Defective aircraft carriers and their price to society


Even after the appearance of airborne lifts, light aircraft carriers did not put them, at least on the bow. Why? Yes, because the wave will wash the plane off such a lift overboard. Great ships. In the photo - "Illustries", type "Invincible"


Как featured falklands, light aircraft carriers, especially in the British case, with short take-off and vertical landing aircraft, have extremely limited applicability, and in the case of the Falklands, their “success” is not at all a consequence of their tactical and technical characteristics, or the qualities of the aircraft based on them.

But the limitations that exist for light aircraft carriers are actually far wider than those demonstrated at the Falklands.

The problem is that light aircraft carriers not only cannot provide a sufficient number of sorties per day or the basing is normal aviationas was the case with the British in 1982.

The problem is that these ships are often not applicable at all. This applies not only to carriers of “vertical flyers”, of course, but to all small aircraft carriers in general, including ejection carriers (the same Argentine aircraft carrier “May 25” is also on this list).

Excitement factor


Speaking of light aircraft carriers, and in this case, it’s already not related to what kind of aircraft they carry on board, one cannot ignore how their combat effectiveness is affected by the excitement factor at sea, or, quite simply, pitching.

The ability or inability to lift and receive aircraft directly depends on how often and at what angles the deck level fluctuates. To understand the issue and remove some illusions, we will touch on the question of pitching in more detail.

There are six types of ship pitching: longitudinal, side, keel, vertical, transverse, yaw.

Defective aircraft carriers and their price to society

Of these, the vertical, keel and the vertical generated by it are the most important. Let's take a closer look.


The most problematic type of pitching, at first glance, is onboard. It creates a roll and affects the stability of the vessel. For the aircraft carrier, on which the plane lands on wheels, the roll of the deck, in theory, is critical.

But there are nuances. Side rolling can be eliminated by technical methods. A special form of the underwater hull, damping tanks, especially active ones, with a flow of water depending on the pitching, onboard rudders and on some ships gyroscopic dampers, allow in theory to reduce the pitching amplitude by several times.

The problem of a light aircraft carrier is its small size, which does not always allow placing such systems on board in full. Today, one warship is known where various types of jointly working pitching dampers have reached their ultimate efficiency - the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. But it is not quite light, its displacement exceeds 42000 tons. On smaller ships, you have to be content with the worst sedatives.

Again, in theory, you can go at an angle to or against the wave. Then the effect of side rolling decreases.

But keel and vertical will begin to operate in full force. And here an insoluble problem arises - if you can reduce the pitching amplitude by various ship systems (sometimes at times), then nothing can be done with pitching and pitching.

VERTICAL AND KEEL PUMP IS NEUTRALIZED ONLY BY SHIP SIZE BY WATERLINE AND DRAIN. And no other way. Bigger sizes, less pitching, smaller sizes, pitching stronger.

And now this is really critical. Vertical pitching operates in the middle part of the deck and at the extremities, and a plane landing vertically will always catch a blow from the deck going up towards it, and taking into account also pitching, going upward at an angle. In the center of the deck too. And it is not fatal. It must be clearly understood that when we see the Harriers neatly landing somewhere in the warm coastal waters on the video frames, this is one thing, and the reality of real TVDs can be completely different.

Of course, on small aircraft carriers with normal aircraft, all these factors also act in full.

The video shows an escort aircraft carrier Siboni (USS Siboney CVE-112) in the North Atlantic in 1950. With a standard displacement of 10900 tons, it had a total displacement of 24100. Of course, it had smaller dimensions than the same Invincible, although the draft was greater. But in order for an aircraft carrier to be unable to lift and take back planes, it is not necessary to bury your nose in a wave.


For comparison, flights from a Nimitz type aircraft carrier under almost the same conditions (this is obvious when looking at the waves).


It is quite difficult to fit calculations for wave pitching in waves in the format of the article, they are very voluminous and require understanding of many aspects of the interaction of the ship’s hull with water for different types of waves (different wavelengths, their heights, for regular and irregular waves, at different ship speeds, with taking into account the possible resonance between the period of natural oscillations of the body and the waves, etc.). In addition, many have not studied higher mathematics, and of those who studied, many have forgotten.

Let's just say that for the same cargo ship, an increase in draft from 8 meters (like the Invincible type) to 11 (like the Eagle type in its latest configuration and at maximum displacement) leads to an increase in the pitching period by calm water (without excitement) by about 15%.

On the excitement, and taking into account different not only draft, but also the length of the ship (and the ratio of the length of the hull along the waterline to the wavelength is very important) everything will be much more dramatic.

In regions such as the South Atlantic, North Atlantic, Barents or Norwegian Seas, the number of days in a year when an aircraft carrier of 50 or more thousand tons can still be used, but an aircraft carrier of 15-20 thousand tons is no longer available, counts at least many tens days. In some years, up to hundreds.

That is, light aircraft carriers are obviously inferior, almost intuitively clear to almost everyone, but how inferior they are, it becomes clear only if you delve into the question.

In collision with fleetBased on the solution of key tasks on small-sized carrier ships, it is enough to just wait for moderately bad weather. Three points - and not a single aircraft from a small aircraft carrier will fly into the air.


Light carrier of the US Navy "Langley", type "Independence", gives a roll during a typhoon. The ship had cruising lines with good seaworthiness for its size. Just the dimensions themselves failed. Photo taken from the Essex, which runs smoothly, like a large artillery ship in the background

And what’s the funniest thing about all this is that you also have to pay for these “combat capabilities”. Britain had to pay MORE for them than for trying to keep normal ships in combat. This fact is not obvious to many, but it took place, and, in the light of some events brewing now and around our fleet, it is worth studying it in more detail.

Like history the collapse of the British carrier forces in general.

Aircraft carriers and Labor


The extremely instructive history of the degradation of British aircraft carrier forces can begin to be measured from the beginning of the sixties, when fundamental decisions were made. By that time, the enormous forces of the Royal Navy were already undergoing a process of dramatic cuts. Under various pretexts, the Navy removed all light aircraft carriers of the Colossus and Majestic types, most of which were sold to other countries (in a curious way, after a while, Argentina, the future enemy, was on the lists of these countries).

