the land plane to the ship a failure.
        3. In the years 2025-2027, the Navy will have 6 project 22350 frigates and the Nakhimov cruiser, from which the escort needed in the local war is collected.

        The same story as with the MiG-29. There will be enough work for frigates without an aircraft carrier.
        5. Well, you would have gone, but others would not have gone, plus everything needs to be dragged there from steel to turbines, and this is also money.

        And I went. They will call again, I will not refuse.
        1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 28 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Take a peek at least!


          https://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/navy/weapons/[email protected]

          Necessarily (!) A new deck aircraft is needed, and that’s it. All juices were squeezed out of the 29th, he has no potential.


          If we talk about the so-called MiG-35. A deck still has room to grow.

          I consider the attempt to adapt the land plane to the ship a failure.


          Well, I agree. Just a new plane is not critical if there is a margin in terms of the size of the lifts, the power of catapults, etc.
          1. pmkemcity 27 January 2020 11: 42 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            "Designed to give combat stability to strategic missile submarines, surface ship groups and naval missile aircraft in combat mission areas" - this is even a very laconic justification for Facebook of the need for an aircraft carrier, especially its properties.
            If we talk about the so-called MiG-35. A deck still has room to grow.

            MiG 29 can only grow its age. And with age, both weight and shortness of breath and myopia usually grow.
            Just a new plane is not critical if there is a margin in terms of the size of the lifts, the power of catapults, etc.

            A new ship is a look into the future. You can’t design a ship based on the past, you can’t even rely on the present. Then he will serve 25-30 years, yes they will build 5-8 years, and design as much. So much for the “planning horizon”. Enterprise was designed for still non-existent aircraft - here's an example of the right approach.
            1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 45 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              this is even for Facebook a very laconic justification for the need for an aircraft carrier, especially its properties.


              Well then, follow the link at the beginning of the article.

              A new ship is a look into the future. You can’t design a ship based on the past, you can’t even rely on the present. Then he will serve 25-30 years, yes they will build 5-8 years, and design as much. So much for the "planning horizon"


              Well, I write that the stock of the lifts, catapults, etc. foresee
              1. pmkemcity 27 January 2020 12: 08 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Well, I write that the stock of the lifts, catapults, etc. foresee

                A ship is a complex of hulls, weapons, radio electronics, coastal basing and maintenance systems, repairs, training, and much more.
                A carrier - all of the above, only multiplied by two, three, or even four. Saying - maybe something we lift lifts, spit out a catapult, and then from this we catch something with the finishers, just not serious.
            2. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 12: 55 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Quote: pmkemcity
              "Designed to give combat stability to strategic missile submarines, surface ship groups and naval missile aircraft in combat mission areas" - this is even a very laconic justification for Facebook of the need for an aircraft carrier, especially its properties.

              Simply put, the Navy in the Northern Fleet again wants to build a “bastion” that covers the position of the SSBNs from the enemy’s PLO forces (Air Force + ICAPL). And at the same time, one and the same problem constantly arises - effective ground cover by aviation is possible only within a radius of 400-500 km from the airfield. More precisely, the distance from the airfield to the forces to be hidden should be less than from the forces to be covered to the point of guaranteed detection of a group of enemy aircraft intending to strike at these forces. Only in this case, reinforcements from the shore will have time to strengthen the duty link before it is demolished by the enemy air clearing group.
              That is, in order not to bend the right flank parallel to the shore (while at the same time building additional airfields on it), it is necessary to move the airfield closer to the forces being covered. There is no land suitable for an airfield in those parts. So - you need AB.
              1. pmkemcity 27 January 2020 13: 11 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                Simply put, the Navy in the Northern Fleet again wants to build a “bastion” that covers the position of the SSBNs from the enemy’s PLO forces (Air Force + ICAPL).

                For an aircraft carrier, both for technical reasons and the conditions of navigation, this task cannot be completed.
                Isn’t it easier to move the SSBN’s positional areas to places where we can control deployment security? Pacific Ocean - b. Broughton and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, North - White Sea, Caspian Sea?
                From Rybachy to Novaya Zemlya 800 km. Build a permanent air base. Completely the whole sea is closed. Our "capitalist" knows how to count kerosene, because it’s a cashier. In view of this, our planes will never "hang" over a theater of operations as Neptune-Orions will not. Call only. And who will call?
                1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 15: 45 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Quote: pmkemcity
                  Isn’t it easier to move the SSBN’s positional areas to places where we can control deployment security? Pacific Ocean - b. Broughton and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, North - White Sea, Caspian Sea?

                  The main problem is that the forces of the adversary are covering our air defense with its three airfields from Sakhalin to Kamchatka like a bull to a sheep. Plus, the SSBN base goes right into the ocean, and from it you still need to somehow crawl to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
                  In general, it is unclear what to grab for - except for the SSBN there is nothing.

                  In the North, the problem is the same: the SSBN base near Murmansk, and to the nearest conditionally safe place you need to crawl along the entire Kola.
                  Quote: pmkemcity
                  From Rybachy to Novaya Zemlya 800 km. Build a permanent air base.

                  At least two, and each of the calculation of the possibility of confrontation with at least three AB. And to them - all the infrastructure, including access roads.
                  Local conditions are well described in Tsupko’s memoirs “Above the expanses of the northern seas”. And since 1942 nothing has changed there.
                  Quote: pmkemcity
                  Completely the whole sea is closed.

                  400 km from the coast.
              2. Firelake 27 January 2020 15: 01 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Yes I need it. But there is no plane.
              3. LeonidL 27 January 2020 19: 40 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                You do not know or have forgotten about Operation Atrina-Atrina-2. Now you do not need to block the "cover" of either the Air Force-ICAPL or AUG to enter the ocean. This is the solution to the problem. Well, the fact is that no one will give time either to raise the alarm or to deploy ... because in the case of Armagedon (God forbid) you can shoot directly from the pier - today's BR and KR allow this. Because the strategic weapon for the SF AB is most likely useless, and taking into account all the attached “climatic” features of basing, training pilots, etc. Aircraft carriers, and I agree with the opinion that you can use the experience on nuclear propulsion systems (rather than icebreaking, but of the type of Peter the Great) atomic, more than costly and long-term creation (repetition) of something similar to Kuznetsov is more preferable ... most likely with a similar result. BUT, not having all the information on geopolitical forecasts and ambitions of the country's leadership, it makes no sense to talk about the construction of certain types of ships. This heated discussion turns into amateur games. Before building, you need to know firmly why to build.
                1. Alexey RA 28 January 2020 10: 33 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: LeonidL
                  You do not know or forgot about the operation "Atrina - Atrina-2"

                  I know. And I do not want to receive the same operation performed by the American ICAPL regarding our SSBNs.
                  Quote: LeonidL
                  Now, to enter the ocean, one does not need to block the “cover” of either the Air Force-ICAPL or the AUG. This is the solution to the problem.

                  Ah, green grapes. ©
                  Well, yes, without having a PLO of the far zone, without having a PLO of the near zone, without having a PLO, practically having lost ICAPL and aviation PLO (8 aircraft for the entire Navy), indeed no need to fence "cover". Because there is nothing.
                  The Pacific Fleet is especially indicative, where the withdrawal and cover of all SSBNs and SSBNs should be provided by a single combat-ready ICAPL.
                  Quote: LeonidL
                  Well, the fact is that no one will give time either to raise the alarm, or to deploy ... therefore, in the case of Armagedon (God forbid) you can shoot directly from the pier - today's BR and KR allow this.

                  And then why do we need a fleet at all? It is cheaper to buy PGRK instead of the SSBN by the number of PUs of the cruiser. Moreover, combat stability and secrecy of the “primers” are currently higher than those of the SSBNs, including due to the fact that the regiment’s launchers can “scatter alone” over a fairly large area.
                  1. LeonidL 28 January 2020 18: 43 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    “And then why do we need a fleet at all?” ... This is your question ... In the old good understanding, what is sitting in the heads of home-grown “naval commanders” and opus authors “for the Fleet” - the fleet is surface ships that solve the tasks of the last century. Times are different and other tasks. A surface fleet is needed to solve the problems of securing national interests (as one reader of “domestic bourgeois” put it sweetly in the comments) Yes, for this a fleet is needed and built for this task. At the strategic level, it will either be powerless or simply not in demand throughout the entire life of the ships (an example is the Great Soviet Fleet), and therefore unnecessary.
                2. timokhin-aa 28 January 2020 14: 14 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  You do not know or forgot about the operation "Atrina - Atrina-2"


                  Excellent knowledge of the issue.

                  Atrina failed. You do not forget this small fact.
  • mark1 27 January 2020 06: 53 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    it looks like we have a chance to get out of the carrier deadlock.

    We do not have an aircraft carrier deadlock, we have an all-naval deadlock, and the last thing we need when solving deadlock problems is to deal with the urgent construction of aircraft carriers
  • parusnik 27 January 2020 07: 22 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    It is necessary to build, it is necessary to build, and even then it is necessary to repair .. The question is where? The Baltic Shipyard is an option, but will aircraft carriers of this type be built for all naval groups of the Pacific, Black Sea, Northern, Baltic? One plant will cope, even if it is provided with everything necessary? .. A shipbuilding complex is needed, with related enterprises, and it should be sharpened not only for the construction of aircraft carriers .. Question where? The Azov coast does not fit, shallow ... The Black Sea fits, but its own specifics, natural ... yes and the best places are crammed .. The Far East, the North still remain .. But this needs to be built, communications should be made, again specialists and everyday problems housing, schools , hospitals ... One question, where is Zin’s money? ... Ah, yes .. the "alligators" will take off their last shirt ... Somehow an article or news slipped into VO that our oligarchs are going to invest billions in the Russian economy ... So why did it come down ... A huge front where to put money, to strengthen the country's defense, and defend their interests in some regionah..Kak nor as yet we are a young capitalist power, the imperialist manners ....
    1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 13: 11 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Quote: parusnik
      The Baltic Shipyard is an option, but will aircraft carriers of this type be built for all naval groups of the Pacific, Black Sea, Northern, Baltic?

      Why do we need AB on "former fleet"And"chi navy, chi not navy"? At DCBF, the destroyer is already the flagship of the fleet. smile
      AB is MOT and the North. In other fleets, the best anti-ship means are tanks on the berths of the enemy’s base. smile
      Quote: parusnik
      There is still the Far East, the North .. But this needs to be built, communications should be made, again, specialists and everyday problems, housing, schools, hospitals ...

      Everything is already stolen built before us: Zvezda and Sevmash (the 402nd plant in Molotovsk, which was originally under construction under the Pr. 23 LC) - they were laid together with the plant smile ) It is necessary not to build, but to modernize and expand - the same dock in which Gorshkov was converted.
      Quote: parusnik
      Ah, yes .. the "alligators" will take off their last shirt ... Somehow an article or news slipped into VO that our oligarchs are going to invest billions in the Russian economy ... So why did it come up ...

      Our alligators they are still captivated by the illusions that they will agree with the West, and their money will reliably lie abroad. We must pay tribute to the West - it is doing its best to deprive our oligarchs of these dangerous illusions by regularly tightening capital requirements and squeezing oligarchs' money into Russia. smile
      The second illusion is the presence of a certain "international law", which the West will follow in relations with the nouveau riche from Russia. Here, our ally is Stockholm Arbitration and the United States with their sanctions and the Orange Revolutions, after which the old contracts are torn, and the “sponsors of the revolutions” get the new ones.
      Sooner or later, it will even reach our oligarchs that the same “dashing 90s” are happening in the international arena - and they need an “army roof”. Fortunately, American companies do not hesitate to use this roof: in the same Iraq it was very difficult to determine where US Vice President Dick Cheney ends and Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney begins. Yes, and now ...
      I left the troops to take the oil. There is just enough strength left to hold the oil
      © Trump
      1. parusnik 27 January 2020 13: 47 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        What is good in building an AB is the development of production, technology, the creation of new jobs ... But apparently not in our country ...
      2. Octopus 27 January 2020 13: 52 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Sooner or later, it will even reach our oligarchs that the same “dashing 90s” are happening in the international arena - and they need

        snuffbox. This is if you are very lucky. And the last time, when the embezzlers clearly saw that the state no longer provides for their interests, the 91st year happened.

        As for the army roof, Herr Thyssen, for example, had such a roof. In Dachau.
        1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 15: 58 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Octopus
          And the last time, when the embezzlers clearly saw that the state no longer provides for their interests, the 91st year happened.

          It was a deal. But the trouble is, most embezzlers in the new state are no better. So a change of state is not an option, you need to look for something else.
          Quote: Octopus
          As for the army roof, Herr Thyssen, for example, had such a roof. In Dachau.

          War criminals are appointed by the winner. ©
          Lockwood, Harris and LeMay are examples of this.
          1. Octopus 27 January 2020 19: 22 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            most embezzlers in the new state did not get better.

            You think? Compare life's journey V.N. Yakovleva I.A. Zelensky N.A. Uglanov, K.Ya. Bauman, A.I. Ugarov V.V. Grishina and Yu.M. Luzhkov.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            War criminals are appointed by the winner

            This is a little about that. Fritz Thyssen, author of the book “I Financed Hitler”, received from a grateful reader a trip to picturesque places: Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Dachau. In Dachau, by the way, he crossed paths with another systemic liberal, By Hälmar Schacht, who also managed to the Ronald Freisler People’s Court of Justice (member of the RCP (B.) Since 1918) and the A.Ya. Nuremberg Tribunal. Vyshinsky (member of the RCP (b) since 1920).

            So you think in vain that now, after Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, and many, many others, someone will donate money to the High Seas Fleet. When the light of Roman Arkadyevitch, for all the good, the British spat in the soul, he left all such a sad homeland. No, another homeland, historical.
  • Amateur 27 January 2020 07: 29 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Well, right, “OSTEKHBURO” with P. Grokhovsky and V. Bekauri in “one bottle”.
    And then Grumant was recaptured from the Norgs.
  • Hermit21 27 January 2020 07: 55 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    What does the "Star" not like? It will be necessary - civilians will move
    1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 08: 11 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Far away, due to logistics, the price will increase by 1,5-1,8 times.
      1. pmkemcity 27 January 2020 08: 31 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        Something between Koreans and Chinese, the price does not increase ... Or is it far from the centers of "decision on landing"?
        1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 10: 58 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Everything is close there - waste, steel industry, shipyards, workers. As we have in St. Petersburg approximately.
          And they have warmth there.
          1. Povelitel_buri 27 January 2020 11: 22 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            The Baltic plant will not be able to build an aircraft carrier, even such as the Vikrant, with a launch weight of 26000 tons. And slipway A will not be able to withstand such a load, because the launch weight of the Urals was maximum for the slipway and amounted to 19000 tons.
            So it is urgent to engage in the reconstruction of the Baltic Shipyard, regardless of whether the aircraft carrier will be built or not - to build there a huge dry dock with a boathouse, new hull shops and large-block assembly shops.
            1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 25 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              The text contains a link to the Baltic Shipyard website, to a page with slipway parameters. For example, its maximum load capacity and load tons per linear meter.
              1. Povelitel_buri 27 January 2020 11: 33 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                The reality shows us something completely different - they did additional calculations so that the Urals could be lowered with three tiers of the superstructure. So there are clearly no passport 40000 tons
                1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 14: 23 New
                  • 3
                  • 2
                  +1
                  On the slipway 40 and not necessary. There is a maximum of 2/3 of this mass.
          2. pmkemcity 27 January 2020 11: 26 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            And they have warmth there.

