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

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.
Photos used:
http://www.korabli.eu/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Honest Citizen 10 March 2020 13: 10 New
    • 15
    • 7
    +8
    And maintaining a fleet is expensive ...
    However, it quickly dawned on them that the cost of an aircraft carrier was not comparable with the cost of missiles of “killer aircraft carriers”
    1. Victor_B 10 March 2020 13: 31 New
      • 13
      • 7
      +6
      Quote: Honest Citizen
      However, it quickly dawned on them that the cost of an aircraft carrier was not comparable with the cost of missiles of “killer aircraft carriers”
      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 to "so much" 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!
    2. Serg65 10 March 2020 13: 38 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      Quote: Honest Citizen
      However, it quickly dawned on them that the cost of an aircraft carrier was not comparable with the cost of missiles of “killer aircraft carriers”

      what How fast
      1. novel66 10 March 2020 13: 43 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        it’s not enough, but it’s not enough for our doshi! great marsoflotovets! hi
        1. Serg65 10 March 2020 13: 58 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          Quote: novel xnumx
          insufficiently

          Well yes, 50 years is really not fast enough bully
          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 wink
          1. novel66 10 March 2020 14: 00 New
            • 7
            • 2
            +5
            you can immediately forget about the 3rd world

            I'm all for it!!!
            1. Serg65 10 March 2020 14: 01 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              laughing Yes, and I do not mind!
          2. g1v2 10 March 2020 15: 45 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            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.
          3. orionvitt 10 March 2020 16: 01 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            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. lol
          4. bayard 10 March 2020 16: 02 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            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 abandon aircraft carriers. They are going to abandon the construction of 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 armed and will remain in service for a long time. Moreover, 4 units are going to build Fords. , and this (in turn) means that their status quo for AB, the United States will keep for a long time. And in the future, when AV-light begins to come into service, it does not mean at all that the capabilities of their AUGs will drop out if, in addition to the AV itself, they will also have 40 - 50 thousand tons, the UDC (VI 40 tons) ) After all, their total air wing will be 000 + 24 fighters + AWACS, PLO, EW aircraft. But all this pleasure will cost much less. Yes, and survivability, and the flexibility of combat use will increase ...

            So I wouldn’t be in a hurry to rejoice at the upcoming "weakening" of the enemy, but I would recommend VERY much to use 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.
            1. alstr 10 March 2020 18: 02 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Those. for us, this means that it is necessary to return to the concept that was laid down in Kuznetsova, an aircraft carrier of the air defense system, but by adding there an AWACS plane (more precisely, creating the plane itself, which was cut at one time).
              1. bayard 10 March 2020 18: 55 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Exactly .
                At the "Kuznetsov" was originally planned to put a catapult.
                And even they made it and put it in Nikolaev (where it then lay for a long time). Steam. Although the EM catapult was also successfully tested (work on them was conducted in parallel). And work on the Yak-44 was then in full swing - a full-size mock-up was already made (it was even put on the deck of the Kuznetsov under construction - they tried 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 stretched his arms and regained competence in the construction of the UDC, the Kerch Gulf will be quite capable of building such ships - the infrastructure there allows.
                1. ABM
                  ABM 10 March 2020 21: 07 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  started ... did you even know what is happening in the country? intergalactic "death star" can begin to build ?!
                  1. bayard 10 March 2020 21: 29 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    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 the construction of LIGHT / medium AV can be started only after the restoration of the necessary competencies. And it will be much simpler and cheaper precisely in the case of a non-nuclear aircraft carrier (on gas turbines) in moderate displacement. And the price he (without an air wing) will be about 1,5 - 2 billion dollars. , unlike the nuclear "Storm" and "Manatee" (7 - 8 billion dollars.).
                    Exactly they (“Storm” and “Manatee”) 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.
    3. TermNachTer 10 March 2020 19: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      How so? And the heart-rending cries that the best in the world, which have no analogues, are significantly superior to the Nimitz type? Did the money run out or “somehow get out of your sides”, as in “Zamvolty”?
      1. bayard 10 March 2020 23: 58 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: TermNachTER
        Did the money run out or “somehow get out of your sides”, as in “Zamvolty”?