By the end of the first half of the sixties, the British aircraft carrier forces consisted of four light (up to 28000 tons) Centaurus class aircraft carriers, among which was the future hero of the war with Argentina Hermes, one aircraft carrier of the Illastries type - Victories, and a pair of Odessa "-" Eagle "and" Ark Royal. "

For economic reasons, Britain could not contain such a fleet for more or less significant time, however, in case of war with the USSR, it was required to be able to use at least 4 aircraft carriers. In addition, Britain was constantly involved in various conflicts throughout its former Empire, which continuously demanded the use of the fleet and naval aviation.

In their condition, the ships were not the same. Particularly distinguished light aircraft carriers. The Centaur was already unsuitable for deploying modern combat aircraft on it, and the flights of Sea Vixen and rare single Skimitars were worth a lot of effort. In fact, this ship was kept in service only to replace other ships when they were being repaired.


"Centaur" - the workhorse of the British Navy of the first half of the 60s

"Albion" and "Bulvark" have already been converted into the so-called "Commando Carrieres", in fact, landing helicopter carriers, and as such were used.

The Hermes has been more distinguished since the deck was built and exceeded its sisterships in its ability to use combat aircraft. In the late 60s, American Phantoms even flew a little from it, although the ship, due to its small size, was ultimately unsuitable for their base. But the “Bakanirs” and “Sea Vixen” flew with him without problems.


Flight operations with Hermes in 1960. This ship was once like this

The Victories was almost completely rebuilt in the late 50s and was essentially a new ship. From domestic experience it is difficult to find a restructuring comparable in depth, unless the transformation of the Admiral Gorshkov TAVKR into the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier. The ship got the opportunity to use modern jet aircraft at that time and was intensively and successfully used, including in military operations. In 1966, several Phantoms from the American Ranger aircraft carrier made flights from it, showing that, in principle, the ship could carry modern aircraft, although it would require additional modifications.


"Victories". It's hard to believe, but the Swordfish from his deck was trying to somehow get a torpedo into Bismarck!

From 1959 to 1964, the Eagle underwent intensive modernization for the use of more modern jet combat aircraft, and electronic weapons were especially deeply modernized - the ship received a three-coordinate radar capable of tracking up to 100 targets simultaneously, and an air conditioning system was installed for the comfort of personnel compartments. Although the ship, partially built during World War II, had a number of reliability problems, in general its condition could be firmly regarded as “satisfactory,” and it remained so until the very end of the service.


Eagle

“Ark Royal” experienced constant problems with technical serviceability and, against the background of its eagle, “Eagle” was notable for low reliability. This ship, formally referring to the same type as the Eagle, was simply plagued by technical problems. During construction, he immediately received a larger angular flight deck, but in the end went into operation four years later, and was already being completed “with tension” - the construction was largely outdated by the time it entered service even at the level of individual components.

Its economic speed was 4 knots lower than that of the Igla - 14 versus 18, which in those years were the standard for most warships in the world. The maximum speed was half a knot lower.


Ark Royal after the most recent modification

In the years 1964-1965, the future of the British aircraft carrier fleet seemed to be as follows. There was a project CVA-01, heavy aircraft carriers, the lead ship in the series of which was to be called "Queen Elizabeth", a very interesting project.


Figure CVA-01. A distinctive feature of the project was the shift of the landing strip to the side from the diametrical (central) axis of the ship. The plane was supposed to touch the deck off the center of the ship

It was assumed that the Hermes and Eagle, as the most reliable ships and the best in terms of tactical and technical characteristics of their classes, will continue to serve, the remaining Centaurs will be decommissioned slowly, the Victories will be in operation until the Queen Elizabeth will not be built, and then it will be withdrawn from combat. In this form, the carrier forces of the Navy should have existed until the beginning of the 80s, and there would have been a different situation. The remaining ships were awaiting withdrawal to the reserve and subsequently disassembling for metal, or immediately disassembling for metal. An important point - the carrier of the Phantoms was originally supposed to be the Eagle, and not the Ark Royal, as it then happened.

True, the most perspicacious economists and politicians in Britain already understood that the new aircraft carrier, CVA-01, the country in its then condition would not pull. But the old ones were in service.

In order to evaluate the “wisdom” of the decisions made by the military-political leadership of Britain a little later, it’s worthwhile to quickly assess what kind of military operations the British aircraft carriers had to participate in in the 60s and early 70s (“Eagle” was withdrawn from combat in 1972, it will be considered in some way a point of no return).

In 1956, the Eagle was used during the Suez crisis.

In 1961, the Victories traveled to the Persian Gulf to put pressure on Iraq, the first to claim Kuwait. A few months later he was replaced by a small Centaurus.

In 1963, the Centaurus and Hermes were sent to Southeast Asia, where an attempted coup attempted by Indonesia took place in the British protectorate of Brunei.

Later, also in 1963, the Centauri air group participated in an operation to counter an armed uprising in what is now Yemen.

At the beginning of 1964, the Centaur and the Albion converted into the Commando Carrier, with the commando squad on board, defeated the rebels in Taganyika - now Tanzania.

In 1964, Victories was sent to Southeast Asia to support Malaysia in its confrontation with Indonesia.

In 1965, the Ark Royal was used during the naval blockade of Rhodesia.

Obviously, the tasks of aircraft carriers for many consecutive years were strikes along the coast in different parts of the former British Empire and the protection of landing troops there from the air. By that time, the Cold War had been going on for almost twenty years, no military conflict between the USSR and the West had yet occurred, moreover, there was some kind of detente after the Caribbean crisis was peacefully resolved, in fact there was not a single serious reason for so that in the foreseeable future, something changes in the use of British aircraft carriers.

Another thing has changed. In 1964, the Labor government came to power in Britain. Domestic political and economic affairs of those years in a country far from us and an alien, this is one question. But the fact that in naval matters the new cabinet has clearly "broken firewood" is different and obvious. It is difficult to say what the Laborites were against the carrier fleet. At first glance, they wanted to save money for the country.

But later we will see that the conservatives would have brought the savings, while the Laborites, on the contrary, had spent much more than was necessary with extremely dubious results. Most likely, the way they initially cost the carrier forces was due to ideological reasons. As we know, left-wing politicians often tend to “drive” reality into the framework of their meager ideas about it. The fate of the British carrier forces bears clear signs of such an attempt.

From that moment, it is worth counting the history of the decisions that led the British Navy to what it turned into the Falkland War.

In 1966, a White Paper on defense was released in Britain, which clearly stated that the era of aircraft carriers in the British Navy should end in the early 70s. The document was issued at the direction of Prime Minister Harold Wilson under the leadership of Minister of Defense Dennis Healy. The main idea of ​​the document was as follows.