            The 42nd parallel is the latitude of Abkhazia. Where are you even warmer?
            Everything is close there - waste, steel industry, shipyards, workers. As we have in St. Petersburg approximately.

            I can say the same about Primorye and the Khabarovsk Territory. About...
            Sell ​​from St. Petersburg "your" (Novokuznetsk) steel to a German, and bring it to Vladivostok from Korea. What is in the way? Pride? Or that the Koreans will not give a drink? So they just come on!
            1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 35 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              and bring it to Vladivostok from Korea. What is in the way?


              For warships will not ride. Plus turbines, finishers, radar, and much more that you have to drag.
              1. pmkemcity 27 January 2020 12: 00 New
                • 5
                • 2
                +3
                For warships will not ride. Plus turbines, finishers, radar, and much more that you have to drag.

                I see no reason. Large ships were built in Komsomolsk. In Vladivostok, the radio industry was, and they say, is.
                1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 14: 51 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: pmkemcity
                  I see no reason. Large ships were built in Komsomolsk. In Vladivostok, the radio industry was, and they say, is.

                  Large ships were built in Nikolaev and Leningrad. And then they drove to the North and to the Pacific Fleet.
                  The same aviation technical equipment for the aircraft was manufactured and is being manufactured at one plant in the country - in St. Petersburg.
                  1. pmkemcity 27 January 2020 15: 34 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Large ships were built in Nikolaev and Leningrad. And then they drove to the North and to the Pacific Fleet.

                    On November 13, 1932, a resolution was adopted on the construction of a shipyard near the village of Permskoye on Amur.

                    On June 12, 1933, the laying of the body shop, the first industrial facility of the plant, took place.

                    On May 25, 1935, the first submarine of the XI L-11 series was laid at the plant.

                    June 30, 1936 the plant officially went into operation.

                    Until June 1938, the submarines, the leaders of the destroyers of project 38 and the destroyers of project 7 were assembled from billets and equipment received by the railway and river, manufactured by the Nikolaev plant named after A. Marty, since the plant did not have its own body-processing and machine-building production.

                    June 12, 1938 laid the first ship, built from the first stages - the cruiser of the project 26 bis Kalinin.

                    Until 1941, the submarines L-11 and L-12, the leaders of the destroyers “Baku” and “Tbilisi”, the destroyers “Resolute”, “Slow”, “Retive”, “Hasty”, “Enraged”, “Zealous” were launched "And" Rare. "
                    After the war ended, the plant actively increased its production capacity by constructing destroyers of the project 30-K, small anti-submarine ships of the project 122-A, patrol ships of the project 29 and a large series of destroyers of the project 30bis. During the period from 1946 to 1957, the plant built 75 ships and vessels for various purposes.

                    In 1958, the plant began construction of the first nuclear submarine in its history, Project 659. Since 1959, the plant was included in the list of especially important facilities of the USSR.

                    In June 1962, the leading large-capacity ocean icebreaking transport vessel of the Amguema series was commissioned.

                    At the end of 1969, the plant transferred the first nuclear submarine with 16 ballistic missiles, Project 667A, to the Pacific Fleet.
                    In total, over the history of its activities, the plant has produced more than 300 ships and vessels for various purposes. For the Navy, 57 atomic submarines, 41 diesel-electric submarines, 57 combat surface ships were built. [2]
                    In Vladik they made radar and GAS, he himself was at the factory practice on the "mailbox".
                    Khabarovsk - "Daldizel". There was ... And much more.
                    1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 16: 38 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: pmkemcity
                      Until June 1938, the submarines, the leaders of the destroyers of project 38 and the destroyers of project 7 were assembled from billets and equipment received by the railway and river, manufactured by the Nikolaev plant named after A. Marty, since the plant did not have its own body-processing and machine-building production.

                      Moreover, the same “sevens” left the factory in the form of “semi-finished products”, and then they were transferred for completion to Vladivostok. So the first new EM Pacific Fleet was lost - due to the underestimation of the meteo, the ship was thrown on the rocks.
                      Quote: pmkemcity
                      June 12, 1938 laid the first ship, built from the first stages - the cruiser of the project 26 bis Kalinin.

                      Yeah ... and the country cost these cruisers 25-30% more expensive than the Baltic and Black Sea.
                      Quote: pmkemcity
                      In total, over the history of its activities, the plant has produced more than 300 ships and vessels for various purposes. For the Navy, 57 atomic submarines, 41 diesel-electric submarines, 57 combat surface ships were built.

                      A simple question: what large ships were surface ships built in the Far East after Project 26 bis?
                      1. pmkemcity 27 January 2020 16: 53 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        He built large boats.
                      2. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 19: 12 New
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        +4
                        Quote: pmkemcity
                        He built large boats.

                        That is, the plant did not build large surface ships.
                        And the transportation of submarines along the Amur River was carried out in the floating dock.
                      3. pmkemcity 28 January 2020 05: 38 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        In my opinion, the last 18000 tons, a tanker.
          3. ZAV69 27 January 2020 15: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            What's the problem? Rail on hand. And what oversize is possible by the sea, it is also available
            1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 16: 40 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: ZAV69
              What's the problem? Rail on hand. And what oversize is possible by the sea, it is also available

              The problem is the distance. Will have to be transported either by the Trans-Siberian Railway, or through two or even three oceans. And if you have to return something to the manufacturer for repair or revision ...
              1. pmkemcity 27 January 2020 16: 56 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                And if you have to return something to the manufacturer for repair or revision ...

                I have already said that you need to take those hands, pull out their experiences and make them do it right on the spot. In Soviet times, "proms" always hung around the ships, and with pleasure went on business trips, even women.
  • Grandfather Crimea 27 January 2020 08: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I agree, otherwise it will cost us as a Hitler war. Therefore, everything is so sad. At the top, where the eagles fly)))) the situation is more than clear than it seems to us.
  • Hog
    Hog 27 January 2020 08: 31 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    If you give an aircraft carrier a catamaran (there are no problems with the width), you can build it on the Baltic. Installation of hangar blocks should be carried out after launching using floating cranes.
  • Alexander Lik 27 January 2020 08: 37 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Russian aircraft carriers are useless. They are lobbied for by those who desire corruption money.
  • Avior 27 January 2020 08: 38 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    . At the same time, up to twenty fighter jets are declared as part of the air group, which is very good, and incomparably better than any UDC with vertical lines.

    1. It is not clear what such a conclusion is based on.
    A similar number of aircraft has UDC like America, although it does not have a bias in aircraft carriers.
    Cavour's smaller size is also close to 20 as much as possible, although he has a bias in UDC
    2. A light aircraft carrier for vertical lines will be incomparably cheaper and technologically simpler and will not have restrictions on size and displacement in the sense that it is possible to reduce or increase strictly the size of an available shipyard
    And the quantity may not be one unit, which will drastically reduce the price, and the cost of operation will be much cheaper.
    Both experience will be gained in construction, and the terms can be real, because the aircraft carrier described by the author is a matter of building a long time
    3. In my opinion, the author underestimates the possibility and complexity of creating a reliable catapult. Even thirty years ago, in the USSR with completely different capabilities, they didn’t get a single model that actually launched the aircraft, they drove a maximum of carts ashore. In reality, even with a finish, difficulties arise, and this is a incomparably simpler device than a catapult.
    In fact, today only the States are making real-life catapults, and this has been the situation for many years.
    And the author offers to cost immediately ejection and even in one copy
    The French, I won’t, didn’t create either a catapult, but simply bought it.
    And what the Chinese will do is still a question. Moreover, they immediately swung at the electromagnetic
    4. An aircraft carrier without catapults and with a horizontal landing of modern aircraft has not yet proved its effectiveness in real operations. Those Chinese consider it only as a transition to a purely catapult, and even educational.
    5. How do the costs of creating an airplane with a vertical landing of an ikatapult compare? A big question is still, especially considering that the situation has changed a lot since the 1980s. We managed to create powerful engines, and you can make such an aircraft using a single-engine scheme.
    And there is experience in creating such an aircraft.
    Moreover, the decision to create it, as they wrote, was made
    And such an aircraft carrier will be a tit in his hand, and not a crane in the sky.
    1. NN52 27 January 2020 09: 44 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      By the way, in addition to the catapult, which the author "does not freeze" ...
      The author did not see these photos? Since the campaign of the aircraft carrier CVN-70 "Carl Vinson" in 86-87 years.
      1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 11 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        Saw and what? The intruder completely sat down, but in the photo the icing of the deck in the Arctic, the catapult has nothing to do with it.
        1. NN52 27 January 2020 12: 45 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Once again about the catapult .... The upper right photo ... What is the American doing?
          Is it really incomprehensible, the author?
          1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 16: 44 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: NN52
            Once again about the catapult .... The upper right photo ... What is the American doing?

            And this is exactly the track of the catapult, and not the cable of the aerofinisher and its shadow on the deck?

            We at Kuznetsovo have the same problem with freezing the deck - to solve it on board there is this:
            1. NN52 27 January 2020 23: 31 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              And for the aerofinisher cable, is it not too thin?
              Here's another view of the steam catapult guide on the deck.
              1. Avior 28 January 2020 00: 25 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                the cable is clearly visible there. nothing like a catapult.
                the catapult can not freeze by definition, in preparation for its work and during operation, its temperature is maintained at about 200 degrees, it can not freeze.
    2. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 15 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      1. Let us compare in terms of aircompatibility UOSP and Wikrant. And also in speed.
      2. It only takes 20 years and a minimum of 60 billion for a plane that will not be known which one, and even such a ship can only fight in the closed southern seas. And why do we need this?
      3. Nevertheless, the task cannot be considered impossible for the current Russian Federation.
      4. Well, so I write about the catapult.
      5. The decision was made, but there is no OCD. So it goes. And it is right.
      1. Avior 28 January 2020 00: 58 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        1. why do you need to compare Wosp, not America
        Yes, even a little Italian actually UDC Cavour
        2.
        It only takes 20 years and a minimum of 60 billion for a plane that turns out to be unknown which

        and the aircraft carrier is known which will be for at least 2 trillion, and in terms of time much more?
        But in fighter competencies more preserved than in the construction of aircraft carriers
        3.
        Nevertheless, the task cannot be considered impossible for the current Russian Federation.
        I can’t imagine why you are making such a conclusion.
        Fighters are made both in Russia and in the world. A catapult a long time ago, only in the States and nowhere else.
        In Russia, they have never done anything similar. And if you recall the experience of the USSR, so the Yaks did, quite flying, against the catapult, with which they never tried to launch the plane.
        And their builders have retired for a long time in both cases.
        4. It's just that if something goes wrong with the catapult, there will be another Kuznetsov. But if even the vertical fails, it will be guaranteed UDC with helicopters.
        Not an aircraft carrier, of course, but a ship quite suitable for use for certain purposes.
        and much cheaper
        5. it is clear that so far nothing is clear. there is no ship project under it, so they’re not in a hurry
        1. timokhin-aa 28 January 2020 14: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          4. It's just that if something goes wrong with the catapult, there will be another Kuznetsov. But if even the vertical fails, it will be guaranteed UDC with helicopters.
          Not an aircraft carrier, of course, but a ship quite suitable for use for certain purposes.


          So it must be done before bookmarking.
          1. Avior 28 January 2020 15: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            then construction in general in the future will leave
            1. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 11: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              This is a debatable issue.
  • Shopping Mall 27 January 2020 08: 40 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Good afternoon, Alexander!

    Question.

    And why, if we reduce the displacement, then we immediately abandon the nuclear power plant? We definitely have no problems with them. We are doing both for nuclear submarines and for atomic icebreakers, this is in contrast to turbines, which one way or another still have to be developed. If even the destroyer battleship Leader with a nuclear power plant is considered, then God himself ordered the aircraft carrier.

    Instead of four turbines of 27000 hp. to put two reactors, the same RITM-200 or something even more perfect, with non-recharging of the core for 25-35 years.

    The construction of an aircraft carrier for the Russian Federation is an innovative task, and considering how we are with turbines now, what is the point of creating risks? A nuclear power plant will provide unlimited range, the possibility of a long course at high speed, has enormous potential for providing power to powerful radars and weapons at the NFP. And if it does reach the atomic Leader, then 1 AB + 2 EM + 1-2 nuclear submarines is quite an attack group.
    1. Avior 27 January 2020 09: 23 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      if you go to the nuclear power plant, then as an example we can consider not the Indian aircraft carrier, but the French Charles de Gaulle - it just fits the criteria of the author
      42 tons full displacement
      Xnumx length m
      64,36 width m
      75 height m
      Engines Two water atomic reactors K15
      27 nodes travel speed
      Autonomy of swimming

      yet again
      The ship is equipped with the Satrap stabilization system, which maintains a roll within ± 0.5 ° and allows you to lift and receive planes during a 6-point storm. The system consists of two pairs of active stabilizers and dual rudders, as well as two computer-controlled compensators. The compensator is a 22-ton ballast that can be moved under the flight deck along rail guides across the ship’s axis at a speed of up to 1 m / s. The system compensates for wind loads, side rolling, roll during bends, yaw, sea waves.

      what the author writes about
      1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 10 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        and the ship is equipped with the Satrap stabilization system, which


        It’s better not to build then at all than like that. To calculate the contours - it turns out - to build, it does not work, do not build.
    2. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 09 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      I would not want us to have too much military spending. They are not so small, to be honest.
  • kit88 27 January 2020 08: 40 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    I don’t understand something. And what is easier and cheaper, if necessary, to disassemble the floor of an aircraft carrier to return to the Baltic plant. Or did you make out the span of the WHSD? Or is WHSD a toll road and should not be touched? And in general, a century and a half ago, they somehow solved a similar issue in St. Petersburg with the construction of drawbridges on the Neva, and now in the 21st century there are already no brains?
    1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 08 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      I don’t understand something. And what is easier and cheaper, if necessary, to disassemble the floor of an aircraft carrier to return to the Baltic plant. Or did you make out the span of the WHSD?


      Aircraft carrier of course.
  • nm76 27 January 2020 08: 48 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    If today the Egyptians are tasked with building a pyramid, then no matter how hard they try, they will not be able to repeat one of the wonders of the world that they created thousands of years ago.
    So with us, we can’t do what 30 years ago it seemed like an ordinary task.
    And the question is not only in technology and stocks, but in personnel. Even if you score technical schools with youth, nobody will pass on knowledge and experience to them.
    1. agond 27 January 2020 09: 35 New
      • 12
      • 5
      +7
      I propose to build a mental hospital instead of an aircraft carrier for those who really want to build it. The problem is not the absence of aircraft carriers, but in the presence of people who want to do everything like theirs, like we will do as they have and it will be just as good here with us, this is a dangerous delusion, it won’t be good. The West needs us to be led again and start to imitate them, and imitation is always worse than the original. we are geopolitically different and our weapons should be different, there is no close symmetry here. If the problem is not being solved or is being solved with great difficulty, then you are solving it incorrectly or you made a mistake in the goal-setting., You have chosen the wrong task.
      1. nm76 27 January 2020 09: 57 New
        • 9
        • 4
        +5
        I agree that it is necessary to raise the country's prestige, but not at the moment with the construction of an aircraft carrier.
      2. arkadiyssk 27 January 2020 09: 57 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        , like we’ll do as they have there and it will be just as good here with us, this is a dangerous delusion, it won’t be good. Cargo cult is called.
      3. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 08 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        we are geopolitically different and our weapons should be different, there is no close symmetry here.


