The US Navy is thinking about reducing the number of new aircraft carriers such as the Gerald R. Ford

The U.S. Navy is considering a possible reduction in the construction of new aircraft carriers and replacing them with cheaper landing ships such as a helicopter carrier. It is reported by Military Watch.

According to the publication, there are two reasons for replacing aircraft carriers with landing ships - the cost of new aircraft carriers, amounting to $ 15 billion and the vulnerability of American aircraft carriers to Russian and Chinese weapons.

The command of the U.S. Navy said that new aircraft carriers under construction such as Gerald R. Ford, the construction of which is in the interests of the American fleet, with the same size and tasks as aircraft carriers like Nimitz, are three times more expensive, but do not have protection from Russian and Chinese missiles that can destroy an expensive aircraft carrier with one hit.

At the same time, the US Navy notes that the arsenal of Russian and Chinese weapons capable of destroying an aircraft carrier is only growing, while it is reported that North Korea will soon join them, developing its own "carrier killer."

The publication notes that against this background, the US Department of Defense is considering the option of reducing the construction of new aircraft carriers to 4 units, and replace decommissioned aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type with lighter helicopters of the Wasp and America class. These are universal landing ships with a displacement of 40 thousand tons (2,5 times less than that of aircraft carriers). In addition to landing boats and helicopters, they are capable of carrying up to 20 F-35B fighters with a short take-off and vertical landing.

Where in this case to put the F-35C fighters, specially designed for aircraft carriers and the available F / A-18 Hornet fleet, are not reported. These aircraft cannot take off from helicopter carriers. Also, landing ships will not be able to carry AWACS and EW aircraft.

Comments

[Honest Citizen]

And maintaining a fleet is expensive ...
However, it quickly dawned on them that the cost of an aircraft carrier was incomparable with the cost of the "assassin-aircraft carrier" missiles.

[Victor_B]

Quote: Honest Citizen

However, it quickly dawned on them that the cost of an aircraft carrier was incomparable with the cost of the "assassin-aircraft carrier" missiles.

Oh, how many minuses I picked up on this topic ...
He kept repeating all the time - justify TASKS in doctrine! Then we will understand what is needed.
But everyone wants "so that bulo" and more, more!
According to the principle - build, give money for maintenance, and we will figure out how to use it.
And now - ta-damme!

The US Navy is considering a possible reduction in the construction of new aircraft carriers and replacing them with cheaper landing ships such as a helicopter carrier.

In general, we urgently run to build an AB, and preferably a thousand per hundred displacement.
To walk, so to walk!

[Serg65]

Quote: Honest Citizen

However, it quickly dawned on them that the cost of an aircraft carrier was incomparable with the cost of the "assassin-aircraft carrier" missiles.

How fast

[novel66]

it’s not enough, but it’s not enough for our doshi! great marsoflotovets!

[Serg65]

Quote: novel xnumx

insufficiently

Well yes, 50 years is really not fast enough

Quote: novel xnumx

and to our and dosi not doper!

Roma, if the Americans really abandon the aircraft carriers (which I doubt very much) then you can immediately forget about the 3rd world

[novel66]

you can immediately forget about the 3rd world

I'm all for it!!!

[Serg65]

Yes, and I do not mind!

[g1v2]

Carriers are just a tool. Economic and political contradictions lead to war. Of course, whether or not there will be a new world war will not affect it. Again, it is not at all necessary that the states will participate in it. They may well wait until someone else grapples with their adversary and help at the very end, having received all the buns and incurring much smaller losses than other participants.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Serg65

if Americans really abandon aircraft carriers (which I doubt very much) then you can immediately forget about World War 3

The Americans have hundreds of bases around the world, so aircraft carriers, as it were, are not quite at work. Well, of course, when they are, but terribly expensive, even for the United States. America is getting bogged down, slowly.