Britain refuses global political claims and a global military presence. Britain will not conduct military operations other than military protection of the allies in Europe. Britain should focus on preparing for war with the USSR in Europe as part of its membership in NATO. Military mechanisms redundant for this task should be eliminated. This was the first concern to aircraft carriers.

Meanwhile, Britain still had (and still has) a lot of overseas possessions. How was it possible, having previous military experience of the 50s and 60s, having a lot of overseas possessions and some warming from the USSR, to issue such a thing? This looks like a clearly ideological solution, which absolutely does not correspond in any way with what the British Navy really and continuously did in previous years.

The inertia of earlier decisions, however, has been affecting for some time. So, in 1966, “Eagle” embarked on a new modernization. He was replaced by one of the air finishers, to ensure the landing of more high-speed aircraft than the Bacenirs, and the long side catapult was scalded with thick steel plates. This made it possible to protect the catapult from the exhaust of Rolls-Royce “Spey” engines, which the British Phantoms were equipped with, and in the long run made it possible to ensure the mass launch of such aircraft. In this form, the ship was used to test the "Phantoms" and showed itself on the good side. This modernization, however, was not complete, as already mentioned in the previous article.

And this was the last sensible step in the history of the British carrier fleet. Then came the collapse.

The Eagle, which under the Tories was planned as the main carrier of the Phantoms, never became one. Successful testing of these aircraft on it became his "swan song."

In 1967, a fire occurred on board the Victories, which was undergoing regular repairs. The damage he suffered was minor, but politicians immediately took advantage of this as an excuse for decommissioning the ship. At the same time, it must be understood that until the mid-seventies the ship would have passed without problems, and perhaps would have passed more, because during the restructuring of the fifties, from the old "Victories", in fact, only the hull remained, and even not all, even the turbines were replaced . The ship did not experience any special problems with reliability and regularly underwent repairs.

I wonder if he would have reached 1982? This question will remain open, it cannot be firmly answered, “yes”, but there is no reason for a firm “no” either.

Then, for some strange reason, it was decided to rebuild not the peppy Eagle under Phantoms, but the crumbling Ark Royal. It was rebuilt under the Phantoms, but it was only rebuilt strangely.

Ark Royal received elongated catapults. But, apparently, their thermal stability remained at the level of the old ones, at least to find information on reinforcing the gutter of the catapults similarly to the Igla airborne catapult has not yet been obtained, which means that the mass lifting of the Phantoms from the ship could be impossible.

The ship, however, received a complete set of reinforced finishers, and gas deflectors, which the Igloo lacked. At the same time, they didn’t completely rearm “Ark Royal” on “Phantoms” - the “Bakenirs” were still the most numerous type of aircraft on board, only now reconnaissance and refueling in the air, as if from “Phantoms”, had been added to their role as attack machines Would be the worst scouts.

Oddly enough, the modern electronic weapons that the Eagle was equipped with, primarily the radar, did not get to the Arc Royal, he remained with his old, not quite adequate equipment, having received only the American AN / SPN-35 landing control radar , which increased its compatibility with US Navy aviation.

In 1972, Britain again had to fight with the help of aircraft carriers - Guatemala tried to "probe" the defenses of Belize, which had just become independent, and Ark Royal went to the next colonial war - to strike at the coast. Reality seemed to tell the British what they really expect in the future, but they did not listen.

In the same year, “Eagle” was withdrawn from the Navy, formally, in reserve, in reality, it immediately began the mass dismantling of components for the Arc Royal, which is experiencing permanent breakdowns, and it was clear that the ship would not return to service.

The Wilson government, meanwhile, actually launched the dismantling of the former Empire. Troops were withdrawn from all bases in the Persian Gulf and the Far East, Singapore and Malta were left, the British left Aden (now the territory of Yemen), the TSR-2 program was stabbed, the last chance for the British to remain in the league of leading aircraft manufacturers, and, of course canceled all new projects of aircraft carriers.

Britain from the third in the world in terms of political and military influence of the power turned into the American "six" that we know today. What was offered in return? The Kestrel vertical take-off and landing project, which was later destined to become the Harrier, the future Tornado, and, for some reason, an attempt to join the American F-111 front-line bomber project, failed.

There was an attempt to turn the island into a continental force, almost a success. In 1970, Wilson lost the election, but in 1974 he returned to the office and occupied it until 1976. At this point, almost nothing remained of the old aircraft carrier fleet. Hermes was in service, which from 1971 to 1973 was amputated by catapults and air finishers, turning it into a landing helicopter carrier (“commando-carrier”) and lasted until the last days of “Ark Royal” whose condition did not allow us to hope that it could to live a more or less significant time. The ship, which in good times did not shine with reliability, since 1970 cut money for repairs in order to save money, which did not remain without serious consequences.

Even today, British blogs and social networks are asking a question: Could Ark Royal prevent the Falklands war if it remained in service? The question, however, is that in 1978 the fallacy of abandoning carrier forces in Britain was already recognized, and if the Ark Royal could be left in service, then, apparently, they would have left it. But he was literally falling apart.

It was necessary to leave Eagles and, possibly, Victories. And still it was not necessary to touch the Hermes, giving him the opportunity to carry at least only the shock Bakeryn. But by that time it was too late.

But the most interesting thing in this story is how much real money was saved on the rejection of aircraft carriers.

Money to the wind


A complete alteration of the Igla to base an air group, wholly or largely composed of Phantoms, in 1972 would cost no more than 30 million pounds.

Minimum improvements “under the Phantom” in the form of two more air finishers, reinforced gas deflectors and a heat-resistant box for the second catapult in 1968 would cost only five million.

If the ship would stand in reserve for some time due to lack of money, waiting for reactivation, then for each year the maintenance of the reduced crew would require 2 million pounds, and then, every four years it would be required to spend 4 million on repairs. In this case, the return to duty would take about 4 months.

As a result, it was possible to go according to two options, even if it was impossible to maintain even one aircraft carrier, then spending 5 million on minimal modifications the ship could be put in reserve, a year that way in 1970, after which it would be necessary to maintain it in a “living” condition works in 1974 and 1978. There, the economy was already not so bad, but for the money such an operation would have fallen to 32 million pounds for ten years under Scheme 5 in 1968, 2 each year until 1974, then in 1974 6, from 1975 to 1977 again, again two, and in 1978 again 6. Naturally, these are figures excluding inflation, which then seriously accelerated, and inflation would have been somewhat different.