        Well, solve the problem of air defense ship formation without your aircraft.
        1. SVD68 28 January 2020 08: 48 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          A hundred coast-based missile carriers, 3 coast-based DLRO aircraft and one and a half dozen unmanned reconnaissance aircraft. And enemy planes will have nowhere to take off.
          1. timokhin-aa 28 January 2020 14: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And - a surprise, they don’t have time to repulse the strike of a decked wing at least 200 km away.

            You here.

            3. "Umbrella air defense"

            There is an opinion, and many military professionals adhere to it, that it is possible, relying on coastal airfields, to create such an air defense system of the coastal zone in which ships could operate, being relatively safe from enemy air attack means. Naturally, such a zone seems to be coastal, “under the coast”.

            It’s worth noting right away: Russian military science sees this defense system exclusively as a combination of radar surveillance equipment (preferably AWACS) and fighter aircraft. This is understandable and natural, because ground-based air defense systems will not have enough range, even if you put them on the edge of the water (which in itself will never happen).

            What is the depth of such “aircraft” air defense from the point of view of domestic theorists?


            https://topwar.ru/163939-stroim-flot-oshibochnye-idei-nepravilnye-koncepcii.html
            1. SVD68 28 January 2020 15: 25 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And another surprise - enemy planes striking, do not have time to return to defend their aircraft carrier. Those. either the enemy will be forced to allocate much fewer planes to strike, or an exchange will take place in our favor.
              1. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 11: 35 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                It is also necessary to catch him at the time of receiving aviation. It is very difficult. Plus in AUS there will be at least TWO of them. One attacks, the second defends.
                1. SVD68 3 February 2020 21: 05 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  It is also necessary to catch him at the time of receiving aviation. It is very difficult.

                  It’s difficult to fight. And here, of course, there can be many tactical schemes and then who will outplay someone.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Plus in AUS there will be at least TWO of them. One attacks, the second defends.

                  Already half of the planes have been repelled.
                  1. timokhin-aa 4 February 2020 10: 54 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    No one will sign up to solve a problem potentially fraught with losses close to 100% and with a probability of success of 0,2-0,3
                    1. SVD68 6 February 2020 08: 06 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      No one will sign up to solve a problem potentially fraught with losses close to 100% and with a probability of success of 0,2-0,3

                      Why are these losses close to 100%? Fighters do not have time to intercept them for 200 km, and they have time to cover up the attack of their missile carriers.
                      1. timokhin-aa 6 February 2020 12: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Because the depth of the AUS defensive orders from a pair of aircraft carriers can be hundreds of kilometers long, and each point of this space is penetrated by anti-aircraft missiles from ships.
      4. Per se. 27 January 2020 11: 46 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Quote: agond
        The West needs us to be led again and start to imitate them, and imitation is always worse than the original.
        Are you talking about our adopted capitalism, which is worse than the "original"? By and large, our homegrown bourgeoisie, not only need aircraft carriers, they themselves do not need the fleet. Many people like to repeat the phrase that Russia has only two allies, but now it’s not the army and navy, but oil and gas ... Everything for sale, raw materials and Soviet military achievements, if someone wanted to order, buy an aircraft carrier from us, they would create built, and so, for yourself ...

        Indeed, with whom our newly minted bourgeoisie is at war, they are all right. Who will bomb their children in London or New York, their apartments and yachts over the hill, their millions and billions of dollars in foreign banks and foreign currencies? Our government is quite comfortable with the West - the power from the Soviet Union is degrading, the margin of safety is ending. What to say about aircraft carriers, priests consecrate space launches so that rockets "to God" take off, do not fall at the start. They criticized lawyers and economists for Soros programs, they rule buy and sell to all, effective "managers", so why be surprised. So, “show-offs”, puffing out cheeks, raising ratings in the butting with the masters in the West, demonstrating piece-wise “miracle weapons” to their people.

        Otherwise, if we talk about aircraft carriers, these are technologies, these are jobs, this is the prospect of the development of science and technology. As long as aviation is needed at sea, its carriers, aircraft carriers, will be needed. In this example, all the developed fleets of the world. You can make it through very quickly, after the technology does not fall from the ceiling, the USSR created the ocean fleet for a long time, but it was worth it. Who sings songs that Russia is a "land power", consider "Muscovy" before the time of Peter I, at best a naive person who wanted to, "the best."
        1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 15: 08 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Per se.
          Indeed, with whom our newly minted bourgeoisie is at war, they are all right.

          It was nice. And now the interests of our bourgeoisie have come into conflict with the interests of not our bourgeois - for there is only one market, and no one wants to share profits.
          Quote: Per se.
          Who will bomb their children in London or New York, their apartments and yachts over the hill, their millions and billions of dollars in foreign banks and foreign currencies?

          This is while they are. Until Britain or the United States passes another anti-money laundering law and asks to confirm the legality of the funds. Or until this or that oligarch in his affairs crosses the path to the interests of the American company - and the federals are not interested in them. For US business is closely connected with the state, and the cycle between posts on boards of directors and government structures is eternal: they leave the Pentagon for the military-industrial complex, and from the oil business to vice presidents. Well, how is it here not to cheer on a little man.
          1. Octopus 27 January 2020 15: 43 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            now the interests of our bourgeois come into conflict with the interests of not our bourgeois -

            And you didn’t mix up who came into conflict with whom? Abramov with Akhmetov? Gref with Kolomoisky?
          2. LeonidL 27 January 2020 19: 55 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            It is proposed to fight for the interests of the bourgeois? Or the interests of his "bourgeois" closer to the body?
          3. Per se. 28 January 2020 06: 16 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Or until this or that oligarch in his affairs crosses the path to the interests of the American company - and the federals are not interested in them.
            Good day, Alex! Everything is selective for the Yankees, they would want, they would have pinched all our oligarch brothers for a long time, they don’t want to, but they make it clear where the "lactating hand" is and who can have a longer or shorter leash. Therefore, our president often says one thing, but it turns out completely different, although our authorities still pretend that they can build some kind of independent capitalism, to squeeze something from the masters of the world capitalist system, and this is utopia.

            It is interesting to read articles by Alexander Timokhin, but it seems that until we get out of the alien pole, out of the rules of others, we will not have a powerful fleet. It is necessary to revive the second world pole of power, socialism. It is not a matter of military ambitions, as everyone has already recognized, Russia will either be a great country, or it will not be, it will be ruined. We do not have a decent future in capitalism. Of course, this is just my opinion, thank you for your attention.
  • nm76 27 January 2020 10: 12 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    By the end of the Second World War, and this was no less than 75 years ago, the US Navy had about a hundred aircraft carriers of various classes (squadron, light, expeditionary).
    I want to note that at that time, all unloved states did not print money in any quantity.
    And now we have with you, there is only one question, about the construction or not of one aircraft carrier !!!
    1. nm76 27 January 2020 10: 28 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      To all the minusers denying obvious things, pour a balm on the soul.
      There is an old Russian folk wisdom that if you look at the layout of the aircraft carrier Lamontin for a long time, you will definitely get something)))
      1. Engineer 27 January 2020 10: 40 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        If you look at the layout of the Manatee for a long time, then the model of the Manatee will begin to look at you)
        1. nm76 27 January 2020 10: 46 New
          • 6
          • 5
          +1
          By the way, since we are armed with radio-controlled cars and quadrocopters, why not accept the radio-controlled model of an aircraft carrier? )))
          1. Engineer 27 January 2020 10: 47 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            I am for. But only if life-size and always inflatable.
      2. maden.usmanow 27 January 2020 17: 38 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Well, Russia, this is not post-war America. Already in shipbuilding so precisely.
    2. izaira 28 January 2020 17: 12 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: nm76
      And now we have with you, there is only one question, about the construction or not of one aircraft carrier !!!

      There is a world experience. To afford the most overwhelming aircraft carrier you need (Indian experience):
      1. Have a mild climate.
      2. Have a mass of poor and undemanding people.
      3. Have an economy of 3 times more than now in the Russian Federation.
      4. Since there is no mild climate, the economy should be larger, not 3, but more times.
      5. Since there is no mass of an undemanding population, the economy should be even larger.
      1. nm76 28 January 2020 17: 15 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        I agree with you!
        Fiercely plus)
  • Vladimir1155 27 January 2020 10: 29 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Timokhin again wanted to have discussions, ..... 400 billion, in the conditions of a shortage of minesweepers and nuclear submarines? ... well, and for sponsoring the iron, this is still stupid, then it would be better to have a catamaran .... if of course we had AV tasks in Russia, air defense can be provided with ground-based S400. the cost of s400, less than $ 500 tons per division .... that is, instead of one unnecessary ship sinking in the first mine, or from the first missile ... we get 6000 copies of S400 divisions .... this, in my opinion, is more than the country's air defense ..... the issue with aircraft carriers can be closed ...
    1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 06 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Timokhin again wanted to have discussions, ..... 400 billion, in the conditions of a shortage of minesweepers and nuclear submarines? ..


      One does not contradict the other and 400 billion is a pessimistic estimate, it can be cheapened.

      Well, for the ironing of sponsons, this is still stupid


      Tell the Hindus.

      Air defense can provide ground C400. cost c400, less than 500 t dollars per division


      Vladimir, they cannot move on water.
      1. Vladimir1155 27 January 2020 19: 19 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        they cannot move on water.

        why ships go and don’t run.? .. because the slow ones are very .... the cost of that 160 is 16 billion rubles, total 25 copies of that 160 can be made, these are universal powerful military aviation systems with a wide range of tasks, this is more than there is Now, this is an order of magnitude more efficient than the light deck carrier fighter link ... so the issue of AB needs to be closed as completely meaningless. AV has no tasks and it costs exorbitantly dozens of times more than more effective weapons, missiles, aircraft, submarines.
        1. timokhin-aa 28 January 2020 14: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Do you already replace Tu-160 fighter jets? And what about the price of a ship and 670 man-hours at the airport for each middle arm?

          You sailed in general, Vladimir.
          1. Vladimir1155 28 January 2020 21: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Tu-160 fighter replace

            A group of 25 long-range supersonic aircraft can solve a wide range of problems, unlike the meaningless AB.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            670 man-hours at the aerodrome for each middle arm, departure is like
            average hand is a few thousand kilometers? and 3000 hp on the AV to ensure the departure of several su33 without weapons (it’s hard for them to take off) to protect the main mast?
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            You sailed in general
            1. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 11: 40 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              and 3000 hp on the AV to ensure the departure of several su33 without weapons (it’s hard for them to take off) to protect the main mast?


              Well, this is simply a lie.
              1. Vladimir1155 3 February 2020 12: 22 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                "Based on what, I dare to suggest that the Su-33 with a maximum take-off weight of 32 tons can confidently take off from the first and second starting position at a headwind speed of at least 5 - 10 m / s.

                That is, the calculation shows that the Su-33 afterburner can take off with the maximum take-off weight from the first and second launch position, the same can be said about the Su-33KUB, MiG-29 and even the Yak-44. In peacetime, take-off is carried out from the third starting position, obviously with the aim of compensating for the failure of one engine. At the same time, the take-off of the Su-33 at maximum engine operation based on calculation is impossible, even a normal exit to the top of the hill does not compensate for a serious loss of altitude in the planning section "https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135456&page = 26 & langid = 2
                so your beloved AB is capable of releasing aircraft with a combat load only in a moderate wind, because in a fresh wind or more it will begin to swing so that departures will be canceled, and in a weak wind and less combat load not raise .......
                1. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 12: 27 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  This is nonsense, the correct numbers are no secret.
                  1. Vladimir1155 3 February 2020 12: 34 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    This is bullshit,

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    This is bullshit,
                    how frankly you showed the weakness of your position and the lack of arguments
                    1. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 13: 02 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Yes, I'm too lazy to blow up Google simply, the LTX Su-33 is no secret. When taking off from the third launch position with 3 tons of combat load, it can act on 1000 + km of combat radius.

                      This is a known fact.

                      From the first two to 4 missiles, air-to-air also takes about 800 km.

                      In addition, the proposed aircraft carrier - ejection, there it will be much better.
                      1. Vladimir1155 3 February 2020 13: 28 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        In addition, the proposed aircraft carrier - ejection, there it will be much better.

                        well, this is all idle talk, there’s nothing to discuss, to share the skin of an unkilled bear .... so kuzya can issue a su33 link with four missiles and 800 km .... not a lot compared to 25 TU 160, or hundreds of 500, iskander, submarines of minesweepers, and all the other most necessary for the defense of the country
                      2. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 14: 05 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, the question is what it was.

                        Or let’s say so - how to provide air defense of the fleet during the attack on the West Fjord? Airplanes from the coast will not be in time, I thought it, it was considered in the Naval Aviation Administration, it was considered in the General Staff of the Navy, this was reported by Rear Admiral Matveychuk in the Marine Collection, and if you are in trouble with the calculator, you can calculate it yourself.

                        so kuzya can issue a su33 link, with four missiles and 800 km


                        And from the third starting position with 12 missiles to 1200. Are you not enough?

                        with 25 TU 160, or with hundreds of C 500, iskanders, submarines of minesweepers, and everything else most necessary for the defense of the country


                        The presence of the right hand in the human body does not contradict the need to have the left.

                        You want the two right.
                      3. Vladimir1155 3 February 2020 15: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        air defense in the case of removal from the coastal aviation zone, which is very unlikely for surface ships, can be provided with missile weapons on frigates ... now there are two settlements capable of solving at least one SF cruiser, a couple of BPCs, 1 FR (maybe 1 more EM). ..TOF one cruiser, one EM, three BPC. And for the sake of air defense of such compounds, are you going to use AB? how far are you going to send such connections? not bold?
                      4. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 15: 58 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This is a half measure. The far zone is covered by deck interceptors, they “break the line” by the attacker, they break off their tight salvo, increasing its scope to facilitate the work of URO ships, they then form a cut-off zone at the exit of those who attack, if everything worked out as it should, if it turned out differently necessary, then they work on catch-up courses.
                        And this is only one of the tasks of AB.
                      5. Vladimir1155 3 February 2020 16: 05 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        The far zone is covered by deck interceptors, they “break the line” by the attacker, they break off their dense volley, increasing its scope to facilitate the work of URO ships,

                        Is the task too difficult for the Su 33 link with 12 air defense air defense racket? and by the way, explain what you mean by URO ships, is it Nakhimov that you have multiplied?
                      6. timokhin-aa 4 February 2020 10: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Why links? In 5 minutes there will be at least three of them in the air. Plus, there are only four in the patrol. We have 48 ur air-to-air.
                        This is for the first attack. Then the broken system goes to the URO ships, by the time it leaves the attack with AB, two or three units with fresh ammunition will have already been raised to work to cut-off / catch up.
                      7. Vladimir1155 4 February 2020 20: 33 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        In 5 minutes there will be at least three of them in the air. Plus, there are only four in the patrol.