[bayard]

Quote: Serg65

if Americans really abandon aircraft carriers (which I doubt very much) then you can immediately forget about World War 3

Yes, they are not going to give up the aircraft carriers. They are going to refuse to BUILD NEW aircraft carriers such as "D. Ford". Too expensive and not too successful.
In the USA, the idea of ​​abandoning heavy nuclear-powered carriers in favor of medium-displacement non-nuclear aircraft carriers (15–40 thousand tons of explosives) capable of carrying both AWACS aircraft, and PLO and electronic warfare planes, because they must have catapults. But the wing should be within 50 aircraft, the combat wing - 40 aircraft (fighter). The task is to ensure air defense and combat stability of naval formations. Leaving the shock functions to the ships - carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic.
Such ideas have been hovering in the offices of American naval theorists for a long time, but now - it seems that the question has ripened.
And these most medium-sized ABs will most likely be built / designed on the basis of the projects of the very UDC / helicopter carriers, but with all the attributes of an AV - catapults, aerofinishers, AWACS aircraft.

And further .
Aircraft carriers of the "Nimitz" type are still fully in service and they will remain in service for a long time. Moreover, 4 units are going to build "Fords". , and this (in turn) means that the United States will maintain its status quo in AB for a long time to come. And in the future, when AV-light begins to enter service, it does not mean at all that the capabilities of their AUG will sag, if in addition to the AV itself of 40-50 thousand tons, there will also be UDC (VI 40 tons). ). After all, their total air wing will be 000 + 24 fighters + AWACS, PLO, and electronic warfare aircraft. But all this pleasure will cost much less. And the survivability and flexibility of combat use will increase ...

So I would not be in a hurry to rejoice at the impending "weakening" of the enemy, but I would VERY recommend using a similar approach in building your own (Russian) fleet. On what I insist in every discussion of this topic.
The combat stability of the Russian Navy should be provided by non-nuclear (gas turbine) AV medium-range aircraft, with EM catapults, AWACS aircraft and an aircraft wing of 24 fighters. To ensure air defense, this will be quite sufficient, and the escort ships, the carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic, will take on the shock functions.
Such ABs can be built in the Kerch Bay. It will cost ... moderately, and does not represent technical problems of a fundamental nature.

[alstr]

Those. for us, this means that it is necessary to return to the concept that was laid down in Kuznetsova - an air defense aircraft carrier of the formation, but adding an AWACS aircraft there (more precisely, creating an aircraft itself, which was cut at one time).

[bayard]

Exactly .
It was originally planned to install a catapult on Kuznetsov.
And even it was made and delivered to Nikolaev (where it then lay for a long time). Steam room. Although the EM catapult was successfully tested (work on them was carried out in parallel). And work on the Yak-44 was then in full swing - a full-size model was already made (it was even put on the deck of the Kuznetsov under construction - they tried it on ...
So no one bothers to return to the good idea of ​​the past. But only without CD on board AB. The new aircraft carrier should be exclusively an aircraft carrier ship - with AWACS aircraft and possibly PLO (which, however, is not necessary, will also get helicopters).
26 - 28 fighters (24 combat and 2 - 4 UB), 2 - 4 AWACS aircraft, and 12 - 14 helicopters (PLO and search and rescue).

If we take into account that American super-aircraft carriers of fighters for actual air combat also have 24 (+ 24 strike), then for a fraction of the money, you can achieve the same combat effectiveness and stability by giving all the shock functions of the escort ships ... Or, having on board an additional set of pilots trained in strike operations, it is possible to expand the strike capabilities of AB in low-intensity conflicts and having an escort ship in the escort.

Having relaxed and restored competence in the construction of the UDC, the Kerch "Zaliv" will be quite capable of building such ships - the infrastructure there allows.

[ABM]

started ... do you even know what's going on in the country? an intergalactic "death star" can begin to build ?!

[bayard]

Quote: ABM

started ... did you even know what is happening in the country?

Right now I am listening to Hazin on this subject.
And a lot of things are happening in the country. On May 9, two UDC VI 25 tons will be laid in Kerch. And it is right .
I wrote that you can start building LIGHT / medium AV only after you have restored the necessary competencies. And it will be much easier and cheaper in the case of a NEATOMIC aircraft carrier (on gas turbines) in a moderate displacement. And its price (excluding the air wing) will be about $ 1,5-2 billion. , in contrast to the nuclear "Storm" and "Manatee" (7 - 8 billion dollars.).
It is they ("Storm" and "Manatee") that can become the golden "intergalactic" death star "", which I constantly pay attention to.
And now we need to build what our industry is capable of - frigates and UDC, accumulating competencies for the future.