“Phantoms” by that time had already been bought and mastered by the crews, “Bakenirs”, too, it did not require any special expenses. Hermes could also act as a "school desk" to maintain the skills of the Phantom pilots in working from the deck.


"Phantom" US Navy on the deck of "Hermes"

In the ideal case, it was worth paying an extra 30 million for upgrading the Igla, installing Ark Royal as a source of spare parts, and going through the seventies with Eagle and Hermes - with all the minuses of the latter as an aircraft carrier (small size), he, nevertheless, he was much better than the ships that replaced him. An important point - this option would be CHEAPER than what the British actually did with their aircraft carriers.

The fact that Hermes quite decently served up to 2017 (in the Indian Navy as “Viraat”) suggests that there was no problem maintaining it in the ranks - just as it did not in reality.

We don’t know how much money the British lost on the endless breakdowns of the Arc Royal; we don’t know the money that could be used to modernize the Igla for the restructuring of the Arc Royal and Hermes. Saving did not work, it turned out to overpay.

But these were trifles compared to what began later.

As already mentioned, apparently, the Labor government was puzzled not by saving money, but by turning Britain into a kind of appendage of the United States, deprived of the opportunity to pursue an independent policy. Therefore, while there was a creeping destruction of the British aircraft carrier forces, in parallel, from 1966 (we recall the “White Book”), a project was created that was destined to become an invincible aircraft carrier in the future - an anti-submarine cruiser and command ship, which was supposed to protect against Soviet submarines transatlantic convoys.

After the dismissal of the Labor government in 1973, the project grew into an almost aircraft carrier with a displacement of 16500 tons. In 1973, a year after the cancellation of the Igla and even before it was plundered for parts completely, an order for the construction of the lead ship in the series was issued. At that time, Hermes was converted into such a disabled person.

In 1975, the Labor government decided that helicopters still could not be dispensed with, it was necessary for someone to drive away the Soviet Tu-95RTs, which, as they believed in the West, would send Soviet submarines to convoys. And the government issued a contract to develop a marine version of the Harrier, which had previously been created as a short-take-off attack aircraft for the Air Force.

The savings turned out to be just excellent - instead of placing all the necessary helicopters and several interceptors on the existing Hermes, it was first mutilated (for a lot of money), then they spent additional money on creating a marine version of the Air Force attack aircraft capable of intercepting in the air, and - here she, the main economy - began to build a series (!) of aircraft-carrying ships! Just three years after the Eagle went into disassembly, just five years after the Victories was decommissioned and two years after the Hermes light carrier was converted into a helicopter carrier for a lot of money . Now, firstly, it was necessary again to remake the Hermes back to the aircraft carrier and set the springboard, return the equipment for managing the flight of groups of aircraft, secondly, order the Sea Harriers and pay for them, and, of course, build new light aircraft carriers

Tentatively, the whole saga cost Britain more than £ 100 million from 1966 to the 1980s, at the rate of the sixties (by the time the Invincible entered into operation, the pound had already depreciated by more than 3,8 times and prices were numerically different) .

Good savings compared to 30 million for the complete reconstruction of the Igla and its contents, no matter how expensive it may be, in any case, we can’t talk about more than six million a year from 1968 to 1980, which would ultimately provide a full-fledged aircraft carrier by 1980, a little more than the same one hundred million during this time, with most of them would have been paid at the beginning of this period.

Opponents of such a theory may point out that in 1972, before being written off, the Eagle ran aground and received extensive damage to the underwater part of the hull, but this can in no way be an excuse for what happened, if only because he was in the dock at that time nothing like this would have happened on the “Phantoms” alteration, and there could have been no such extensive damage to the corps as the defenders of British government policy tried to prove later.

And how much would an unborn CVA-01 cost? And here we are waiting for the most interesting. In 1963, three years before the draft of a new heavy aircraft carrier was canceled for reasons of economy, then Secretary of Defense Peter Troinicroft called the figure ... 56 million pounds. Despite the fact that his critics insisted that this money could not be met, and the ship would leave at least a hundred. Given inflation, we can really say that the remodeling of Hermes, the construction of Invincible, the creation of Sea Harrier and the endless repairs of Arc Royal between 1963 and 1980 were slightly cheaper. About a quarter.

Only then, after Falkland, the British had to build two more light aircraft carriers for hundreds of millions of pounds each and equip them with airplanes too.

As a result, saving still failed. It turned out only to overpay, and not just to overpay, but to overpay a lot, with a simultaneous loss of combat effectiveness. CVA-01, if it was built, most likely it would still be in operation, however, it is already “on the brink”. The British Navy would not have lost experience with normal deck aircraft, catapults, and finishers. In terms of combat strength, a bunch of non-disfigured Hermes (served until 2017) and that of the old Queen would be several times stronger than the three light Invincibles. And that would be cheaper. Many hundreds of millions of pounds in eighties, or, to make it clearer, more than a billion pounds in today's prices.

Thus, the cheapest option would be to keep the Igla in service until the beginning of the 80s, with the possible restart of CVA-01 in a new form later, when the economy has already improved somewhat, and the parallel maintenance of Hermes with the Bacenirs, and subsequently with some other small western planes. And it also provided the British Navy with the maximum level of combat power.

But they went the other way and lost their combat power, and, apparently, forever, and overpayed for this loss a lot of money.

The fact that if Britain had normal aircraft carriers of the Falkland War might simply not be there, but with what Britain declared it, she could just lose, you can not even mention.

Such was the price of a bet on light aircraft carriers.

Good fellows a lesson? Not yet


Why do we need these old stories of a foreign country? Everything is very simple: there are a lot of parallels between what happened in Britain then and what is happening in Russia now.

As in Britain, we have very strong voices of those who offer to abandon the creation of full-fledged carrier forces. Unfortunately, our own propaganda, which convinces the population of the worthlessness of American aircraft carriers, is pouring water into the mill of those who want to avoid Russian aircraft carriers in the future, and this work is being done quite successfully.

Supporters of "continental thinking" are also gaining strength (Russia is a land power, no matter what these words mean).

At the same time, their views are essentially quasi-religious, like the British Laborites, who killed the remnants of the British Empire for the sake of their ideas, which later did not pass the reality test. These people do not hear any arguments and do not want to learn anything, because they are sure that they already know everything (and in fact they even have huge problems with logic).