                        You are sorry, but you don’t understand what you are writing about. It turns out that your plane doesn’t need to take the elevator ?, it doesn’t need to be filled in to prepare .... you yourself wrote for many hours of preparation for the flight at the ground airfield, all of this will have to be done and on AB only in cramped conditions, that is, in turn, in addition to this, a free lane is needed for landing the aircraft in case of something ... all this was painted in detail by dear Andrei from Chelyabinsk, so it’s real at the same time
                        5-6 aircraft can be fought with Kuzi, the rest is a reserve in case of loss of the first
                      8. timokhin-aa 5 February 2020 10: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You are sorry, but do not understand what you are writing about .... it turns out that your plane doesn’t need to take the elevator ?, it doesn’t need to be refueled to prepare ....


                        The duty units are on the deck ready for take-off with suspended weapons.
                      9. Vladimir1155 5 February 2020 22: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        The duty units are on the deck ready for take-off with suspended weapons.

                        in a wacky weather? how long can they stay there being completely ready? how many of them will fit there? ... and so we get the desired 5-6 aircraft
                      10. timokhin-aa 6 February 2020 12: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        In any weather
                        Guaranteed up to a day, then you will need to pick up others from the hangar
                        If you keep free places for landing of two links, then 8-9 cars
                        Not work
                      11. Vladimir1155 6 February 2020 17: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Your arguments are broken, the ships of the mythical URO that you couldn’t enumerate so, so your av defenseless in the ocean, you couldn’t indicate the goals of the long hike, and moreover you didn’t try to refute the assertion that planes with load can take off in rare hours when the wind blows in your nose and it’s exactly 8 ms ....., But the last nail in the coffin of your concept .... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Kuznetsov.jpg count empty seats on the deck if you intend to take off with a combat load, that is, along the longest runway ...... only about 6 aircraft I can be on the deck to take off and land, the remaining reserve only in case of loss of the first
                      12. timokhin-aa 11 February 2020 15: 24 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Your arguments are broken


                        Not a single one is broken.

                        ships mythical URO which you could not enumerate


                        I have listed. TAVKR Nakhimov and the four frigates 22350 together provide air defense connections. Frigates will be ready in 2025.

                        You were not able to specify the goals of the long hike


                        And for which of the existing ships can you indicate the purpose of the campaigns in 2026? Are you wang

                        and even more so, they did not try to refute the claim that planes with a load will be able to take off in rare hours when the wind blows in the nose and exactly 8 ms


                        I refute - if the wind does not blow from there, then the ship can be deployed in the wind, and if the wind speed is high, then the ship can be stopped.
                        laughing laughing laughing laughing

                        Will go?

                        count free seats on the deck if you intend to take off with a combat load, that is, on the longest runway ...... only 6 planes can be on the deck to take off and land


                        With another arrangement, you can raise half of the air group.
  • EvilLion 27 January 2020 10: 30 New
    • 4
    • 6
    -2
    For the carrier group to make sense, you need:
    a) To have tasks for her. There are none. All fleets except the North operate in limited areas. Hypothetical batches in the Indian Ocean from the field of unscientific fiction.
    b) Have at least 4 ships, so that at least 2 are always available. Otherwise, you don’t even have to start, you have a war, and the airplane is on maintenance. The great war is not so much a battle as endless repairs.
    c) To have, in fact, a second expeditionary army, such as the American KMP, which these airplanes will serve. Without this, it’s easier to build barges with missiles and punish everyone simply with salvos of hundreds of 2-3 cruise missiles. Well, in addition to the price, the existence of a separate structure in itself is already trash, waste and sodomy. Enough for us and not very clear Internal Troops, in fact, heavily armed police.

    None of this will be done, because of the pointlessness and risk of tearing the navel, putting things in order around the world, while huge own territories remain undeveloped. The colonial power from Russia is very so-so, we have neither experience nor positions already gained.
    1. izaira 28 January 2020 17: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      For the carrier group to make sense, you need:

      You need to have an economy of the appropriate level.
      Which one?
      I do not know.
      For example, the US economy exceeds the Russian economy by 99,3 times.
      China's economy is 24,6 times.
      Even the economy of India is 2,9 times.
      Something I did not hear that Mexicans, Israelis, Singaporeans and Danes (these are approximately the same economies as Russia) had aircraft carriers.
      1. Avior 29 January 2020 01: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Italy, Turkey, Spain - get off?
  • Sancho_SP 27 January 2020 10: 30 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    And why all this? An aircraft carrier in the current and future situation is simply not needed.

    The tasks of the fleet as such are not formulated. And without specific tasks, building expensive ships is simply stupid.
  • EvilLion 27 January 2020 10: 38 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    Prior to this, during the war in Korea, carrier-based aircraft actually saved South Korea from occupying the DPRK.


    I bring to the attention of the author that there wasn’t any South Korea then. There was a civil war in a single state in which the American occupiers intervened, without them, the local bourgeois would fly out of Korea and there would be no problems with the North. Korea, which the American fascists are simply strangling, forbidding other countries to trade with it, nor Korean idiots at Starcraft (and I don't like Starcraft). It would be just a normal Asian country.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 03 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Yes, it doesn’t really matter to me, for me in this case the word "occupation" is just "occupation by the troops" and no more.
      1. EvilLion 27 January 2020 12: 35 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Is it possible to save from drowning?
      2. Vladimir1155 28 January 2020 21: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, do you know, “wars begin this way!”, they also simply introduced a limited contingent to Afghanistan, as I remember, how did it end? this is a very big difference, all the more so instead of the unnecessary av you can make 25 TU160, at the cost of everything just like a missile boat ..... in general, you sailed Alexander, and the occupation is interfering with the occupation of troops, and boats with long-range supersonic aircraft
    2. Octopus 27 January 2020 14: 01 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: EvilLion
      no Korean nerds at Starcraft (and I don't like Starcraft)

      Starcraft's top 1 is now considered Serral, this is Finn. Korea is still strong, but no longer dominant.
      Quote: EvilLion
      American invaders intervened, without them ... It would be just a normal Asian country

      I thought, though Kim is the result of Comrade Comrade's same-sex relationship. Stalin and comrade Mao. But no, and here the Americans, everywhere managed.

      And a normal country instead of South Korea is yes. Vietnam is such a country. Although most likely it would be the DPRK that would be much more normal.
      1. Octopus 1 March 2020 18: 09 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Octopus
        Starcraft's top 1 is now considered Serral, this is Finn. Korea is still strong, but no longer dominant.

        Forced to obey. In the main SC tournament, ESL, in the playoffs 10 Koreans out of 12. In the semifinals, 3 Koreans and Serral, the final is purely Korean.
    3. maden.usmanow 27 January 2020 17: 43 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      There was a civil war in which first the Soviets and Soviet officer Kim Il Sung intervened, and only then, at the very end, the Americans intervened and created South Korea, whose GDP is equal to Russian.
    4. Avior 28 January 2020 01: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It would be just a normal Asian country.

      she is. in half of Korea.
    5. izaira 28 January 2020 16: 56 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      into which the American occupiers intervened

      Actually, the "American occupiers" were called "UN troops." And they had a completely legal legal status.
      Unlike the Soviet and Chinese military in Korea.
      Quote: EvilLion
      without them, the local bourgeoisie would have flown out of Korea and there would have been no problems with the North. Korea

      Indeed, there would now be one big DPRK. And we would not know, neither Samsung nor Hyundai.
      Quote: EvilLion
      which the American fascists are simply strangling,

      Would suffocate, would suffocate.
      And so the DPRK was sitting on the neck of China and the USSR. And now sits on the neck of China. For which China for the third year receives from the US a melon. And it will receive until the DPRK ceases to feed.
      And it will cease to be obligatory. According to the results of 2019, China has become the third economy in the world, passing Japan ahead. Will persist further, the United States will drop it altogether below the baseboard.
      Quote: EvilLion
      It would be just a normal Asian country.

      How wto? How is Vietnam or how is Cambodia?
      These are quite poor states if you are not in the know.
  • Andrzej k 27 January 2020 10: 45 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    To be a full-fledged aircraft carrier In order to ensure the appropriate aviation group, autonomy, military supplies (ammunition, aviation fuel), a ship is definitely needed more than the Wikrant.

    The experience with the TAVKR Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov in my opinion clearly shows that this ship is too small, the power plant also turned out to be a mistake for this class of ships. Like "trampoline" instead of catapults.

    All this means that in order for this ship to really be reinforcements and a kind of "projection of force", it must, at least roughly, repeat American decisions. This in turn causes significant problems in the realities of the Russian Federation. And this is not only about money, but also about the production base and lack of experience, for example, in the field of catapults (he didn’t even have the USSR when he bought Heinkel’s catapults for his ships before the Second World War).

    It has to start, which means time and more resources.
    1. Andrzej k 27 January 2020 10: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Another solution (who knows, maybe even cheaper and faster) will, for example, order and build an empty building without weapons, equipment, a power plant and equipment in South Korea or even China, in accordance with the Russian project. The cost of building a new dock will be reduced, and this is a significant amount.
    2. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 04 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      To be a full-fledged aircraft carrier In order to ensure the appropriate aviation group, autonomy, military supplies (ammunition, aviation fuel), a ship is definitely needed more than the Wikrant.


      Yes, but no opportunity. At least as a "desk" to build it. Kuznetsov can’t last more than 20 years.
    3. Avior 29 January 2020 01: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Charles de Gaulle - total displacement of 42 tons. A full-fledged aircraft carrier.
      Admiral Kuznetsov - 59000 tons
      1. Andrzej k 29 January 2020 12: 05 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In fact, the French aircraft carrier has a small displacement, with two catapults and a nuclear engine, and up to 40 aircraft! (just remember that the French Rafals are much smaller than the Russian Su-33)

        However, in my opinion, he is not able to carry out long-term missions far from his bases, with the high intensity of his aviation group.

        And so what should be the new Russian aircraft carrier.

        Armament with a projection of force and power is even (and even by necessity) far from their bases, without the possibility of replenishment of ammunition
        1. Avior 29 January 2020 17: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          the crane in the sky is more achievable than what you described
          I, too, for the fact that it is better to be healthy and rich than the poor and sick
          1. Andrzej k 29 January 2020 17: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, I know that the best is the enemy of the good, but my grandmother always told me that a rich person cannot afford cheap things and half measures.

            Personally, I think that Russia needs a really decent aircraft carrier or not any (instead, there are more bases in different places so that the airborne forces can work from there)
            1. Avior 29 January 2020 18: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Given the fact that no one else is impossible, you need to choose from realistic
              1. Andrzej k 29 January 2020 18: 37 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                However, Russia has some bases. By the way, I still couldn’t understand why Kuznetsov was sent on a long-haul tug, since Russia has the Hmeimim Air Base in Syria, where the aircraft are operated from, and where the planes from Kuznetsov eventually landed.
                1. Avior 29 January 2020 23: 10 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  This is one base, there are no others and are not particularly expected.
                  1. Andrzej k 29 January 2020 23: 34 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2


                    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4BSFUrSydLk/W_Gu7UDFqyI/AAAAAAAAKYQ/45IBVT9g1_ob1R4FJe1ZbNBzaIKZAtakQCLcBGAs/s1600/46329044_1989356697820020_9106984320123273216_o.jpg
                    1. Avior 30 January 2020 01: 42 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      This is a very old picture. There really are no naval bases, including in Cuba and Vietnam.
                      1. Andrzej k 30 January 2020 12: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Yes - the map legend describes the years of operation of the bases. It all depends on politics - they were, after all, and can be

                        Only now you need to calculate - the construction of an aircraft carrier costs at least several billion dollars, it is possible that leasing a base in some countries of Southeast Asia or Africa will come out cheaper. And it will be a truly unsinkable aircraft carrier :-)
                      2. Constanty 2 February 2020 15: 59 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        In recent days, The New York Times writes that the Russians plan to build a wax base in Somaliland in the Gulf of Berber in the Gulf of Aden.

                        The base will be able to accept destroyers and frigates of the Russian Navy. In addition, the construction of an air base with two runways is underway, which can accommodate up to fifteen fighters.
                2. Vladimir1155 3 February 2020 12: 28 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  AB is generally window dressing from beginning to end and his campaign is also window dressing unnecessary
  • Fedor Fortuna_2 27 January 2020 11: 01 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    We don’t need to build aircraft carriers! Missiles are enough to protect the Russian Federation!
  • Engineer 27 January 2020 11: 06 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Gentlemen flotophiles, in what status is the electromagnetic catapult in Russia now? Anyone watching this?
    1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 29 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Unfinished is. carts drove from it, as with the steam
      1. Engineer 27 January 2020 11: 34 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        It seems like 10+ years ago, the development of the design documentation was completed and transferred to the construction of a prototype. It is clear that the continuous development of the project, development, completion. But still. If you launched at least one plane, it would be clear that the project is alive and developing. And so ....
        1. timokhin-aa 28 January 2020 14: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But the fact that we have not a bare zero is also clear.
    2. astepanov 27 January 2020 11: 55 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Engineer
      What is the status of the electromagnetic catapult in Russia now?