[TermNachTer]

How so? And the heart-rending screams that the best in the world, unparalleled, significantly superior to the Nimitz type? Did you run out of money or did it "get out of the way", like on "Zamvolts"?

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

Did you run out of money or did it "get out of the way", like on "Zamvolts"?

And the sides climbed out, and ... it's tense with the cabbage. $ 15 billion , this is still not 5 billion, as in the Nimitz, but the combat capabilities remained the same - the same air wing, size, speed, autonomy. 10 "extra" billion - for "little things".
The United States wants to increase the number of warships, and for this it is necessary to change their qualitative composition, because such plans will not fit into a budget imaginable size. So they want to build smaller ABs, but in no smaller quantities, destroyers and return to the fleet such a type of ships as frigates.
But this is still opinions and desires, but when they approve real programs, then it will be possible to speak seriously.
One thing only can be said - it will not become easier for us from these decisions.

[TermNachTer]

The mattress admirals, who disowned the "Ford" like the devil from incense, said that it was about 30% more effective in combat, but of course it was at a price. Now there is one more good news - the first "bjorks" will not be modernized, they will be written off. The first six are "chiconderogs" too. And the cruisers that should replace them are still only on paper.

[bayard]

Quote: TermNachTER

they said that in terms of combat efficiency it surpasses somewhere by 30%

These are calculated characteristics, but childhood illnesses, design errors and simple defects reduce its expected characteristics by 30-50%. Eliminate, modify, but service on it, meanwhile, turns into torment. At the same time, the numerical (and therefore qualitative) composition of the air wing practically does not differ from the Nimitz.
And the fact that the first "Burkes" will not capitalize is a competent decision. The cost of such pleasure can jump up to half of the new one, so it is wiser to build new ones, and the old ones - in reserve. At the same time, the military-industrial complex will be stimulated, and the composition of the fleets will be rejuvenated.
We seem to have made a similar decision - "Petra", "Varyag" and "Moscow" will not be modernized, only to maintain combat readiness. And to replace it, build new ships.
But the fact that 1155 is being upgraded with pre-equipment is good, these are still running around. Yes, and they are beautiful ...

[Constanty]

And sometimes the Americans do not have the right number of 11 aircraft carriers, enshrined in their constitution (in laws)?

[Sergej1972]

The US Constitution does not list aircraft carriers.)

[Constanty]

then I added a law record

This proposal may meet with great resistance from the American legislator. Under current regulations, the US Navy must have eleven aircraft carriers. President Trump noted that there should be twelve ships of this class, and the corresponding idea of ​​the USS aircraft carrier George Washington (CVN 73), put forward during the time of President Obama, was rejected. Consent to the reduction would also be contrary to the concepts of development of the US Navy, which was to become more numerous.

[voyaka uh]

Which I have been saying for a long time: vertical fighter jets are changing the whole concept of war on sea and land.
Instead of huge aircraft carriers - small and simple. Instead of high-grade airfields on land - short concrete sites.

[Serg65]

Quote: voyaka uh

Instead of huge aircraft carriers - small and simple. Instead of high-grade airfields on land - short concrete sites.

We already went through this in the 80s!

[novel66]

instead of full-fledged aircraft - snapping with a limited range of tasks and without AWACS, i.e. also blind-eyed

[voyaka uh]

Light aircraft carriers will work with heavy aircraft. Where there are AWACS aircraft.
The radius of action of verticals is decided by additional fuel tanks and air refueling. Additional tanks are dropped when approaching the enemy, and the F-35B go into a "stealth" state. The Marines, by the way, are already rehearsing such things.