They can provide numerical data on how much tonnage our main enemy can attract to deploy troops in Europe and show what proportion of our fuel is in the energy balance of European NATO countries. But they will still be talking about the fact that we must invest primarily in the army, we are a land power, and the fact that invading us from the West is technically impossible, come on, they want to invade - they will invade, we are a land power, we must invest in the army . No arguments just work.

They can be shown on a map of the NSR and Kaliningrad, Kuril Islands and Sakhalin, talk about Sabetta gas and Norilsk nickel, show what proportion of domestic export goes through ports, but they will still say that Russia does not depend on sea communications.

There is no thought process behind all this, but this contingent affects public opinion, if only because the masses are not able to think logically.

And the masses would be okay, but we have such politicians, and who knows how much power such a contingent will have tomorrow. And whether some sly rat like Harold Wilson, but with a Russian passport, is using these moods.

In non-monetary Britain of the late 60s, everything was also on emotions, the result is known.

Just like in the case of Britain, we have something - an old aircraft carrier that could well be restored and serve for many more years. There is ship aviation armed with normal planes, which can also be brought into a fully operational state.

Even there is a “fire on“ Viktories ”- a fire on“ Kuznetsovo ”, after which legions of paid (and cheap) clicks rushed to fan the panic that the ship should be decommissioned, which burned down by almost a hundred billion (which was obvious rubbish) although it’s still necessary to figure out why it caught fire (as with the PD-50 - in its testimonies the surviving workers from it stated that they felt a blow from below before the flooding began. It would also be nice to figure it out if that). And, as with the British aircraft carrier, the damage in the end turned out to be minimal, and the ship was fully recoverable. So far, our clicks, unlike the British, have failed, although the "script" was the same - distinctly.

As in the case of Britain, there is a tough informational pressure that we need to abandon the normal ship that we have and build an ersatz instead - in our case, it’s UDC like “Juan Carlos” and develop our “vertical lines” . And this is also not the first time in our history, and it is very similar to how the British abandoned normal aircraft carriers and hit the construction of low-performing ersatz.

And we, too, will lose military capabilities and a lot of money on this - a huge amount of money that will be literally thrown into the wind. Like in Britain.

Just as in the case of Britain, we cannot build a new aircraft carrier here and now, but we will be able to master it in the near future, at least in a simplified form (see article “Aircraft carrier for Russia. Faster than you expect. ”) And having tensed a little, we can master a completely full-fledged nuclear ship, we only need to figure out what to do with those shipyards that are needed for its construction later, when it will be built. In the meantime, to bring to a combat-ready state what we already have, the Britons did not use this opportunity. And they got the Falklands.

And just as in the case of Britain, instead of this option, Russia may well rush into an extra-expensive and senseless fornication to create inferior boats and strange and unnecessary airplanes for them - or it will be pushed there.

However, our prospects need to be analyzed separately, and at first one more crazy theory has to be analyzed - that universal landing ships can replace aircraft carriers. Somehow it was strange quickly and tightly she registered in the heads of our citizens.

You have to dissect her too.

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia commons, US Navy, Royal Navy (UK Crown copiraight), studopedia.org, seaforces.org.
Articles from this series:
“Defective aircraft carriers and their strange planes. Falklands and the Harriers
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir_2U 6 May 2020 06: 24 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Strange article, do we really have VTOL, at least some? No. And for ordinary aircraft (Su, Mig), an easy aircraft carrier simply does not fit. Kuzya with 50 tons will not let lie.
    1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 08: 01 New
      • 14
      • 6
      +8
      Strange comment. Have we not yet announced the development of VTOL (see previous article)? And a small aircraft carrier is quite suitable for ordinary aircraft, see countless examples, at least the Hermes from this article.

      Another thing is that it fits poorly. What is the article about.

      And about Utsznetsov in the next part.
      1. Vladimir_2U 6 May 2020 09: 04 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        We haven’t announced the development of VTOL
        Not the same has been announced and developed, especially with us. Especially in the last article. )))
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Another thing that fits poorly
        I totally agree. But at the same time, there are no modern examples of light aircraft carriers for conventional aircraft.
        And yet, despite the fact that VTOL is not a competitor to normal aircraft, they are still needed, albeit not like air. The Soviet backlog should not be lost.
        1. mmaxx 7 May 2020 13: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          You cannot build a lot of VTOL aircraft. So much just is not necessary. And to develop an engine for it and make it a small series is very, very expensive. It’s easier to immediately fix the Nimitz-type avik under normal planes.
      2. Kalmar 6 May 2020 10: 00 New
        • 9
        • 1
        +8
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Have we not yet announced the development of VTOL (see previous article)?

        On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, to declare - not toss bags. As long as a full-fledged economy and strong industry are not built in our country, discussions about aircraft carriers - at least real, at least ersatz - will remain only fantasies on the topic, nothing more.
      3. Kolka Semenov 6 May 2020 15: 12 New
        • 19
        • 5
        +14
        He specially registered to write out a whole list of objections relating not only to this article, but also to a number of others, through which the idea of ​​the need for a strong fleet for the Russian Federation passes through with red thread.
        In this article, you make an inappropriate comparison of the Russian Federation and Britain, which had (and still has) many overseas possessions and is itself an island state, for which the fleet is a vital necessity. For the Russian Federation, the fleet is rather a purely auxiliary force, which is also highly isolated in various theaters, maneuver between which is impossible. The only way to maneuver forces is aviation, but here everything is bad - according to open sources, the Russian Federation has only about 450 more or less modern fighters.
        Another one of your thoughts that puzzles me - they say that someone will seriously risk attacking or blocking the movement of transport ships of a nuclear power. This is an absurd and unreasonable pull by the ears of the idea of ​​the need for a strong fleet for Russia, because if someone (and we know who) dares to attack Russia, then he will begin such an attack with the Strategic Missile Forces and the strategic nuclear forces, and not with merchant ships and in such a situation, the Navy is not only secondary, it is generally useless, if only because the probable enemy has a fivefold advantage at sea (and tenfold with NATO allies).
        But in these conditions, fighting the West on his terms and conditions of his domination is simply stupid, and participation in anti-Papuan wars is unreasonable, since not a single such war will pay off in principle and will not give anything in terms of an increase in military power - it will simply take away those needed for development army resources.