      In the zero. TTs were voiced, they were transferred to contractors and subcontractors, and each time the requirements for a power source were tightened. If the Americans have a super-flywheel energy source, the Chinese have electrochemical capacitors, then some time ago we considered a lithium-ion battery. This is an extremely dangerous undertaking, given the specifics of the batteries and the quality of products from Liotech, the brainchild of Chubais. The sad events of the end of last year clearly show this. The danger of a severe fire and explosion is compounded by both the necessary colossal dimensions of the drive, and the fact that an aircraft carrier, unlike an electric car, is sometimes shot. In my opinion, the drive should be capacitor: both the characteristics allow, and there is an industrial base, and there is experience in the construction of large systems. The composition of the subway was dispersed.
      Another problem: it is not clear who will be able to make DC-DC converters of the required power. And finally, I don’t know anything about the catapult itself (linear motor).
      1. Engineer 27 January 2020 12: 11 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Learned about the work on the electromagnetic catapult approx. 2010 from the designer directly involved in the project. At that time, the ROCs were completed, the design documentation was handed over for the construction of the prototype. The design team has been disbanded. For me then it sounded wild - who will bring the project if not its authors? Then everything fell out of sight.
        About Liotech. I personally designed products with their batteries. All were lithium iron phosphate. They are considered more stable and safer than lithium-ion. There were no problems with them. Another thing is that they naturally did not work out the operational cycle under design conditions. With Liotech, problems were related to the bankruptcy procedure and incomprehensible status. That yes
        I did not know about the problem of DC-DC converters.
      2. timokhin-aa 28 January 2020 14: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        That's why I'm all for steam. And the heat from the turbines must be put somewhere.
    3. Vladimir1155 3 February 2020 12: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      naked zero, there is none and will not be like the new AB, all idle talk
      1. Engineer 3 February 2020 16: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Any details? (without malice).
  • Sapsan136 27 January 2020 11: 09 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    The main problem of the Russian Federation today is that some amateurs, because of personal Wishlist and political ambitions, are trying to run ahead of the steam train ... Before building an aircraft carrier, it is necessary to build escort ships for him, without which he is just a target, simple and large ... It will not be possible to build an aircraft carrier and escort ships at the same time for economic and technical reasons, since the factories that have mastered the construction of frigates in the Russian Federation, and at least frigates are needed for an escort, in Russia today there are only two, these are Peter and Kaliningrad and the pace of the builder ARISING frigates in Russia optimism today, alas, does not inspire ...
    1. Selevc 27 January 2020 12: 31 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      The main problem of the Russian Federation today is that some amateurs, because of personal Wishlist and political ambitions, are trying to run ahead of the engine
      And these amateurs can not understand in any way that the power of the land and do not have to compete with the powers of the sea - moreover, it is destructive and destructive !!! It was already in history at the beginning of the 20th century !!! But no - amateurs in a hurry to step on the rake again !!! Carrier rake - this is really abruptly dreadnought rake !!!
      1. Sapsan136 27 January 2020 12: 36 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Everything is relative here ... In the 20-30s of the last century, the USSR also had many who believed that the USSR fleet had enough torpedo boats and small submarines for coastal defense. The result was the inability to properly support their allies in Spain ... the inability to secure their sea communications from the attacks of Japan in the 40s of the last century .. Russia needs a fleet and a sea fleet, but it needs to be built in a consistent and not haphazard way ... House is inappropriate here ..
        1. Octopus 27 January 2020 14: 04 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Sapsan136
          In the 20s and 30s, there were also many people in the USSR who believed that it was enough for the USSR fleet to have torpedo boats and small submarines for coastal defense

          Comrade Stalin did not think so and took up the Big Fleet, referring to the war with Britain too. As a result, of course, he ended up without an army or a fleet.
          1. Sapsan136 27 January 2020 15: 10 New
            • 6
            • 1
            +5
            Khrushchev ended up without a fleet and aviation, under Stalin the fleet simply did not have time to finish building, but what they managed to play a significant role during the Second World War ... For example, without heavy naval guns and fearless marines, Leningrad would most likely not have been able to keep. ..a without this, the hit of the Nazis in Moscow in 1941 would have been much stronger and not the fact that they would not have had to burn the city like Kutuzov or turn it into Verdun like Stalingrad ...
            1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 16: 27 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Sapsan136
              For example, without heavy naval guns and fearless guys from the marines, most likely, Leningrad would not have been able to keep ...

              The retention of cities in the interior of the country, as it were, is not the task of the fleet. As well as the formation of the marine corps from radio operators, galvanists, acoustics and other "gold" frames for the country.
              Moreover, most of the large-caliber Leningrad guns of the USSR inherited from the Empire are all large-caliber batteries of forts, as well as both Baltic LCs. And 12 "-14" guns for the construction of the railway were taken from the royal stocks and backlogs.
              The only Soviet large-caliber weapon in Leningrad was the 16 "NIMAP. But in the interval 180-406 mm the USSR did not manage to do anything.
              1. Sapsan136 27 January 2020 16: 34 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                180 mm guns were armed, as many now call them, light heavy cruisers of the Kirov type and the experimental cruiser Red Caucasus ... 100 mm Soviet-class universal hit 21 km, which is also not bad, 130 mm was already 25 km ... Experimental gun destined for a Soviet Union type LC, they fired at the enemy from a railway platform ... Sailors in the USSR really turned out to be gold guys, because the fleet always took the elite, including by education and if the collective farmers did not know what to do with the SVT and ABC , then the sailors successfully used them ... Troph The Hitlerites successfully used the rifle Tokarev and Simonov rifles and did not consider them bad ... Many soldiers were bad in the infantry, since with their education it was bad that it was not their fault, but it wasn’t easier ... The Navy did not protect the cities inside the country, and the naval bases, that his holy duty and that the Nazis were afraid of the marines and the NKVD divisions as hell, says a lot ...
                1. Alexey RA 27 January 2020 19: 31 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  180 mm guns were armed, as many now call them, light heavy cruisers of the Kirov type and the experimental cruiser Red Caucasus ...

                  I do not argue with that. But the large caliber was royal.
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  1100 mm Soviet-style station wagons beat 21 km, which is also not bad, 130 mm beat 25 km already ...

                  Army men at 20 km already had their own guns - A-19.
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  An experimental weapon designed for a Soviet Union type LC made fire on the enemy from a railway platform ...

                  MP-10 has been stationary all his life:

                  The largest-caliber railways of the TM-1-14 were armed with 14 "Izmail" orders.
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  Sailors in the USSR really turned out to be golden guys, because the fleet always took the elite, including by education, and if the collective farmers did not know what to do with SVT and ABC, then the sailors successfully used them ...

                  And this elite with a higher than average education we will send into battle as ordinary infantry.
                  Just for reference - in 1941, 2/3 privates and 1/3 of the junior command personnel of the KOVO armored forces had less than 3 classes or did not have education at all.
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  The fleet did not defend cities within the country, but naval bases, which is its holy duty

                  Read cover plans - the army defended the base.
                  1. Sapsan136 28 January 2020 10: 59 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Today, special forces are also officer units ... There are people with higher education ... There can be no illiterate people in the army elite ...
                    1. izaira 28 January 2020 15: 59 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Sapsan136
                      Special forces today, these are also officer units ...

                      Yes?
                      Quote: Sapsan136
                      There are people with higher education ...

                      Yes?
                      Who would have thought. You are directly telling us the news.
                2. izaira 28 January 2020 15: 57 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  180 mm guns were armed, as many now call them, light heavy cruisers of the Kirov type and the experimental cruiser Red Caucasus ... 100 mm Soviet-class wagons hit 21 km, which is also not bad, 130 mm were already 25 km ...

                  Unfortunately you do not understand anything in artillery. Ship guns (except gunboats guns) can work well for small targets (such as a "ship"). When shooting in squares, there is little sense in them. About zero.
                  All these fables of Sovagitprop, like naval artillery helped the defense of Leningrad (Sevastopol, Odessa), this is just idle chatter.
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  and if the collective farmers did not know what to do with the SVT and ABC, then the sailors successfully used them ...

                  SVT FOR THE ARMY has always been shit ("Soviet products"). It was (and is) a hunting rifle, and this is a different type of weapon. With other operating conditions.
                  SVT appeared on the fleet very simply, when it became clear what it really was, all three-rulers were removed from the ships. Instead, they brought SVT. Like, anyway, that will stand in the pyramids on the ships.
                  But then the sailors from the ships also began to throw in infantry battles. And they suffered with SVT no less than the foot soldiers.
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  The captured Tokarev and Simonov rifles were successfully used by the Nazis and did not consider them bad ...

                  But why consider them bad? The Germans did not produce them (the operation of the SVT based on its price in army conditions was fabulously expensive), but received for nothing. And the operation is free, it is free.
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  Many soldiers were bad, in the infantry, since with their education it was bad that it was not their fault, but that was not easier ...

                  Dear, 1941, this is a call of soldiers born in 1923 They went to school in 1930.
                  The USSR by that time was 8 years old. Socialism in the USSR has already been "built" for 3 years.
                  Where did such illiterate foot soldiers come from? Or is it really fables about universal and free education, is it just a lie?
                  Some clumsy things in the Soviet with numbers and dates. Don't make ends meet.
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  The fleet did not defend cities within the country, but naval bases, which is its holy duty

                  You drop these phrases. A fleet is such a thing that fights on water. On land, the fleet does not fight.
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  and the fact that the Nazis, as a devil of incense, were afraid of the marines and the NKVD divisions, says a lot ...

                  On the contrary, it was the marines and the NKVD divisions in terms of training that were at the level of militiamen from the Don. Those. these were guys unprepared for infantry fighting, easy prey for the German infantry.
                  1. Sapsan136 28 January 2020 16: 36 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Read the recollections of the Nazis who fell under the fire of naval artillery and listen less to illiterate collective farmers, such as Makarevich, who was expelled from the Construction Institute, he didn’t have enough mind for dullness and even ingenuity
                    1. izaira 28 January 2020 16: 59 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Sapsan136
                      Read the memories of the Nazis caught in the fire of naval artillery

                      You do not even write this nonsense to me. I own the material professionally, so I don’t need someone else’s “snot”.
                      Ship guns are not suitable (except for special gunboats guns, which are just designed for "work" along the coast) for work on areas. They do not have enough shell power for this, because their target (ship) is a small thing.
                      1. Sapsan136 28 January 2020 17: 01 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        And you do not write me the glitches of Russophobia patients with uneducated mediocrity, such as Makarevich ... First you need to get a diploma, and then write that it’s smart, and you need to learn, and not buy cardboard in the underpass, like an alcoholic Sobchak ...
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Sapsan136 28 January 2020 17: 09 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        You're splashing here because you have read all kinds of heresies of all illiterate rogues and try to give me their glitches as an argument ... You must learn before you say anything and definitely not from the books of Novodvorskaya and other dumb illiterate people ... The same SVT rifles, the Germans, with the name 453P, were gladly used as captured ones, and the Germans, having their own excellent 98K Mauser store rifle, didn’t fight with anything ...
                      4. izaira 28 January 2020 17: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Sapsan136
                        and trying to give me their glitches as an argument ...

                        I don’t give you anything at all. I am writing you things that any art student knows. schools. And you don’t know.
                        Quote: Sapsan136
                        gladly used by the Germans

                        I already wrote to you, they don’t look at a gifted horse in the mouth.
                        Quote: Sapsan136
                        and the Germans, having their excellent 98K Mauser store rifle

                        Mauser is a mediocre infantry rifle. Not bad, better than a three-line, but no more.
                        Quote: Sapsan136
                        they didn’t fight with anything

                        Fought with anything. The Germans generally had great difficulties with small arms.
                      5. Sapsan136 28 January 2020 17: 20 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        The Germans had a lot of gifted horses; they had their own Mauser and Walter rifles, so there was no need for Wehrmacht Soviet weapons if they were bad ... Moreover, the Germans also had Czechoslovak self-loading rifles Kholik. ..But you don’t know about it, otherwise you wouldn’t write any nonsense ... I say again - I had to learn ... Mauser 98K is an excellent store rifle, so successful that the United States bought a license for its production, being disappointed in domestic gunsmiths. ..American store vi ntovka Sprinfeld copy of the German Mauser, under the American patron ...
          2. Alexey RA 29 January 2020 14: 26 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: izaira
            All these fables of Sovagitprop, like naval artillery helped the defense of Leningrad (Sevastopol, Odessa), this is just idle chatter.

            You just need to read not Sovagitprop, but specialized books. Type Perechnev or collection "KBF in the Second World War 1941-1945", which describes the organization and methods of counter-battery combat artillery KBF in besieged Leningrad.
            It was precisely in Leningrad that the fleet artillery was already managed in 1942 to be brought under uniform control and used not for sowing areas, but for work for specific purposes - first of all, to suppress batteries firing at the city.
            However, KBF artillery also solved other tasks. For example, the TM-1-180 of 18 and 19 batteries dearly and reverently loved the Gatchina airfield, regularly shelling it. And their business was not in vain - for example, in June 1942 the “Green Hearts”, which lost three 109s, were unlucky, and in April 1943 the 19th battery deprived the night-time nightlights from Stoerkampfgruppe of just twelve cars that had just been relocated to Gatchina - four Ar-66 and eight He-46.
            A notable firing scheme:
            one 180-mm conveyor fired at the airfield, the second delivered a distracting blow to the city of Krasnoye Selo. Four 130-mm batteries fired warning shots at the firing positions of German artillery.

            Four batteries provided the fire of one gun. Moreover, the duration of the raid was only six minutes. For the counter-battery struggle was fought by both sides, and for a wait of more than 10 minutes it was impossible to remain in the position.
            Quote: izaira
            SVT FOR THE ARMY has always been shit ("Soviet products"). It was (and is) a hunting rifle, and this is a different type of weapon. With other operating conditions.

            For the pre-war Red Army, any weapon was a "secondary product." They need at least SVT, at least DP, at least give Mosinka - the result is always the same:
            The neglect of instructions on the storage and preservation of weapons in the units of troops, ignorance of the automatic weapon structure, its disassembly rules have brought to such a state that the ABC automatic rifles, Degtyarev submachine guns, when they are disassembled, have been hardened, started in the gas passages , the entire vent assembly is rusty, the barrel surface and other parts are heavily rusted. The same state of gas paths and the machine guns "DP"

            In parts of 97 SD rifles manufactured in 1940. , which were on hand for no more than 4 months, up to 29% are reduced to a state of rust in the barrel, machine guns "DP" manufactured in 1939 to 14% also have a deterioration of the barrel channels.

            Moreover, 97 SD is the best KOVO division:
            The division headquarters was rated as the most advanced in the Red Army and was awarded the challenge prize of the General Staff. For the organization of military and political training and troop training, the division commander, Major General I. Sherstyuk, was awarded the Order of the Red Banner.
            1. Octopus 29 January 2020 23: 29 New
              • 2
              • 3
              -1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              For the pre-war Red Army, any weapon was a "secondary product." They need at least SVT, at least DP, at least give Mosinka - the result is always the same:

              Oh no.
              The Soviet branch demanded the simplest shooting and the simplest organization possible. What they did is far from the easiest and cheapest option on both sides.
          3. Alexey RA 29 January 2020 14: 54 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: izaira
            Dear, 1941, this is a call of soldiers born in 1923 They went to school in 1930.
            The USSR by that time was 8 years old. Socialism in the USSR has already been "built" for 3 years.
            Where did such illiterate foot soldiers come from? Or is it really fables about universal and free education, is it just a lie?

            Aunt Vika slanders that universal secondary education before the war was only in cities. And in the village - only the initial.
            In 1933-37, compulsory 7-year education was carried out in cities and workers' settlements. Already in the 1938/1939 academic year in the USSR, 97,3% of children who graduated from primary school went to high school.
            According to the plan of the third five-year plan, it was also planned to introduce universal secondary education in the countryside, but it was not implemented in connection with the outbreak of World War II. And 7-year general education in the USSR was carried out only in 1950-56

            In the USSR, the same educational program all 30 went.
            In 1933-1937, more than 20 million illiterate and about 20 million illiterate were engaged in literacy education schools alone.