[Romario_Argo]

vertical fighter jets are changing the whole concept of war on land and sea.

exactly (!)
on the approach is a heavy vertical line for our future UDC with a radius of 1500 km.,
which at subsonic speeds can be on patrol for up to 8 hours at a distance of 1500 km from UDC
bomb load of 8 tons is air-to-air missiles + anti-ship missiles Dagger or Zircon
and this further expands the radius of the zone A2 / AD - restriction and prohibition of access and maneuver for the US Navy and NATO
+ UDC will be equipped with the Pantsir air defense missile system, the Redut air defense system and air defense systems for anti-ship missiles / PLUR / SLCM, PTZ Package-NK + PL helicopters

[bayard]

Quote: Romario_Argo

on the approach is a heavy vertical line for our future UDC with a radius of 1500 km.,

Roman, what is this fantasy?
What is the heavy vertical?
Who ?
The Americans and one F-35 was enough for the eyes. And about the new, and even difficult ... I did not hear anything, and I did not believe hearing.
Do the Chinese?
God forbid they bring to mind J-15 and J-31 to bring to mind.
I will remain modestly silent about Europeans ...
We have ?
Yakovlev's design bureau has indeed been puzzled by the promising VTOL aircraft since 2015, but this is also based on the previous developments of a light single-engine aircraft, most likely on the promising Izdeliye-30 engine, a kind of domestic version of the F-35V, taking into account the mistakes of opponents.
Where did the firewood come from?
Or fantasy dreams?
8 tons ...
1500 km radius ...
Do you even imagine what kind of energy is needed for such Wishlist?
What engines?
How many (engines)?
Lineup options for such a miracle?
And what kind of carrier is needed for such a "heavy-class VTOL aircraft"?
The Americans abandoned their heavy carrier-based F-14 fighters in favor of the lighter, more compact and economical F-18s.
Russia built the light MiG-29K \ KUB for Kuznetsov, and it sees them as a combat wing in the future.
China for its future (nuclear) AB plans to adopt the ship's version of the J-31, and not the clone of the Su-33 ...
If the United States really refuses in the future to build heavy atomic ABs in favor of medium-sized non-nuclear ones, PHYSICALLY will not be able to operate heavy fighters on them, even VTOL.

And for Russia in the future, for potential medium-sized aircraft carriers, an air wing on the MiG-29 \ 35K will be quite enough, which, together with ship-mounted air defense systems, will be able to provide a completely stable and sufficient air defense for the operational connection of the Fleet.

And the "Zircons" can comfortably accommodate and launch from the launchers of the escort ships.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: voyaka uh

vertical fighter jets are changing the whole concept of war on land and sea.
Instead of huge aircraft carriers - small and simple. Instead of high-grade airfields on land - short concrete sites.

not too vertical lines will change the concept.
No one will refuse from heavy aircraft carriers (with ejection launch and landing landing planes) —and a larger wing, heavier planes, and most importantly, the presence of AWACS aircraft, without which effective sea operations alone can be called into question. Therefore, lightweight AB is only an addition to heavy ones, but not a substitute for them.
We went through the times of the USSR what ships with vertical lines are. Of course, the current VTOL aircraft are not a match for Harrier or the Yak-38, but they cannot replace a full-fledged IS (as well as see the paragraph on AWACS)

The same goes for land aviation. If a fighter only needs a 100-meter strip for take-off / landing, then tactical, long-range and transport aircraft still need several kilometers of strip. Those. from normal airfields can not be abandoned, with all desire.

[mvg]

vertical fighter jets change the whole concept of sea and land warfare

Still, 3-4 AWACS operators, and a couple of pilots, equipment and a tanker tanker should be planted on this vertical line.

[voyaka uh]

This is the Osprey convertiplane.

[mvg]

tiltrotter Osprey

Alexei, I understood from the commentary on where you are driving. But 18 landings by weight, this is not a PAR antenna, plus equipment and 5-6 people. He is far from Hokai. How much does the F-35V / S take in vertical take-off mode? A couple of tons? Not very shocking. Only air defense. But the Japanese Izumo are not bad.
Full-fledged aircraft carriers differ in this. Catapult and AWACS.
Otherwise, 1143.5 plus Ka-31 is also an aircraft carrier.

[orionvitt]

Quote: voyaka uh

vertical fighter jets change the whole concept of sea and land warfare

They don't change anything. With its limited performance characteristics. Ours even developed their own Yak-38, not from a good life, but so to speak in order to save on the fleet. As a result, instead of a full-fledged deck attack aircraft, we got a headache. "Vertical", loses to a conventional combat aircraft in everything, except for the possibility of vertical takeoff and landing. So the problem is not worth a damn. Ours have played enough, now the Americans are repeating the same path. Tell "Harrier" is it still flying? Yes, it flies, but little and limited, so to speak, until the first competent anti-aircraft crew.