        If the Russian Federation needs to develop something, it is to strengthen weakening aviation in order to cover strategic targets from cruise missile attacks and not allow the enemy in the event of a large-scale war to gain air supremacy over its territory, as well as maneuver between the theater of war (since such a maneuver by the fleet in war is almost impossible).
        Russia also needs to strengthen the resistance of the Strategic Missile Forces to the first disarming strike, namely, to increase the number of mobile carriers, and also to provide missile defense for the positions of heavy carriers.

        Any large ship of the Navy, under the conditions of the complete domination of the enemy at sea, simply turns into a target that will inevitably be sunk, so if the fleet needs ships, it should be frigates 22350, which are the balance between firepower, powerful air defense and a relatively small displacement. Everything else is from the evil one.
        1. Doctor 6 May 2020 17: 54 New
          • 8
          • 1
          +7
          If the Russian Federation needs to develop something

          Great comment!
          As well as coastal defense.
          Currently, the biggest smut for the USA, which they themselves recognize and for the sake of which they left the DRMSD, is Iskander.
          And we have only 12 in the naval base of the Navy.
          This is where the effort should be directed.
        2. Kalmar 6 May 2020 18: 08 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Quote: Semenov Kolka
          For the Russian Federation, the fleet is rather a purely auxiliary force, which is also highly isolated in various theaters, maneuver between which is impossible

          Auxiliary or not, it is a force with its goals and objectives, which are absolutely not obliged to coincide with the goals and objectives of the fleets of other states. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to build a fleet "for yourself", clearly understanding its purpose. However, looking back at someone else's experience is absolutely not out of place.

          Quote: Semenov Kolka
          Another one of your thoughts that puzzles me - they say that someone will seriously risk attacking or blocking the movement of transport ships of a nuclear power

          For some reason, in the mass consciousness, the status of a "nuclear power" is perceived as a guarantee of absolute inviolability. Apparently, the legacy of the Cold War, when any mess was considered exclusively as a prelude to the Third World War, and our overseas partners were seen exclusively as an adversary.

          Alas, the reality is multifaceted: the use of nuclear weapons entails a huge number of serious military and political consequences, so everyone understands that it can only be used in a very extreme case. In local conflicts, the presence of nuclear weapons in one of the parties is no longer a determining factor; We have seen many examples of this.

          So, if suddenly some Japan once decides to arrange a “Kunashirnash” according to the Crimean scenario (landing “ichtamnets”, a referendum and annexation), then the presence of nearby Pacific Fleet combat ships will cool the ardor of samurai far more than the hypothetical probability of getting a portion of the peace atom to your head.
          1. Kolka Semenov 6 May 2020 18: 57 New
            • 6
            • 4
            +2
            I don’t know how to quote here, so I’ll answer as I can.

            \\\ "Auxiliary or not, it is a force with its goals and objectives, which are absolutely not required to coincide with the goals and objectives of the fleets of other states."

            To begin with, even the United States cannot develop all areas of military equipment and weapons, no matter how they boast. For example, they are not given normal air defense and they have not mastered the release of diesel-electric submarines, plus something in detail. I mean, the Russian Federation is not given the right to develop all spheres and branches of the armed forces — you will have to sacrifice something, or feed on fairy tales about atomic destroyers, 6th generation fighters, Armata, and so on every year. Under these conditions, it is worth abandoning fairy tales, being a realist and first of all sending all plans for AB, UDC and SKVVP to the scrap, and with all sorts of Leaders in addition. Either as it is, or as it is now, with eternal transfers to the right due to lack of money and stagnation of the rearmament of key areas.

            \\\ "For some reason, the status of" nuclear power "is perceived as a guarantee of absolute inviolability for some reason"

            This is precisely where I have no illusions - the USA can attack and just being a nuclear power is not enough, you need to have first-class strategic missile forces and, moreover, from all sides protected. The fleet in this matter, alas, is useless.
            As for the idea of ​​participating in local wars, the choice of war is an art that is cleaner than the choice of a wife and clever will avoid such dilemmas, but mainly by eliminating their weaknesses.
            The weakness of the Russian Federation is aviation, both fighter and missile-bearing; the fleet here is again secondary. To develop everything in a row (if it is not about feeding “breakfast”) will not work.

            \\\ "So, if suddenly some Japan once decides to arrange" Kunashirnash "according to the Crimean scenario (landing of" ichtamnets ", referendum and annexation)" ...

            ... it’s best to have powerful missile-carrying aircraft, capable of driving Japan into the Stone Age even without nuclear weapons with the help of missile launchers and quasi-ballistic missiles such as Dagger + which are covered from the air by three hundred Su-57s. Then it will not come to any landing, or even to war — there are no fools.
            1. Kalmar 6 May 2020 20: 38 New
              • 10
              • 1
              +9
              Quote: Semenov Kolka
              I don’t know how to quote here

              Click "Reply" under the post, select the desired piece of text, click "Quote". Not very obvious, he did not immediately doper.

              Quote: Semenov Kolka
              The Russian Federation is not given the normal development of all spheres and branches of the armed forces - you will have to sacrifice something

              It is a fact. Therefore, we need to determine the criteria for "normal development": what kind of ground troops we need, what kind of air force, which navy, etc. Obviously, trying to make the fleet “like the Murakans” is pointless, like any attempt to jump above your head.

              The author of the article, as far as I saw, does not state the opposite. His idea is different: against the background of budget deficits, thoughts often arise in the spirit of “well, since there is not enough normal AV, let's at least make a little one.” What the author says: such an ersatz is a waste of money. It’s better to try to live to see a brighter future when normal ships can afford it (and are in demand, of course).

              Quote: Semenov Kolka
              USA may attack

              My idea was a little different: not only the USA can attack. They have no such need, unlike our many neighbors with all sorts of ambitions.

              Quote: Semenov Kolka
              The fleet in this matter, alas, is useless.

              Why? Even a sufficiently budgetary fleet can provide an adequate level of sustainability of strategic nuclear forces. But this is again to the question of understanding goals and objectives.

              Quote: Semenov Kolka
              The weakness of the Russian Federation is aviation, both fighter and missile

              The Russian Federation has many weaknesses, but the majority is the economy. Without a strong economy, the rest of the weaknesses will not work. But this is a completely different story.