            With regard to infantry, the situation was compounded by the fact that the infantry received personnel last. First came the Air Force, Navy, BTV, artillery - and at the very end of the line of buyers there were rifle units.
    2. LeonidL 27 January 2020 20: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I want to clarify - heavy naval guns are the result of the Tallinn transition (breakthrough) of a very heroic and very, very poorly thought out and organized. Fearless guys from the marine corps are people who turned out to be superfluous from the crews of the ships stuck until 44-45 in Kronshtat, Leningrad, from training squads, VMU, and coastal services. Yes, heroic, but, alas, poorly trained in ground combat. The fact is that at the beginning of the Second World War there was practically no marine corps in the USSR Navy (for example, one company with two machine guns in carts for the entire Pinsk Flotilla) as there were no means of delivering MP to the enemy coasts. Blame Stalin or Kuznetsov or someone else - I can’t judge. Like that.
      1. Alexey RA 28 January 2020 11: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: LeonidL
        I want to clarify - heavy naval guns are the result of the Tallinn transition (breakthrough) of a very heroic and very, very poorly thought out and organized.

        Not. The Tallinn crossing added to Leningrad only 9 * 180-mm Kirov guns.
        Against the background of the 24 * 305-mm Marat and Oktyabrins, the 9 * 180 mm Maxim Gorky, the 3 * 356 mm TM-1-14, the 12 * 180 mm TM-1-180 and the heaps of stationary large-caliber guns forts and NIMAP (including 1 * 406 mm and 9 * 305 mm) - this is a drop in the ocean.
        Quote: LeonidL
        Fearless guys from the marine corps are people who turned out to be superfluous from the crews of the ships stuck until 44-45 in Kronshtat, Leningrad, from training squads, VMU, and coastal services.

        Some of these "unnecessary people"Then I had to pull it back out of the infantry - for example, to understaff submarines.
        Quote: LeonidL
        The fact is that at the beginning of the Second World War there was practically no marine corps in the USSR Navy (for example, one company with two machine guns in carts for the entire Pinsk Flotilla) as there were no means of delivering MP to the enemy coasts.

        On December 11, 1939, by the order of the Navy NK, the 1st separate special rifle brigade was formed on the basis of the Kronstadt fortress rifle regiment, which was the first step on the road to creating marines as a regular kind of fleet force. The date of creation of the Soviet marine corps should be considered January 15, 1940, when, by order of the Navy NK of 25.04.1940, the 1st separate special infantry brigade was reorganized into the 1st special marines brigade.
        (...)
        This kind of unique combination in the Armed Forces of the USSR originally numbered 6500 people and consisted of six separate rifle battalions, a 76-mm gun division, a boat division, a sergeant training school, a tank company, and combat and rear support units.

        But with the delivery vehicles there was a problem. The universal landing boat did not have time for the start of the war - it was made only in 1942, simplifying the initial design.
        Best of all with the landing and landing equipment was at the Black Sea Fleet, where the remnants of the former luxury were preserved - the "Elpidifors" and the "Bolinders", which were intended even for the Bosphorus landing.
        1. LeonidL 28 January 2020 18: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          On the first point, I agree, although both the Kirov and destroyers barrels are not superfluous. They took it from the subfloor, but not very much and rightly, they returned it. But they also took those who did not participate in winter repairs from the warships who survived — they returned partly, especially to minesweepers, Moscow Region, torpedo boats. Compared to the number of marine corps participating in the war, the fact that small crumbs began to be created before the war. By inheritance from the Bosphorus, it’s a bit wrong here - the Elpidifors managed to change the gunboats already, the boulders tried to adapt them to tank landing equipment ... you are right only for the Black Sea Fleet. But this is a little compared to necessity. On the whole, I remain of my opinion that there really did not exist a fully-fledged marines with amphibious assault forces.
  • Alexey RA 27 January 2020 16: 21 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Octopus
    Comrade Stalin did not think so and took up the Big Fleet, referring to the war with Britain too. As a result, of course, he ended up without an army or a fleet.

    Not quite so - compared to 1939, I could still join the army of the USSR. Unreformed, understaffed - but still able. Six months to evacuate and mobilize industry, this army won. And then went the strategy of starvation.
    And the fleet ... took up everything at once - and did not have time. The same laying of two LCs at a completely new and still under construction plant No. 402 generally freezes - it is not surprising that one of the LCs had to be dismantled before the work on large pots was frozen.
    1. Octopus 27 January 2020 19: 36 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Not quite so - compared to 1939, the Soviet Union still managed to

      Not. Whatever you take is the same everywhere. Fine decisions on paper are all the time to the detriment, since they cannot and cannot afford the USSR. In order to prepare for the 41st, the USSR in arms and organization of the army had to do much lessthan in real life.

      Quote: Alexey RA
      took up everything at once - and didn’t have time

      Where is it wrong? In the tanks? Arte? Aviation? Infantry?
      1. Alexey RA 28 January 2020 11: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Octopus
        Where is it wrong? In the tanks? Arte? Aviation? Infantry?

        The main thing in the tanks was that they managed to put the next generation tanks in a series. Which essentially fought the whole war, except that the TT changed to a new one.
        In aviation, they managed to mobilize industry before the war. Thanks to the alarmists from the Soviet delegation in Germany, who appreciated the daily release of aircraft in the Reich as many as 70-80 cars. The price of this mobilization was a transcendental marriage of two pre-war years. But it’s better to mobilize industry in peacetime than to do the same after the outbreak of war.
        I’m afraid that in the last accident, the Air Force could have been left without planes at all - because it would have been once or even impossible to unblock the bottlenecks (identified in real life in 1940) during the war.
        In infantry it was necessary to begin in 1930. As, however, in the army as a whole. And in industry too. Because, by and large, the level of education is everything. When, even in a BTV, 2/3 of privates and 1/3 of the junior command personnel have only an elementary education, this is a big fifth point. Because the same mechanical drive is not just a pedal and lever lever, but mechanic- a driver who, among other things, must determine, classify and correct tank failures that are available for correction in the field. And we, in fact, and the future tankers themselves with a bad education (read, write, four arithmetic operations), and what is the worst - and those who teach them are not better.
        Classes for the study of weapons in the 24th tank regiment are organized satisfactorily. The disadvantage is the lack of methodological skills and a clear military language among junior commanders. So in the 1st platoon of the 2nd company of the regiment’s school, Junior Sergeant B., conducting classes with cadets on the subject “The device of the brake of the rollback and the reel,” called individual details incorrectly, gave fuzzy formulations, incorrectly explained the device of the reel springs ...
        © Ulanov / Shein.
        And this is the elite BTV. For the sake of which, in 1940, they "stripped" the infantry, transferring the most competent junior command personnel from it to the BTV (and the Air Force). What happened in the infantry is scary to think about.
        1. Octopus 28 January 2020 12: 51 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The main thing in the tanks was that they managed to put the next generation tanks in a series.

          In tanks they threw and ruined more or less everything. A new mass tank - Leningrad - not made; mobilization tank - Su-76 - not made and not ordered; reinforcement tank, the Soviet four - Kharkov - wrecking; heavy tank - wrecking. In addition to the materiel, the mechanized corps, famous, were muddied. We have set up a Black Sea film studio, there is no sound cinema yet, silent cinema is gone.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          In aviation, they managed to mobilize industry before the war

          Yeah. In one firm of Messerschmitt there were more designers than in the whole of the USSR, Comrade said. Yakovlev. With technologists, obviously, no better.

          With these forces, Comrade Yakovlev and his People’s Commissariat released in the 40th year in a large series of 5 models of fighter aircraft (and trying to make more models, I-180, etc.) on 3 different engines. The German is releasing one messer, Foki is not yet.
          In pursuit of there is a non-dive dive bomber Petlyakov (redone from a fighter) and IL-2.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          break up bottlenecks

          Yes, heroic overcoming - this does not take away.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          What happened in the infantry is scary to think about.

          I have no other infantry for you.
          You see. The WWII infantry by educational level is no more and no less than the WWII infantry. Yes, her education (the education of sergeants and foremen) did not allow her to competently organize a machine-gun mortar battle of the battalion. But to teach to dig is quite possible.

          Yes, these are colonial troops. Selyavi.

          But the Soviet government had a different opinion. It was suggested that we have the Wehrmacht with the American materiel. Well, OK, the state of August 41st, 2 Dyagterev in 3 squads in a platoon, fight at your pleasure.

          8 howitzers. If you find something to pull.
          1. Alexey RA 28 January 2020 14: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            New mass tank - Leningrad - not done

            Made. But did not have time with the series. As always, literally half a year was not enough.
            Quote: Octopus
            reinforcement tank, the Soviet four - Kharkov - wrecking; heavy tank - wrecking

            There is not wrecking, but unjustified optimism. They decided that the USSR still had a peaceful year, and instead of the UKN of old tanks it would be easier to file new models without these shortcomings. As a result, the comments of the T-34 and KV were simply scored, having decided to write them off to the training ones after the arrival of new models.
            Quote: Octopus
            Yeah. In one firm of Messerschmitt there were more designers than in the whole of the USSR, Comrade said. Yakovlev. With technologists, obviously, no better.

            I have no other USSR for you.
            Quote: Octopus
            With these forces, Comrade Yakovlev and his People’s Commissar released in the 40th year in a large series of 5 fighter models (and trying to make more models, I-180, etc.) on 3 different engines.

            And because no one can guarantee that even an adopted engine will suddenly not be unsuitable. Fortunately, Comrade Yakovlev had a sad example of the M-88 before his eyes.
            Plus resources (aluminum) are not enough for everyone. So without LaGG-3 can not do.
            Quote: Octopus
            In pursuit of there is a non-dive dive bomber Petlyakov (redone from a fighter) and IL-2.

            And also DB-3F with its M-88, Ep-2 and horror on the wings of night - TB-7.
            Plus a huge fleet of old cars requiring spare parts.
            Quote: Octopus
            Yes, heroic overcoming - this does not take away.

            And to do it better in peacetime. smile
            1. izaira 28 January 2020 16: 28 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Made. But did not have time with the series. As always, literally half a year was not enough.

              We must pray every day for the fact that the T-50 was never completed.
              In addition, he would not be a mass tank. Its release was planned on a par with the KV-1, with which they were supposed to serve in tank units.
          2. Alexey RA 28 January 2020 14: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            You see. The WWII infantry by educational level is no more and no less than the WWII infantry. Yes, her education (the education of sergeants and foremen) did not allow her to competently organize a machine-gun mortar battle of the battalion.

            Mwa ha ha ...
            The knowledge of ordinary cadets is low.
            They do not know automatic weapons at all and are only able to carry rifles and pull the trigger. Extremely poor knowledge of the materiel of small arms and besides the gunners do not know the names of the parts of the machine gun "DP" and the revolver. The machine gunners do not know the name of the parts and rules for disassembling the rifle. To great shame, and chagrin, cadet regiment schools have lesser knowledge of small arms than the knowledge of the Red Army, and yet despite this they are issued by junior commanders.

            And this is in the best division in the district. In other formations in general, an ambush — for motorized riflemen, a pomnitsa, as a young man — explained the principles of firing from a “maxim” on a machine gun standing obliquely.
            Quote: Octopus
            8 howitzers. If you find something to pull.

            Horses, of course. Or an agricultural tractor with its 3-4 km / h (slower infantry). For there is nothing more.
            1. Octopus 28 January 2020 15: 10 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Mwa ha ha ...

              Yes, something skidded me, I agree.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Horses

              Yeah. To do this, we made the howitzer 1.5 times heavier than the Germans. Also an advanced solution, the largest divisional howitzer in the world. We have the same traction with elephants and with shells / charges / transport no problems.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And this is in the best district division

              Again. This is something new? In WWI did not come across?
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And do it better in peacetime

              Depends on whether you yourself decomposed this rake.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              more DB-3F with its M-88, Ep-2 and horror on the wings of the night - TB-7.

              In my world, Soviet long-range aviation does not exist. But you are right, rich people can afford expensive quirks.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              because no one can guarantee that even an adopted engine

              Two old Polikarpov on nine, two on Kuznetsov, one Mikulin. Both JOEs are from the early 30s.

              This is the same order that was under Stalin and not only. Not accept decision, don't do a choice, we do everything at once, but for good reason.

              Quote: Alexey RA
              Plus resources (aluminum) is not enough for everyone

              What more aluminum? The Soviet Union made ships and tank engines out of aluminum, and due to an oversight, bombers. On fighters aluminum is not provided, steel-wood-percale.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              I have no other USSR

              So that's the point. The USSR is building aircraft, except perhaps France.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              There is not wrecking, but unjustified optimism

              As if they did T-54 and T-10 differently. This I leave out of the brackets the question of whether it is possible to shoot designers a little less.

              The KV family turned out to be very useful when it turned out that the combination of Soviet BBs, Soviet sub-calibers and Soviet long barrels made the transition to the A-19 and ML-20 uncontested. But this is the 44th year. In the 41st year, some kind of game was built. Matilda KS, but twice as heavy.

              As for the T-34, it is generally an unhealthy initiative from below. The car is a third heavier and 1.5 times more powerful than the troika of the 40th year as the main Soviet tank. The American approach to tank building was earlier than the Americans themselves.

              Quote: Alexey RA
              As always, literally half a year was not enough

              Twenty five again. Well, Kharkiv residents didn’t have six months, but one and a half. Similarly, the Kirovites.

              You know what the Red Army was at Hassan, at Halkin Gola, in Finland. Why was she missing six months?
              1. Alexey RA 29 January 2020 15: 16 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Octopus
                Yeah. To do this, we made the howitzer 1.5 times heavier than the Germans. Also an advanced solution, the largest divisional howitzer in the world.

                Patamushta the damned legacy of the tsarist regime - caliber and mob stock of shots. The divisional howitzer will be either 122 mm or not at all. And say thank you, that at least the second time our industry was able to make a new 122-mm howitzer (the first "German" approach to the projectile, it successfully failed).
                Quote: Octopus
                The KV family turned out to be very useful when it turned out that the combination of Soviet BBs, Soviet sub-calibers and Soviet long barrels made the transition to the A-19 and ML-20 uncontested. But this is the 44th year.

                Unless, as an example, "how not to do TT." For in the new IS from the HF there are only rollers. smile
                Let's make a tank in 46-48-50 tons, but with a transmission and suspension designed for 40 tons - this is just about HF. And as a result, this TT had to be lightened - exactly during the reinforcement of the German anti-tank defense.
                And the GABTU regularly had to cut down on the root the flight of fantasy of the same ACS designers based on HF, explaining to them. that it is impossible to bring the mass of self-propelled guns to tank - the chassis is designed for only 40 tons.
                Quote: Octopus
                In the 41st year, some kind of game was built. Matilda KS, but twice as heavy.

                Please also say thank you for approving the creation of the single-tower TT. And then, in fact, the heirs of the QMS or T-100 could go into the series. wink
                Quote: Octopus
                As for the T-34, it is generally an unhealthy initiative from below. The car is a third heavier and 1.5 times more powerful than the troika of the 40th year as the main Soviet tank. The American approach to tank building was earlier than the Americans themselves.

                What about the options?
                Kharkov can design and do nothing but BT-like ones. This is not Peter with his pair of serial and a pair of pilot tank factories, and her with the design and working base of the same LKZ and IZ at hand. BT itself is out of date. So the choice is between A-20 and A-32. "Spaniard" Pavlov is adding fuel to the fire with his combat experience and demand "the main tank must have anti-ballistic armor, a diesel and a cannon with ballistic divisions".
                Quote: Octopus
                You know what the Red Army was at Hassan, at Halkin Gola, in Finland. Why was she missing six months?