[voyaka uh]

"Ours have played enough," ///
---
there was no automation of vertical take-off and landing. Manual control with a complex circuit. Everything was made much simpler in Harrier, more correctly on Yak.
---
Yak-38 was - dad, the prototype of the whole concept, so to speak
Harrier was - the first swallow. Operational test.
The first vertical line is serial and successfully fought.
F-35B - a completely different level.
Its only difference from the F-35A is less fuel on board. But avionics is the same and the level of stealth is the same.
Full automation of take-off and landing.

[ZAV69]

And how much kerosene eats vertical take-off? It seems like the yaks suffered a lot from this at one time, and zilch fuel took off.

[voyaka uh]

Fully vertical - a lot.
But this is an emergency.
The F-35B is possible: 1) vertical take-off 2) short take-off.
In the case of an aircraft carrier, this is a very short take-off from a flat deck.
Fuel also goes a lot, but not so bad.
Yak’s take-off was vertical with the help of three engines: the main one (rotation of the nozzle) and two small auxiliary vertical ones.
The F-35B takes off by turning the nozzle and fan driven by the motor shaft.

[Masha]

ABOUT! One kraine fit! Here is the theme, the very thing!

[novel66]

to ruin the snag ?? healthy

[Masha]

Hi!
So I am about the same ....
Didn’t the states conceive everything for this?

[novel66]

Trump's presidency somehow rules out recklessness in their actions

[Masha]

One fig ... will not depart from the party line ...

[Normal]

And they still hope to swim to the Black Sea?) Those days, when the aircraft carrier was an exceptional force, sunk into the summer. With the advent of hypersound, the value of having this craft in large quantities is doubtful.

[Guru]

One would like to ask the Amerov, "Isn't it already, the printing press has broken down?

[Prahlad]

We would have a couple of such beauties!

[kot423]

Well, about Berdyansk, Nikopol and Yana Kapu, it’s understandable that without toilets it’s dumb and on the pier. And why are Iceland and Saigak Dachny not happy?

[Aaron Zawi]

We will see. So far this is nothing more than one of the views on the future of the Navy.

[Vyacheslav p]

It is necessary to sell them to Georgia, so that the Black Sea Fleet will practice))))

[Johnnie Walker]

If Americans are already thinking about the need to afford aircraft carriers, then this is a signal to us:
- Butcher Kuzyu
- Throw out the Lamontin model

[Johnnie Walker]

Since the cons went, I admit I was wrong above:
Well, if India can afford the construction and maintenance of aircraft carriers, then we need:
- Leave Kuzyu in permanent repair
- Make more models of promising aircraft carriers

[Vyacheslav p]

Is Kuzya an aircraft carrier? He seems to have always been an aircraft carrier cruiser.

[Johnnie Walker]

Excuse me, what do you want to say that a country occupying 1/6 of the land is not able to repair an existing cruiser?
I’m even afraid to ask about the construction of a new cruiser of this kind ...

[Vyacheslav p]

Repair, don’t worry. And delicious buns will be added. And to build new aircraft-carrying cruisers, and even more so aircraft carriers without the need for our fleet at all.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Vyacheslav P

Is Kuzya an aircraft carrier? He seems to have always been an aircraft carrier cruiser

the key word was. Because now he has lost missile strike weapons (there are no more Granites on it)

And in fact, he was an aircraft carrier. He was christened the cruiser for other (more political) reasons ...

[Vyacheslav p]

Now, there is nothing on it, maybe it’s under repair. But do not hesitate, everything will be and nobody canceled the granite. And the cruiser because it carries anti-ship missiles, and not just airplanes like American troughs

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Vyacheslav P

But do not hesitate, everything will be and nobody canceled the granite.

Granite has already been canceled. The rocket is quite old, has long been discontinued, the shelf life of liquid monsters is small. On Nakhimov, PUs near Granites were replaced by UKKS near Caliber and Onyx.

Yes, and on Kuznetsov’s rockets for several years now it’s been dumb, the launchers weren’t dismantled - this would require a long time to lead the ship out of order, and it costs a lot of money.