        And the sides came out, and ... with the cabbage strenuously. 15 billion dollars , this is still not 5 billion, like the Nimitsev’s, but the combat capabilities have remained the same - the same wing, size, speed, autonomy. 10 "extra" billions - for the "little thing".
        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.
        1. TermNachTer 11 March 2020 19: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Mattress admirals, who were disowning Ford, like hell from incense, said that in terms of combat efficiency it was somewhere around 30%, but of course it did. Now, one more good news - the first “bierches” will not be modernized, they will be written off. The first six are ticonderogs, too. And the cruisers that should replace them, so far only on paper.
          1. bayard 11 March 2020 20: 43 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            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 just marriage reduce its expected characteristics by 30 - 50%. Eliminate, modify, but the service on it turns into torment. At the same time, the numerical (and, therefore, qualitative) composition of the air wing practically does not differ from Nimitz.
            And the fact that the first “Burki” will not be capital is a competent decision. The cost of such pleasure can jump out in half of the new, so it is more reasonable to build new ones, and the old ones to the 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 - “Peter”, “Varyag” and “Moscow” will not be modernized, only maintaining combat readiness. And to replace 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 ... repeat yes
  2. Constanty 10 March 2020 13: 14 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    And sometimes the Americans do not have the right number of 11 aircraft carriers, enshrined in their constitution (in laws)?
    1. Sergej1972 10 March 2020 13: 31 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      The US Constitution does not list aircraft carriers.)
      1. Constanty 10 March 2020 13: 37 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        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.
  3. voyaka uh 10 March 2020 13: 19 New
    • 7
    • 7
    0
    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.
    1. Serg65 10 March 2020 13: 40 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Instead of huge aircraft carriers - small and simple. Instead of high-grade airfields on land - short concrete sites.

      laughing We already went through this in the 80s!
    2. novel66 10 March 2020 13: 44 New
      • 12
      • 0
      +12
      instead of full-fledged aircraft - snapping with a limited range of tasks and without AWACS, i.e. also blind-eyed
      1. voyaka uh 10 March 2020 14: 07 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Light aircraft carriers will work with heavy aircraft. Where there are AWACS aircraft.
        The vertical range is decided by additional fuel tanks and air refueling. Additional tanks are dropped when approaching the enemy, and the F-35B goes into the "stealth" state. Marines, by the way, are already rehearsing such things.
    3. Romario_Argo 10 March 2020 14: 01 New
      • 7
      • 4
      +3
      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
      8 tons bomb load - these are air-to-air missiles + RCC 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
      1. bayard 10 March 2020 17: 58 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        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? belay
        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 ?
        Since 2015, Yakovleva Design Bureau has been puzzled by the promising VTOL aircraft, but this is also on the previous developments of the light - single-engine aircraft, most likely on the promising Product-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 media will be needed for such a "heavy class VTOL?"
        The Americans abandoned their heavy carrier-based F-14 fighters in favor of the lighter, more compact and economical F-18s.
        Russia built exactly the light MiG-29K \ KUB for Kuznetsov, and it sees them as a military 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 will quite comfortably be able to accommodate and launch from PU escort ships. hi bully
    4. Grigory_45 10 March 2020 15: 09 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      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.
    5. mvg
      mvg 10 March 2020 16: 11 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      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.
      1. voyaka uh 10 March 2020 16: 33 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        This is the Osprey convertiplane.
        1. mvg
          mvg 10 March 2020 16: 51 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          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.
    6. orionvitt 10 March 2020 16: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      vertical fighter jets change the whole concept of sea and land warfare

      They do not change anything. With its limited performance characteristics. Ours and our own Yak-38 developed, 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, a headache turned out. "Vertical", loses to an ordinary combat aircraft in everything except the possibility of vertical take-off and landing. So the problem is not worth the “eaten egg”. Ours played enough, now the Americans are repeating the same path. Say Harrier, still flying? Yes, it flies, but little and limited, so to speak, until the first competent anti-aircraft calculation.
      1. voyaka uh 10 March 2020 16: 24 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        "Our 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.
    7. ZAV69 10 March 2020 18: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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.
      1. voyaka uh 10 March 2020 18: 31 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        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.
  4. Masha 10 March 2020 13: 20 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    ABOUT! One kraine fit! Here is the theme, the very thing! wassat
    1. novel66 10 March 2020 13: 45 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      to ruin the snag ?? healthy love
      1. Masha 10 March 2020 13: 48 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Hi! love
        So I am about the same .... laughing
        Didn’t the states conceive everything for this?
        1. novel66 10 March 2020 14: 01 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Trump's presidency somehow rules out recklessness in their actions
          1. Masha 10 March 2020 14: 38 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            One fig ... will not depart from the party line ... yes
  5. Normal 10 March 2020 13: 25 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    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.
  6. Guru 10 March 2020 13: 26 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    One would like to ask Amer, "Isn’t it already, the printing press has broken?
  7. Prahlad 10 March 2020 13: 26 New
    • 2
    • 8
    -6
    We would have a couple of such beauties!
    1. kot423 10 March 2020 13: 37 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      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?
  8. Aaron Zawi 10 March 2020 13: 27 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +3
    We will see. So far this is nothing more than one of the views on the future of the Navy.
  9. Vyacheslav p 10 March 2020 13: 29 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    It is necessary to sell them to Georgia, so that the Black Sea Fleet will practice))))
  10. Johnnie Walker 10 March 2020 13: 30 New
    • 4
    • 16
    -12
    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
    1. Johnnie Walker 10 March 2020 13: 50 New
      • 6
      • 13
      -7
      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
      1. Vyacheslav p 10 March 2020 13: 57 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Is Kuzya an aircraft carrier? He seems to have always been an aircraft carrier cruiser.
        1. Johnnie Walker 10 March 2020 14: 05 New
          • 2
          • 8
          -6
          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 ...
          1. Vyacheslav p 10 March 2020 15: 01 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            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.
        2. Grigory_45 10 March 2020 15: 12 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          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 ...
          1. Vyacheslav p 10 March 2020 15: 26 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            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
            1. Grigory_45 10 March 2020 15: 36 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              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.
              1. Vyacheslav p 10 March 2020 15: 39 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Well, they will replace rocket launchers for zircons or onyxes. Simple business.
                1. Grigory_45 10 March 2020 15: 42 New
                  • 0
                  • 3
                  -3
                  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.
                  1. Vyacheslav p 10 March 2020 16: 20 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Wait and see. I hope that I will be right.
                    1. Grigory_45 10 March 2020 16: 27 New
                      • 0
                      • 3
                      -3
                      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)
                      1. Vyacheslav p 10 March 2020 16: 30 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Gregory, what kind of pessimism? Everything will be fine, as agreed with the sheikh, so the barrel will rise again.
                      2. Grigory_45 10 March 2020 16: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        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 ...
            2. Avior 10 March 2020 23: 36 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              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.
  11. Johnnie Walker 10 March 2020 14: 41 New
    • 0
    • 6
    -6
    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.
    1. bayard 10 March 2020 18: 14 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Russia, as the legal successor of the USSR, rebuilt for India from an aircraft carrier cruiser to a full-fledged aircraft carrier Vikramaditya. And it coped quite well with this, although it carried it out to the GCC, which had never before done such a thing.
      Russia can (can) build new aircraft carriers in the Crimea - on the Gulf of Kerch, where already this year on May 9 they should lay down two UDK VIs of 25 tons each and under 000 helicopters for each (promising VTOL can also be based on them) . There it would be possible to finish the repair of Kuznetsov, but for this it is necessary to drag it around all of Europe. If the MO decides on this, I will only cheerfully applaud, because in the "north" such a ship is now extremely difficult to repair.
  • Tuzik 10 March 2020 13: 31 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Well, the era of huge aircraft carriers is passing, as it used to be battleships
    1. Serg65 10 March 2020 14: 00 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: Tuzik
      Well, the era of huge aircraft carriers is passing