                Yes, until the same coordination even to the level of a division. Prior to the September experimental exercises of the MK, as a result of which the OSh was to change. Prior to the re-equipment and retraining of at least half of the squadrons of the border districts. Until the completion of the reform of the rear of the Air Force.
              2. Octopus 30 January 2020 00: 43 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The divisional howitzer will be either 122 mm or not at all.

                Well, they’ve been rummaged. They only thought that 122 would be instead of 10,5 for a German, but it turned out instead of 15cm for a German. Suddenly.

                ZiS-3 as a universal divisional / anti-tank gun was a brilliant decision, but this decision was made by life, not the USSR.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Unless, as an example, "how not to do TT." For in the new IS from the HF there are only rollers

                Ugums. Both KV and T-34 were brought to normal form for 4 years, from 40 to 43rd. Yes, both there and there, they did something based on the car of the 40th year, in fact. Yes, an unsuccessful experience with a 50-ton machine turned out to be the only option for the USSR to figure out what was happening, without the HF, the SU-100 would have to wait already.
                By the way, this also concerns the T-34. On the one hand, the poor Soviet Union cannot make an insanely complicated and expensive tank the main one. On the other hand, the Soviet Union is forced to pay a fine for a lag in technology through an increase in tank mass. C-53 in the T-126 does not shove. To make for him the English 6 lb (and especially English APDS) is not an option for the USSR, so izaira is right, oddly enough. The T-50 leaves with its 45mm cannon on the Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.J and that’s it, hello.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And then, in fact, the heirs of the QMS or T-100 could go to the series

                Yeah, lucky so lucky.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Kharkov can design and do nothing but BT-like ones. This is not Peter with his pair of serial and a pair of pilot tank factories, and her with the design and working base of the same LKZ and IZ at hand.

                Hm, sorry. Is it possible to Kharkov not to do tanks then? Although this is already a dig under the Soviet regime, it will not work. Can you change it into a tank repair? Zaltsman, as you know, will not make repairs. Not found himself in the trash.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                “Spaniard” Pavlov adds fuel to the fire with his combat experience and the demand “the main tank must have anti-ballistic armor, a diesel and a gun with division ballistics”.

                It’s ridiculous to say, but a couple of years later the same was requested by Edna Chaffee. Only he had to clarify that the gun should be in circular rotation tower ))). Well, about the diesel, he was not in the know.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Yes, until the same coordination even to the level of a division.

                Hm. It seems that someone once wrote this thesis. The USSR has studied modern maneuver warfare since 1935. We know how and what he learned in his 41st year. I don’t believe that he hadn’t had half a year before the Gelb plan, but I don’t believe that. I am inclined to believe that for six months he did not have enough before the second Kharkov.
              3. Liam 30 January 2020 01: 20 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Octopus
                Someone seems to be once

                "History has given us little time"..Evergreen.
                For 10 years, hundreds of exercises and dozens of liberation campaigns, they have not learned anything. But the exercises in September 1941 would have changed everything at once.
                to Studebaker, Zhukov and Tymoshenko to Guderian and Manstein, and Mongolian horses to mighty Perchers
              4. Octopus 30 January 2020 01: 29 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Quote: Liam
                For 10 years, hundreds of exercises and dozens of liberation campaigns, have not learned anything.

                Yeah. In the 35th tanks clogged the roads, in the 39th, so in the 41st you need even more tanks.
              5. Liam 30 January 2020 01: 35 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Which is typical .. even in that daylight no one suggested solving the problem by increasing the number of roads)
              6. Octopus 30 January 2020 01: 39 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Cho!
                Maybe you also want to put asphalt?
                Can’t you draw a markup?
                I have been antirezing for a long time
                Are you not sent to us?
    2. strannik1985 29 January 2020 16: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yeah. And for this

      The weight in the stowed position le.FH18 3265 kg, M-30 3100 kg.
      The problem is different, in the USSR there are no heavy artillery horses, they bred their breed after the war, and in Germany (and Poland) there are. Therefore, six horses carried a German howitzer, and a Soviet howitzer.
      And also because the GAP on mechtag "saved" almost 3 thousand people in the rifle division.
    3. Octopus 29 January 2020 22: 07 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: strannik1985
      USSR there are no heavy artillery horses, their breed was bred after the war, and in Germany (and Poland) there are

      And then they blundered)))

      I’ll find out from the front lines, perhaps in this I have stipulated Comrade Kulik. But as far as I remember, the M-30 was made under mechtyaga.
  • izaira 28 January 2020 16: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Horses, of course. Or an agricultural tractor with its 3-4 km / h (slower infantry). For there is nothing more.

    If the horse was not eaten before. And for the tractor to eat fuel.
  • izaira 28 January 2020 16: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    mobilization tank - Su-76

    SU-76 was not a "mobilization tank." SU-76 was the result of the emergence of a tracked platform and something had to be done with it. They didn’t find anything better than to attach an analog of Chinese firecrackers, the “gun” ZIS-3, from above, as a result of which they received a self-propelled coffin
    Quote: Octopus
    In addition to the materiel, the mechanized corps, famous, were muddied. We have set up a Black Sea film studio, there is no sound cinema yet, silent cinema is gone.

    As for the mechanized corps, I agree.
    As for the tank troops, no.
    The structure of the tank forces before the war was quite understandable and reasonable. And she completely repeated the one that the Panzerwaffe adhered to throughout the war. This was a clear merit of the “traitor Pavlov,” unlike Kulik (GAU), who completely failed to work with artillery and small arms.
    But the execution of this good idea was Soviet. And this means that it was failed on ALL counts. And in the end, the Red Army did not have at all (but almost didn’t have anything except a wretched T-34), which was intended by ABT. And Pavlova, so as not to blather, was sent to Minsk.
    Quote: Octopus
    and IL-2.

    But it was a real flying coffin. Dzhugashvilya lobbied him personally. And this lobbyism cost the Red Army dearly.
    1. Octopus 28 January 2020 18: 55 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: izaira
      got a self-propelled coffin

      We got the only possible mass means of mechanizing the artillery of rifle divisions, an analog of the marder.
      Quote: izaira
      was not a "mobilization tank."

      It was she who was, and not the T-60.
      Quote: izaira
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Made. But did not have time with the series. As always, literally half a year was not enough.

      We must pray every day for the fact that the T-50 was never completed.

      The main problem of the T-50 (except production) was that the USSR could not make an effective weapon in the new caliber, not England. And so it depends on the quality of execution, in the end 40% of the tank production of the 42nd year - T-60, T-70. Yes, and better than the T-34 in the 42nd year it is quite possible.
      1. izaira 28 January 2020 19: 54 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Octopus
        a massive means of mechanization of the artillery of rifle divisions, an analog of the marder.

        If you knew what ZIS-3 is and what 7.5 cm PaK 40 or 7.62 cm PaK 36 (r) is, you would not have written it.
        Penetration of 76 mm BBS ZIS-3 was approximately at the level of 50 mm German BBS PaK38.
        The fragmentation of 76 mm OS ZIS-3 was approximately at the level of 57 mm OFS Anglo-Saxons.
        It must be clearly understood that from the beginning of 1943 the three-inch in all its forms was no longer capable of anything. In fact, it was a clapper gun. Almost useless item. Self-propelled coffin (in the version of T-34/76 and SU-76).
        Quote: Octopus
        It was she who was, and not the T-60.

        No, the mobilization tank was the T-60.
        Well, excuse me for what it was. The USSR generally stood at a low stage of technological development. Therefore, his weapons were extremely primitive and weak.
        Quote: Octopus
        The main problem of the T-50 (except production) was that the USSR could not make an effective weapon in the new caliber,

        The USSR generally failed the armament program of the army with rifle and art. weapons (GAU) completely and with a huge bang.
        The small arms of the Red Army were worse than the small arms of the tsarist army during the years 1MB.
        The same applies to artillery weapons, they were worse than analogues of the times of 1MB.
        And the anti-aircraft guns in the USSR did not exist at all. Not a single model. What the USSR called anti-aircraft guns, it was all rubbish.
        Quote: Octopus
        Yes, and better than the T-34 in the 42nd year it is quite possible.

        To do this, you had to have GUNS.
        They were not in the USSR. At first, their design failed in 1930 (the Soviet three-inch model of 1902/30 was much worse than the royal three-inch model of 1902), and then in the prewar (starting from 1938-39). Conscious shooting and artillery (including shooting and artillery on technology) 2MV times, it’s a horror that.
      2. Octopus 28 January 2020 21: 39 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: izaira
        If you knew what ZIS-3 is and what 7.5 cm PaK 40 or 7.62 cm PaK 36 (r) is, you would not have written

        I am more or less in the know. But others were not brought.
        Quote: izaira
        No, the mobilization tank was the T-60.

        The Su-76 was just the right mobilization machine.
        Quote: izaira
        Conscientious shooting and artillery (including shooting and artillery on technology) 2MV times, it’s a horror that

        Yes Yes.

        But, you see, I’m not discussing alternatives without the Soviet regime. The source point was similar errors in the goal setting and allocation of resources in different areas.
      3. isaira 28 January 2020 22: 54 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Quote: Octopus
        But others were not brought.

        Since others have not been delivered, then you need to look for other analogues. Not the Marders, but the ancient Panzerjäger, for example. Or the Romanian TACAM T-60.
        Quote: Octopus
        The Su-76 was just the right mobilization machine.

        How is it necessary for what? The SU-76 was not capable of anything (and not really, either). He had nothing, neither armor penetration, nor power, nor armor. There were only suicide bombers. Called "crew members."
        Quote: Octopus
        The source point was similar errors in the goal setting and allocation of resources in different areas.

        I wrote about this. Until 1943 (and even mainly until 1944), the USSR could very well provide for itself with quite decent weapons on its own. And there, and equipment from the Anglo-Saxons for long barrels would have ripened.
        But in the USSR there was not even anyone that involved in the development of weapons, Soviet weapons were so primitive that it was generally not difficult to develop them. Even engineer skills were not required (even the chief designers did not have them). GAU (in contrast to ABTU) was actually inactive, while conducting quite vigorous activity. Those. in the USSR there were simply no specialists in the field of small arms and artillery weapons. Not at all. Absolutely. From this, and in service was not weapons, but shit.
      4. Octopus 28 January 2020 23: 12 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: isaira
        How is it necessary for what?

        In the 44th year, Vespe was greatly worsened. On the 41st, it could very well pass for Noshorn)))
      5. isaira 28 January 2020 23: 19 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Quote: Octopus
        In the 44th year - Vespe's deterioration was severe.

        The greatly improved Vespe in 1942 was called the SU-122. Probably no worse than StuH 42 was.
        SU-76 had nothing to do with this BTT.
        Quote: Octopus
        On the 41st, it could very well pass for Noshorn)))

        This "Nashhorn" in 1941 was called the T-34. After all, the SU-76 came to where they removed the T-34 from the beginning of the war. Here is such a "worthy replacement" turned out.
  • Alexey RA 29 January 2020 16: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: izaira
    If you knew what ZIS-3 is and what 7.5 cm PaK 40 or 7.62 cm PaK 36 (r) is, you would not have written it.
    Penetration of 76 mm BBS ZIS-3 was approximately at the level of 50 mm German BBS PaK38.

    You are simply misplacing the SU-76. This is not a tank destroyer. This is a self-propelled battalion gun of the NPP. smile
    Quote: izaira
    It must be clearly understood that from the beginning of 1943 the three-inch in all its forms was no longer capable of anything. In fact, it was a clapper gun. Almost useless item.

    The USSR has no other guns. And other material for the OFS except steel cast iron - too. We do not have the United States, in which shells could be made of normal steel (or even abnormal - in tests, the American BBS did not deform after breaking through the side armor of the "tiger").
    Quote: izaira
    No, the mobilization tank was the T-60.

    T-60 was a mobilization tank from the series "but it came true - it’s". smile
    According to the mind, the SU-76 was just the mobile tank that was made — a mass self-propelled gun of the NPP for working on soft targets, made of available mass materials and components at automobile plants.
    Mobilization is not a prodigy. And not even the average for the hospital by TTX. This is an ersatz, the main advantage of which is the possibility of mass production from existing or slightly modified components in non-specialized plants.
    Quote: izaira
    To do this, you had to have GUNS.

    To do this, you need to have industry. For a start - mining.
    And when when out of all the shot options for the same 76 mm anti-aircraft guns choose the least metal-intensive on the sleeve or require a shotgun loading for the KK guns - this will not end in good.
    The second plug is manufacturing. A year and a half, our ammunition sculpted shots for the 85-mm anti-aircraft guns. How much did? One BC per barrel! And not on the regular number of guns, but only on the existing one.
    Remember what Kulik answered about the transition of divisional artillery to the 85-mm or 95-mm caliber before the war? That's right - there is no mob stock of shots, it is impossible to do it in a reasonable time. Hence all the throwing in the pre-war artillery program, hence the division’s weapons of qualitative reinforcement, which they planned to issue not to all divisions, but only to formations in the main strike directions.
    And I still don’t remember about three years of work on sub-caliber BBS, which were devoted to solving only one issue - how to make a core without tungsten. Because tungsten is not in the country!
    However, in spite of this, the UAA GAU KA in its letter of 19 / IX-41 again raises the issue of manufacturing sub-caliber shells, citing the fact that the 3rd Department of the GAU KAA has an agreement with the Institute of Hard Alloys to produce the required amounts of alloy similar to that used in German samples.
    Our employee of the metal laboratory was also at this institute, where he was also told that, generally speaking, such an alloy can be made. However, the head of the Institute’s special laboratory, Comrade Raskin V.Ya. at the same time explained at what price the alloy would be obtained. And the price is as follows. To produce just one core for a 76 mm projectile requires such an amount of alloy that will deprive at the same time 30 aircraft industry machines it will be victorious for the entire service life of these cutters!
    © Ulanov
  • Octopus 30 January 2020 00: 57 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    This is not a tank destroyer.

    Well, just in the 41st could be a tank destroyer)) If the USSR had 3 "BB .
    Quote: Alexey RA
    made from available bulk materials and components in automobile plants.
    Mobilization is not a prodigy. And not even the average for the hospital by TTX. This is an ersatz, the main advantage of which is the possibility of mass production from existing or slightly modified components in non-specialized plants.

    )))
    It seems to read somewhere, or even wrote. Grant and Sherman are American T-60 and T-70, respectively, and not T-34 at all. Emergency development, automobile / railway plants, even an automobile engine is available, Chrysler (and Ford remade the aviation engine into an automobile engine according to decisions). The difference between the T-70 and Sherman is the difference between Soviet and American industry, the growth of Sherman’s weight relative to the four is the payment for more “sweeping” decisions in a mobilization machine relatively specially designed.
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And I still don’t remember about three years of work on sub-caliber BBS

    And again the same thing. The USSR can not be in the subcalibers. The USSR must make cheap decisions for a poor country, learn properly make a larger caliber BB but he doesn't make them properly. I mean not even 45mm overheated, but missing 76mm. And these people point to the British with their anti-tank guns without OFS.
  • Alexey RA 29 January 2020 15: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: izaira
    SU-76 was the result of the emergence of a tracked platform and something had to be done with it.