Quote: Vyacheslav P

And the cruiser because it carries anti-ship missiles, and not just airplanes like American troughs

The unfinished nuclear Ulyanovsk was also called the TAVKR, although it did not carry shock missile weapons initially. So it's not just about missiles.

[Vyacheslav p]

Well, they will replace rocket launchers for zircons or onyxes. Simple business.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Vyacheslav P

Well, they will replace rocket launchers for zircons or onyxes. Simple business

even Peter the Great will not do this (due to economic reasons), most likely. Although to him this (strike missile system) is much more important than an aircraft carrier.

[Vyacheslav p]

Wait and see. I hope that I will be right.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Vyacheslav P

Wait and see. I hope that I will be right

Yeah, especially in the light of the recent events with the ruble and oil - the budget is only replenished from that) And you look, in this way, and scrape the new aircraft carrier)

[Vyacheslav p]

Gregory, what kind of pessimism? Everything will be fine, as agreed with the sheikh, so the barrel will rise again.

[Grigory_45]

ok, each with his own.

Quote: Vyacheslav P

as agreed with the sheikh, so the barrel will rise again

not the topic of the article, but ... Well then didn’t agree?

Well, knowing the wonderful mechanisms of our even more wonderful economy, as it will not be anymore (I’ll explain: fuel prices (and everything else), for example, creep only upward despite the decrease or increase in oil prices. The push - they climbed up, like would settle the situation - and they, contrary to the laws of the market, do not go down). well, etc.
Anomalous zone is direct ...

[Avior]

the name TAVKR is most likely connected with the ambiguity of the Montreux convention, the passage of aircraft carriers is not prohibited, the class itself is described, but there are no rules for the passage of such a category of ships in the list of rules.
reinsured just in case, although the Turks never found fault.

[Johnnie Walker]

Eighty years ago, five countries had aircraft carrier construction technologies (USA, UK, France, Japan, Germany (Count Zeppelin under construction)).

By the end of World War II, the US Navy had 99 aircraft carriers of various classes.

Today, such countries as the USA, Great Britain, Italy, France, China, India, South Korea possess construction technologies.

Russia, as the assignee of the USSR, got the aircraft carrier cruiser Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov, but unfortunately the technology for its repair was lost.

[bayard]

Russia, as the legal successor of the USSR, rebuilt for India from an aircraft carrier cruiser into a full-fledged aircraft carrier Vikramaditya. And she coped with it quite well, although she did it at a CVD, which had never before done such a thing.
Russia can (will be able) to build new aircraft-carrying ships in the Crimea - on the Kerch "Zaliv", where already this year on May 9, two UDC VIs of 25 tons should be laid and under 000 helicopters for each (promising VTOL aircraft will also be able to be based on them) ... There it would have been possible to finish the repair of the "Kuznetsov", but for this it is necessary to drag it around the whole of Europe. If the Ministry of Defense decides to do this, I will only happily applaud, because in the "north" such a ship is now extremely difficult to repair.

[Tuzik]

Well, the era of huge aircraft carriers is passing, as it used to be battleships

[Serg65]

Quote: Tuzik

Well, the era of huge aircraft carriers is passing

Do not rush, she, this era, will pass for a long time

[rocket757]

In general, the Yankees can change their preferences, the concept of warfare. there is nothing eternal, over time, modifications occur.

[cniza]

This is so, although the past concept lasted relatively long ...

[rocket757]

And with whom did they fight with those forces? Who could melt their pelvis without "leaving the cash register"? they chose their opponent for themselves.

[cniza]

And today they can only make noise and cheeks, and so only those who have nothing to answer ...

[rocket757]

Difficult question. Everyone who does not want to dance to their tune, stocks up with something so ... well-reasoned that on a simple goat you can’t approach them anymore.
things are happening in the world.

[cniza]

And those who can, this "argument" are trying to get hold of and as quickly as possible ...

[rocket757]

And now it is much easier than when ... then you had to make friends with someone, but now you can just buy it! Moreover, sellers are already more than a couple.

[cniza]

True, not everyone is selling it yet, but the list is expanding.