      Do not rush, she, this era, will pass for a long time bully
  • rocket757 10 March 2020 13: 36 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In general, the Yankees can change their preferences, the concept of warfare. there is nothing eternal, over time, modifications occur.
    1. cniza 10 March 2020 14: 03 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      This is so, although the past concept lasted relatively long ...
      1. rocket757 10 March 2020 14: 06 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        And with whom did they fight with those forces? Who could melt their pelvis without "departing from the cash register"? they chose the appropriate opponent.
        1. cniza 10 March 2020 14: 22 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          And today they can only make noise and cheeks, and so only those who have nothing to answer ...
          1. rocket757 10 March 2020 14: 41 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            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.
            1. cniza 10 March 2020 14: 44 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              And those who can, try to get hold of this "argument" and as quickly as possible ...
              1. rocket757 10 March 2020 14: 51 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                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.
                1. cniza 10 March 2020 14: 56 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  True, not everyone is selling it yet, but the list is expanding.
  • Non liberoid Russian 10 March 2020 13: 37 New
    • 5
    • 10
    -5
    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))))))
    1. Grigory_45 10 March 2020 15: 52 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      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 a 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)
      1. Non liberoid Russian 10 March 2020 19: 11 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        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
        1. Grigory_45 10 March 2020 19: 23 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Not a 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
          1. Non liberoid Russian 11 March 2020 04: 13 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            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
            1. Grigory_45 11 March 2020 08: 11 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Not a 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 10 March 2020 13: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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.
    Just for the sake of this, it’s worth developing a new weapon, not to mention improving defense - to strain our striped “partners”, what they are doing with the whole world with enviable regularity!
  • Operator 10 March 2020 13: 50 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Puff-puff: Cargo cult fans self-shot with grief laughing
  • cniza 10 March 2020 14: 01 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    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. lol
  • gabonskijfront 10 March 2020 14: 03 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    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 10 March 2020 14: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The era of drones is coming. In aviation, this can already be clearly seen. And what is worse than the sea
    1. Grigory_45 10 March 2020 15: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: General D
      The era of drones is coming

      UAVs also need an airfield, as well as aircraft.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Pavel57 10 March 2020 15: 55 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Do the Chinese also think that aircraft carriers are not needed?
  • amr
    amr 10 March 2020 16: 44 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    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?
    1. Avior 10 March 2020 23: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      they land vertically when the weight is already reduced, and take off with a run
  • NF68 10 March 2020 16: 47 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    They are afraid to tear themselves away from excessive spending.
  • Vyacheslav p 10 March 2020 16: 49 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    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 11 March 2020 08: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    What for themselves they thought))) O_o this is a turn ... As one famous character says ...
  • lvov_aleksey 11 March 2020 17: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    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 11 March 2020 17: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    [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: “You cannot understand Russia with your mind, you cannot measure common arshin, it’s special to become one, you can only believe in Russia”
    ps if someone forgot - Tyutchev (classic of literature).