    More precisely, the USSR found itself in a situation where it has an established series of light vehicles, which the front does not need in this form, and whose combat value is extremely small in the hands of the average crew.
    And on the other hand, there was a GAU with its lack of traction even for divisions and traction losses of 25-30% per operation. And there were divisional guns, which were often used for NPPs, accompanying infantry with fire and wheels.
    Quote: izaira
    The structure of the tank forces before the war was quite understandable and reasonable. And she completely repeated the one that the Panzerwaffe adhered to throughout the war.

    The problem is that the BTV Red Army is not a Panzerwaffe!
    Give Guderian 2/3 ordinary and 1/3 non-commissioned students with or without primary education - and see how an understandable and reasonable structure fights against such personnel. Or how he will work without any communication campaign groups, because there are few radios, they are of poor quality, and there are low-grade telephonists behind the key. Or with the headquarters of the former cavalrymen and infantrymen, moreover, staffed by 30-50%.
    To use the Panzerwaffe OSh, you need to have Panzerwaffe frames. We didn’t have them. And for our BTVs, the brigade structure was understandable and reasonable, when the camp group was not assembled from regiments and battalions, and reinforcements were simply hung on the ready-made base of the camp group in the form of a coordinated brigade.
    1. Octopus 29 January 2020 23: 49 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And for our BTVs, the brigade structure was understandable and reasonable, when the camp group was not assembled from regiments and battalions, and reinforcements were simply hung on the ready-made base of the camp group in the form of a coordinated brigade.

      )))
      Only the brigade should be renamed into the corps and given to the lieutenant general. On the same 200 tanks. Because a brigade with a colonel could be met on a big road by some comrade. Muzychenko. And send somewhere. Platoon.
  • izaira 28 January 2020 16: 16 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The main thing in the tanks was that they managed to put the next generation tanks in a series.

    What exactly did you manage?
    The KV-1 was put into production in fact in the summer of 1942. When it was already not particularly needed.
    With the T-50, it was even lucky that he did not go into the series. The freak was rare.
    Only the T-34 remained - the tank is not real, but the infantry support tank, which was NOT intended for tank troops (as planned). And went to the MECHANIZED parts (as planned).
    But in the end it became the "main tank" of the Red Army. The Germans burned them an incredible amount.
    In addition, in the USSR there was no such important component for tanks (among others) as a tank gun (and any other normal gun too). And without a tank gun, a tank cannot be made.
    Quote: Alexey RA
    unless the TT was replaced by a new one.

    TT in the USSR NEVER FOR ITS HISTORY was not issued. They could not do it, although they tried to do it repeatedly.
  • strannik1985 29 January 2020 14: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Weapon materiel classes

    The unions of the formation of the spring of 1941, to which, among other things, 24 TP 12 TD belonged to the elite, could relate very conditionally. Common problems of a freshly formed unit (exacerbated by the mass formation of similar units in the same period). Understandably, in such conditions, many random, illiterate, simply incapable of commanding or teaching people fell into positions. There is a difference in teaching the year since 1934 in uniting the same state, and forming new 4-5 mechanized corps in 1940-1941 and doing the same thing first in 1940 and then in 1941. Even the "old" MKs did not have time to complete the entire training period (just in September, division / corps exercises / maneuvers), what about fresh grape?
  • izaira 28 January 2020 16: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Octopus
    To prepare for the 41st, the USSR in terms of armaments and army organization had to do much less than in real life.

    Definitely. Only it was necessary to do the right thing.
    In the USSR, almost did not do the right thing. Mostly carried away by the wrong. And, it is very precisely noticed, precisely by those who were simply not on the shoulder.
  • izaira 28 January 2020 16: 03 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Six months to evacuate and mobilize industry, this army won.

    She won nothing. This is the Germans screwed up, ahead of time they began to find out which of them "Field Marshal of Victory." If they had not screwed up, nothing the USSR in 1941 would have helped. As early as September 1941, the Bolsheviks would "build communism" east of the Volga and the Northern Dvina.
  • Barb 28 January 2020 08: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Sapsan136
    The result was the inability to properly support their allies in Spain ... the inability to secure their sea communications from the attacks of Japan in the 40s of the last century ..

    If you can agree with Spain at the very least (not taking into account that until the mid-30s there are not enough resources for the fleet, and after 36 it’s too late to drink Borjomi), then you can compete with fleet No. 3 of the world, and then, you can consider No. 1 unscientific fiction.
  • timokhin-aa 28 January 2020 14: 36 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    What will you do when these guys come to beat you - from the sea?
  • Nemchinov Vl 30 January 2020 00: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Sapsan136
    Before building an aircraft carrier, it is necessary to build escort ships for it, without which it is just a target, simple and large ... Building an aircraft carrier and escort ships at the same time will not work for economic and technical reasons
    Exactly !!!
    Quote: Sapsan136
    ... since the factories that have mastered the construction of frigates in the Russian Federation, and at least frigates are needed for escort, there are only two in the Russian Federation today, these are Peter and Kaliningrad and the pace of construction of frigates in the Russian Federation today, alas, do not inspire optimism ...
    and it is true !! Although I would probably add here; - “Gulf”, the plant in “Big Stone”, and “Baltic Plant”, since it would also make sense (and in principle there is an opportunity) to build the same 22350.1 (at 24 UVP, I mean). At least, at first (3-4 units) at each of these enterprises, to restore (create) the necessary competencies of naval military shipbuilding (and to more quickly saturate the fleet with the basic "working units") ?! But unfortunately, this is not happening ?! And they continue, “sweet dreams,” about aircraft carriers ?!
  • Alexey Petrovichev 27 January 2020 11: 18 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    And SSK Star in the far east? an aircraft carrier with one squadron is about nothing.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 January 2020 11: 29 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Far and expensive to build.
      1. Saxahorse 27 January 2020 22: 21 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Far and expensive to build.

        For some reason, Ural steel in St. Petersburg is cheap, but in Vladik it is immediately expensive. So buy a Chinese one. By barter.
  • Tektor 27 January 2020 11: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I would think about the experience of building the Mistral, which was built in separate large blocks, and then docked and welded. So it is here. You can create cooperation between several shipyards, for example, available in Germany, Finland, Kaliningrad, St. Petersburg, Vyborg. The docking of the hull should be done in Kaliningrad, and the loading of fuel into the reactors in Severodvinsk.
    A suitable floating dock in Kaliningrad can be built from two available, if they are also welded.
    1. LeonidL 27 January 2020 20: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Tektor
      You can create cooperation between several shipyards, for example, available in Germany, Finland, Kaliningrad, St. Petersburg, Vyborg.
      Forgot about the sanctions?
      1. Tektor 30 January 2020 10: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I didn’t forget: in Germany and Finland, the shipyards belong to our shipbuilders.
        The Pella Sietas shipyard is located in the western part of the port city of Hamburg on the south bank of the Elbe. Since 1635, innovative special-purpose ships and floating vehicles have been created here.
        Arctech Helsinki Shipyard is a shipbuilding company, a subsidiary of the Russian United Shipbuilding Corporation. The company includes the Hietalahti shipyard in Helsinki
        1. LeonidL 31 January 2020 01: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Do you really believe that these shipyards, which are under the jurisdiction of countries that have adopted sanctions, will build something? Me not.
  • exo
    exo 27 January 2020 11: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    But the Kerch plant "Bay", can not, after the necessary modernization, pull the construction of an aircraft carrier?
    Of course, the problem of the Straits and Turkey again arises.
  • rica1952 27 January 2020 11: 59 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    In our stagnant economy, this will not come to that.
  • iouris 27 January 2020 12: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The historical example of South Korea, which was "saved by aircraft carriers", is very characteristic.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 27 January 2020 14: 10 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Those were already bygone days, those aircraft carriers are only slightly more relevant to modern aircraft than sailing battleships. In Iraq-91, naval aviation made less than 15% of the total number of sorties. A modern American AB type Nimitz with 48 Super Hornets, ammunition for them and the possible number of sorties per day, will not do anything even Syria in its current state ...
      1. Vasily Ponomarev 27 January 2020 16: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        the fact that you are comparing the effectiveness of using only 10 ships with the whole air force is already talking about their benefits
        1. 5-9
          5-9 30 January 2020 08: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          what 10 ships, what air forces, what are you talking about ???

          Once again, the AVU air group without conventional aviation can be used either against golem-like missiles such as Afghanistan or Somalia, or only as support for ground aviation .... "aircraft carriers do not fight against the coast" and for a long time ... AVU is an expensive and most effective control tool global ocean communications ... only in the heads of local flotophiles the United States will send AUG "to bomb the Motherland" ... they refused this year in 1960 ...
          1. Vasily Ponomarev 30 January 2020 11: 09 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            tell it to the world who buys them who can
            1. 5-9
              5-9 30 January 2020 15: 02 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              And they are bought by units (who can) units precisely to control global ocean communications, Russia does not have such a task, therefore we don’t need AB .... but the AB wishers come up with all sorts of crazy tasks for them, the most popular of which is to resist the Amer AB, who suddenly sailed "bombing the homeland"
              1. Vasily Ponomarev 30 January 2020 15: 35 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Well, if France needs Aviks, but we don’t need it, then it’s not necessary
  • Demagogue 27 January 2020 12: 08 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The author somehow complicatedly explained everything, although the thoughts are correct. There is nothing to do without an aircraft carrier in the far zone. No frigates, albeit studded with redoubts, can not stand up against aviation without air support. And their strike weapons will be useless against enemy ships, since the enemy is behind the radio horizon, and only planes, drones, etc. can give their location.
  • Dymik 27 January 2020 12: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In Kerch, like a dock for 100000 tons. Maybe you can build there?
  • Selevc 27 January 2020 12: 27 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    According to some indirect signs, the top political leadership of the state has moved from dreams of a hypothetical aircraft carrier to specifics.
    The country's top leadership ordered new models of aircraft carriers ??? And it has gone from making cardboard mock-ups to plywood mock-ups ??? Cool !!!
    The need for carrier ships in local wars was perfectly shown by the Americans in Vietnam
    The US won the war in Vietnam ??? And then what did they show there ??? How to iron the jungle ??? Why do you need super expensive weapons that can not win the war ???
    1. Selevc 27 January 2020 12: 49 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Actually, what the USA showed in Vietnam is the fact that you won’t win the war with one aircraft - even if you have super-duper modern aviation and your opponent is the most backward !!! Sooner or later it is necessary to move on to the ground phase of hostilities - and there is still no one knows who ...
      By the way, the USSR aviation in Afghanistan showed about the same thing ...
  • Pashhenko Nikolay 27 January 2020 12: 40 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Well, that’s it. It remains to forward this article to the Ministry of Defense and let them get to work.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
  • lopuhan2006 27 January 2020 12: 59 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Conclusion: ........ uh, even think of banning the aircraft carrier for 15-20 years, and then see.
  • Bersaglieri 27 January 2020 13: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The most important question: "Is he needed?" What are the challenges for AUG in Russia? "Zusulov" does not oppress like a world hegemon. Maybe it's better to invest in missile-carrying aviation and submarines?
    1. timokhin-aa 3 February 2020 11: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      To ensure aviation operations further 300 km from the coast.
      1. Vladimir1155 6 February 2020 17: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        not true front-line aviation at 3000 km and long-range at 120000, and without any of your unnecessary aircraft
        1. timokhin-aa 11 February 2020 15: 25 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Well, count the reflection of the enemy’s airstrike by the forces of a carrier-based air wing of 40 vehicles along the KGM or KPUG 200 km from the coast.
          Radar field - 500 km, airfield with interceptors on the shore,
          1. Vladimir1155 7 May 2020 09: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            where did you see KUG? list to the studio!
  • Bersaglieri 27 January 2020 13: 06 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    And the option “I blinded him from what was” is such a poor “Kuznetsov” example ... Or his predecessors (sold for scrap due to lack of infrastructure at the base points and the doctrine of application in the changing geopolitical situation) on a rake many times, this, apparently, is a tradition :(
    1. LeonidL 27 January 2020 20: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I completely agree with you. But so far, only the author of the article has come "on the rake", no decisions have really been made, but the models are examined and the modellers are stroked over their heads.
      1. Bersaglieri 28 January 2020 12: 47 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Duc, let's keep fingers crossed :)
  • Andrey.AN 27 January 2020 13: 27 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    It’s possible to argue about the catapult, the Americans don’t have enough power for these heavy catapults for the catapults, and these multifunctional vehicles take off normally from the springboard, and they have a different radius of use and combat load, it’s easier for AWACS to create an unmanned aerial vehicle, anti-submarine too, Indians, by the way, are equipped with the same fighters for tankers. It is necessary to build a new one so that its armaments are unified with the armaments of Kuznetsov, so that they can interact.
    1. maden.usmanow 27 January 2020 17: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      No, you are wrong, in January the Americans launched heavy aircraft with an electromagnetic catapult




      1. God save the king 27 January 2020 18: 11 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The technical staff there is immortal, apparently, if it conducts such active activity around a machine with turboprop engines running.
        1. maden.usmanow 27 January 2020 18: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          By the way, you voiced an interesting problem.
          They built an aircraft carrier, added planes, but where can I get technical personnel?
          The Navy does not train such personnel
      2. Andrey.AN 27 January 2020 20: 17 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        It was about heavy fighters, similar to our Dryers, such as F-15E, F-22. So far, the maximum for American aircraft carriers is the F-18 (such as our MiG), or the F-35 with a fan in its belly.
  • God save the king 27 January 2020 13: 46 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    In the current situation, Russian aircraft carriers are simply not needed.
    In the border areas, land aviation, together with "calibers" and "Iskanders," will stop any aggression by the enemy, and in the far abroad ... let's be honest, Russia has nothing to do with the modern economy model.
    Accordingly, only the reconnaissance of anti-submarine, anti-mine, and partially radar-borne responsibilities fall on the fleet.
  • Undecim 27 January 2020 13: 48 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Usually, the author’s articles, for all his emotionality and dedication, are based on a serious factual basis. Immediately, the author started racing. The aircraft carrier built, but forgot that in addition to building, it still needs to be exploited - aircraft carriers have their own life cycle, they require a base, maintenance and repair. They require an Industrial Base not only for construction, but also for operation.
    Like Newport News Shipbuilding.

    As with this issue, the author did not highlight.
    1. God save the king 27 January 2020 13: 58 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      And for an aircraft carrier, you need a modern wing and at least some kind of analogue of a "hockey". As there are no ships for an escort, even one aircraft carrier. There will be almost more problems with the construction of all this than with the ship itself.
      1. Cyrus 27 January 2020 18: 55 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Well, that’s a lie, we have a BPC and a cruiser, we also have DLRO projects.
        1. LeonidL 27 January 2020 20: 18 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          There are cruisers and BOD ... how old are they? How much time and money will it take to upgrade just a recovery? Or again send rescuers, tankers, tugboats, supply ships ala "squadron adm Rozhdestvensky" to the ocean with a crib from a caravan?