              Quote: Semenov Kolka
              ... it’s best to have a powerful missile-carrying aircraft capable of driving Japan into the Stone Age even without the use of nuclear weapons with the help of the Kyrgyz Republic and quasi-ballistic missiles such as Dagger + sheltered from the air by three hundred Su-57

              Not better. The weather in those parts is often not flying, they say. Again, where to place it? It’s unlikely that you will find so many airfields in Kunashir, but you still need to cover them somehow. If on the mainland, then the problem of reaction time is acute: the plane does not fly instantly. Finally, three hundred Su-57s cannot be in the air around the clock, but some URO frigate can weeks of full combat readiness unnerve a potential enemy with its presence.
            2. Per se. 7 May 2020 07: 42 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Quote: Semenov Kolka
              Then it will not come to any landing, or even to war — there are no fools.
              Nikolay, I read your comments, what I want to tell you. Politicians, not generals, start a war. Speaking of nuclear weapons, air supremacy, the “land” of Russia, you put politics out of the picture. The extreme of Alexander Timokhin is the self-sufficiency of the fleet in isolation from other branches of the army, almost, ships for the sake of ships, a war at sea in itself. Your extreme, the absolutization of nuclear weapons. According to this logic, the USSR was supposed to deliver a nuclear attack on China after the events on Damansky, and Britain on Argentina, not sending a squadron to another part of the world because of the Falklands.

              Everything is not so simple. You Kalmar, tried to explain a lot on the same Kuril Islands, but I will say that the fleet is needed more for prevention from a big war than directly for a big war. The fleet, more than other types of troops, is an instrument of politics, and it can largely depend on the actions of the fleet whether it will come to a global war, or it will be possible to stop problems in a timely manner, and resolve conflicts in the bud. It doesn’t matter that Russia has four divided fleets, the fleet remains the main political tool, and this tool must be of high quality, professional work on it. The possession of nuclear missiles alone will not save the country, understand this, especially since the Anglo-Saxons have always preferred to fight with the wrong hands, and will poison another cannon fodder in Russia, in the form of the same Baltic states, Psheks, Bandera or brave samurai.

              To prevent this from happening, we need a strong policy, and for politics its main global tool is the fleet. We can’t build a fleet stronger than the United States, all the more so of the alliance, but we need a full-fledged, balanced fleet that can solve all the problems at sea. This is quite feasible and real, especially with an emphasis on dominance in the Arctic.
            3. vVvAD 7 May 2020 10: 40 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              For example, they are not given normal air defense and they have not mastered the release of diesel-electric submarines

              “But the Russians are not given to catch up with us in terms of electronic warfare and nuclear submarine noise indicators,” - so, probably, they should have thought, following your logic? And there were also an atomic and hydrogen bomb and much more. This is just a matter of long, focused effort and experience. And, mind you, if medium and long range air defense is not a key issue for them, then, for example, according to electronic warfare they make up for lost time. Never underestimate an adversary.
            4. Cyril G ... 11 June 2020 18: 51 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Under these conditions, it is worth abandoning fairy tales, being a realist and first of all sending all plans for AB, UDC and SKVVP, and with all sorts of Leaders, to the scrap.


              We periodically suffered from senseless and merciless marinism, while the fleet is secondary or even tertiary in the country's defense capability.

              The weakness of the Russian Federation is aviation, both fighter and missile-bearing; the fleet here is again secondary.


              So.

              it’s best to have powerful missile-carrying aircraft, capable of driving Japan into the Stone Age even without nuclear weapons with the help of missile launchers and quasi-ballistic missiles like Dagger +, which are covered from the air by three hundred Su-57s. Then it will not come to any landing, or even to war — there are no fools.


              All that is not spent on strengthening the Air Force, Strategic Rocket Forces and SV money spent in vain
        3. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 19: 51 New
          • 8
          • 1
          +7
          For the Russian Federation, the fleet is rather a purely auxiliary force, which is also highly isolated in various theaters, maneuver between which is impossible. The only way to maneuver forces is aviation, but here everything is bad - according to open sources, the Russian Federation has only about 450 more or less modern fighters.


          Ships and planes have different tasks in the framework of the operation, they do not contradict each other, but complement each other, and aviation, and the surface fleet and submarines have capabilities that each of the other branches of the forces does not have.
          In addition, there are so many options for military conflicts that the Russian Federation can be drawn into, that such a linear thinking into one crinkle - like, "if there is a war, then defend your territory by attack, but there are no other wars" - stupidity. Although aviation is needed, of course.

          Another one of your thoughts that puzzles me - they say that someone will seriously risk attacking or blocking the movement of transport ships of a nuclear power.


          Let me remind you that they began to carry cargo by landing ships to Syria after NATO began to "block the movement of transport ships of a nuclear power."
          And I’ll also remind you of the mass of wars in which a non-nuclear power attacked the first nuclear one - at least the Falklands that were discussed here. Please pay attention to this fact.

          Any large ship of the Navy in conditions of complete domination of the enemy at sea


          So do not let the enemy seize dominance at sea.
          Because the next step after this is cutting the communications connecting the parts of the country with each other, of the same NSR, for example, and then the landing operation.
          The enemy must not be allowed to seize dominance at sea.
          Why do we have a fleet, in general, exists, by the way.

          Everything else is from the evil one.


          No, to put it mildly wrong.
          Let's know where to start? With salvo equations.
          Have you heard about volley equations?
          And then how to build theories, so wow, and to calculate the banal missile strike, and find a mathematical solution to how the weak US can take strong USs right away into the bushes, and there it is just arithmetic in essence. Not even differential calculus.

          At least if you take the final formulas.
          1. Kolka Semenov 7 May 2020 08: 36 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            \ Ships and planes have different tasks in the operation, they do not contradict each other, but complement each other \

            But the budget contradict.
            Money, you see, is finite. Or the current option remains - to all sisters by earrings - not to develop anything and feed breakfasts. So most likely it will be.

            \ I will remind you that they began to carry cargo by landing ships to Syria after NATO began to "block the movement of transport ships of a nuclear power."

            It is decided by raising the Andreevsky flag on civilian vessels, or escorting a convoy from civilian vessels by corvettes / frigates; for this, expensive and meaningless ships are not necessary.

            \ So do not let the enemy seize dominance at sea. \

            And how interesting is "not to give"? To build 50 destroyers to equalize the naval potential, to lay 3-4 nuclear aircraft carriers, and 3-4 UDC?
            It’s stupidly beyond the means of the Russian Federation and, thank God, the marine component of the military-industrial complex simply cannot master it and will not be able to do it for another 20 years. But the fact that in an attempt to achieve equality at sea, the crafts will gobble up a couple of trillion rubles without any result, alas, given.