[Non liberoid Russian]

and only local couch throwers with a scanty amount of gray matter in the skull continue to whine, whine and dream of an aircraft carrier for Russia))))))

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Not a liberoid Russian

and only local couch throwers with a scanty amount of gray matter in the skull continue to whine, whine and dream of an aircraft carrier for Russia))))))

aircraft carrier = aviation (aircraft and helicopters). So what you called

Quote: Not Liberoid Russian

hopper throwers with scanty gray matter in the skull

care about the air support of their own fleet. If you have any ideas. how to provide that very support without floating airfields, then share your bright ideas)

[Non liberoid Russian]

about these Wishlist millions of keyboards are broken. but no one was able to prove the real meaning of the aircraft carrier for Russia, well, except maybe spraying saliva on the monitor

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Not Liberoid Russian

about these Wishlist millions of keyboards are broken. but no one was able to prove the real meaning of the aircraft carrier for Russia, well, except perhaps spray drooling on the monitor

no need to prove the meaning of an aircraft carrier. Is there a sense in aviation or not? Does it not need? This is such a simple question, isn't it? For some reason you cannot answer

[Non liberoid Russian]

Well, yes, build us an aircraft carrier, give a ton of money for maintenance, and we will find use for it)))) without an escort warrant, without underwater cover on some purely patriotic Wishlist ... empty chimes

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Not Liberoid Russian

windbag

these are those who for several consecutive comments cannot answer an easy question. Or is the question not simple for you, and the answer to it will tear your mind and opinion for years to pieces?

[businessv]

Where in this case to put the F-35C fighters, specially designed for aircraft carriers and the available F / A-18 Hornet fleet, are not reported.

That's just for the sake of this, it is already worth developing new weapons, not to mention improving the defense - in order to strain our striped "partners", which they do with the whole world with enviable regularity!

[Operator]

Puff-puff: Cargo cult fans self-shot with grief

[cniza]

At the same time, the American Navy notes that the arsenal of Russian and Chinese weapons capable of destroying an aircraft carrier is only growing, while it is reported that North Korea will join them soon,

Well, North Korea is also becoming a leader in arms.

[gabonskijfront]

War at sea is such a mystery that God knows how to play there. At least so far not a single naval concept has met expectations, starting from the Greco-Pesidian wars.

[General D]

The era of drones is coming. In aviation, this can already be clearly seen. And what is worse than the sea

[Grigory_45]

Quote: General D

The era of drones is coming

UAVs also need an airfield, as well as aircraft.

[Pavel57]

Do the Chinese also think that aircraft carriers are not needed?

[amr]

Quote: voyaka uh

Which I have been saying for a long time: vertical fighter jets are changing the whole concept of war on sea and land.
Instead of huge aircraft carriers - small and simple. Instead of high-grade airfields on land - short concrete sites.

if only they could learn to throw them like rockets at the initial stage, otherwise, as I understand it, because of the vertical take-off of the landing, does the pile of fuel go to waste?

[Avior]

they land vertically when the weight is already reduced, and take off with a run

[NF68]

They are afraid to tear themselves away from excessive spending.

[Vyacheslav p]

Well, knowing the wonderful mechanisms of our even more wonderful economy, as it will not be anymore (I’ll explain: fuel prices (and everything else), for example, creep only upward despite the decrease or increase in oil prices. The push - they climbed up, like would settle the situation - and they, contrary to the laws of the market, do not go down). well, etc.
The anomalous zone is direct ... [/ quote]

I agree with that). But not critical

[Alex_Rarog]

What for themselves they thought))) O_o this is a turn ... As one famous character says ...

[lvov_aleksey]

naive star-striped, one rocket or torpedo is cooler than any aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier, etc., and most importantly cheaper. If they began to understand this, we get progress, because there will be no cold war.

[lvov_aleksey]

[quote = Vyacheslav P] Well, knowing the wonderful mechanisms of our even more miraculous economy, it will not be like before (I will explain: fuel prices (and everything else), for example, creep only upward, despite a decrease or increase in oil prices. The push - climbed up, it seems to have settled the situation - and they, contrary to the laws of the market, do not go down). well, etc.
The anomalous zone is direct ... [/ quote]

I agree with that). But this is not critical [/ quote]

I do not have enough evil for you, what are you doing:
I’ll just say: “Russia cannot be understood with the mind, cannot be measured with a common yardstick, it’s special to become, you can only believe in Russia”
ps if someone forgot - Tyutchev (classic of literature).