            \ Let's know where to start? With salvo equations. \

            You suggested you start :)

            Actually, you and your Kent Klimov (or alter ego? :)) remind me of the fox Alice and the cat Basilio from a Soviet film, remember?
            Three crusts of bread! And always with steam catapults!
            Three crusts of bread! Not less than 50 thousand tons of displacement!
            Three crusts of bread! And so with the escort and deck-mounted AWACS!

            That's just Pinocchio, capable of pulling all this is simply not there. Amen!
            1. vVvAD 7 May 2020 10: 55 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              It is decided by raising the St. Andrew flag on civilian vessels,

              Then the civilians will be stopped for inspection. It will not work to fill up with quantity - a question of money - civilians will not want to suffer losses due to the whims of the state in peacetime.
              or escorting a convoy from civilian vessels by corvettes / frigates

              First of all, how can this be done without a fleet? Secondly - a large, at least numerically, fleet, if we are talking about something larger than Syria.
              1. Kolka Semenov 7 May 2020 12: 08 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                Stupid comment, I don’t even know how to comment. Roll something yourself.
            2. timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 22: 00 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              But the budget contradict.
              Money, you see, is finite. Or the current option remains - to all sisters by earrings - not to develop anything and feed breakfasts. So most likely it will be.


              If you spend them rationally, you can achieve a lot.
              For example, in a couple of weeks in Crimea two UDK pr.23900 will be laid, not very much needed now, besides on an unfinished and crude project, besides without the landing and landing equipment that such ships should have.
              The price of the issue is 100 billion.
              With this money, the unfortunate Kuzyu could be licked to a new state.
              Here you have the budget.

              And how interesting is "not to give"? To build 50 destroyers to equalize the naval potential, to lay 3-4 nuclear aircraft carriers, and 3-4 UDC?


              Not for short.

              It’s stupidly beyond the means of the Russian Federation and, thank God, the marine component of the military-industrial complex simply cannot master it and will not be able to do it for another 20 years. But the fact that in an attempt to achieve equality at sea, the crafts will gobble up a couple of trillion rubles without any result, alas, given.


              Something you have mixed up in a bunch of horses and people ... So there is no money or they will not be able to master? These are different things, already decide what.
              1. Kolka Semenov 8 May 2020 09: 37 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                \ If you spend them rationally, you can achieve a lot. \

                And if you score on all projects for the fleet except three - 20380, 22350 and 885M, then you can save a trillion rubles. Lepota!

                \ No for short. \

                And they could have been even shorter: three crusts of bread! :)

                \ Something you have mixed up in a bunch of horses and people ... So there is no money or they can not master? These are different things, decide already or something. \

                Well, why are they different, in shipbuilding it is a combo that flows seamlessly from one another - the crafts cannot do anything, since they have degraded and indeed, they weren’t really able to build large ships. But there is no money for large projects, since shipbuilding is the most expensive in terms of costs and the most unprofitable in terms of exhaust.
                For example, the sale of T-90 tanks to India completely covered the costs of R&D, and there is nothing to say about Su-30 fighters.
                Can you give a similar example from the fleet? - you can not.

                To summarize: a large and especially carrier fleet is insanely expensive, does not bring any associated income that would reduce costs, is insanely expensive to operate, and most importantly - has no military significance. That’s generally
                All your calculations on the Falklands, pretty far-fetched, by the way, are unconvincing. In peacetime, this is dirty money, in war - just big targets for the enemy fleet.

                But you continue about the "three crusts of bread", nobody can forbid it to you.
            3. SovAr238A 8 May 2020 00: 43 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              When you first wrote: "I'm new here" I was a little surprised, but when "new" writes: "And your Kent Klimov", then I understand that you are a simple liar and a type of type operator, Romario Agro or Ment.
              They surrendered themselves through 3 messages ...
              1. The comment was deleted.
            4. Cyril G ... 11 June 2020 18: 54 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It is decided by raising the Andreevsky flag on civilian vessels, or escorting a convoy from civilian vessels by corvettes / frigates; for this, expensive and meaningless ships are not necessary.
              Exactly. Auxiliary flag of the Navy solution to the issue. The ship gains immunity
              \ So do not let the enemy seize dominance at sea. \

              In the current ratio of CuC, this is not possible
        4. nedgen 7 May 2020 12: 28 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Excuse me, Nikolay, but how are you going to defend the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin and Chukotka, on which there is NO ROAD at all and is not expected without a fleet? Everything is tied to the sea. And even Japan is now poaching in those waters because there is NO normal fleet. Nuclear weapons are not a panacea. You will not shoot in a local conflict on your territory!
          1. Kolka Semenov 7 May 2020 13: 39 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            So there are no airfields, right? Or still there is, which means that the enemy will need to first crush them. It is aviation and air defense that will be the first to meet the enemy, and they must be the priority.
            As for the fleet, the entire Navy is hardly stronger than the Japanese fleet, and even if we transfer half of our fleet to the Pacific Fleet (which is impossible), this will hardly give anything.
            Another complaint to the author is that when he forgot about the Falklands he forgot to mention that the main contribution to the sinking of ships was made by aviation, and if Argentina had a little more Exocets, or a little better bombing, then everything would have turned out differently, and now the situation has become for ships only worse.
            Will the Japanese think of the landing? Aviation is again a priority. Ships without external target designation will not drown a single trough, and TsU will again go from all the same aircraft. Even for the defense of the Far East, the fleet is deeply secondary and this can not be changed.
            1. nedgen 7 May 2020 20: 12 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              in general, you are right, Nikolai, but there is one very big one. If the Japanese want to isolate both Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka, only their submarines will be enough for them. And sooner or later, all these airdromes will be left without fuel and ammunition, not to mention spare parts, but there is nothing to say about food products. Without delivering all this from ships to the mainland and providing these fleets with deliveries in general, there is nothing to think. And all this cannot be provided only by aviation. Even Ruslans and Mriya. All available transport aircraft cannot replace even one bulk carrier. And to block shipping, it’s enough to set up several modern minefields and that's it. Minesweepers are indispensable. And this is a fleet. Of course, the fleet for the continental state is secondary, but if Russia wants to have at least some weight in the international arena, then DO NOT DO IT without the fleet. And an example from the present. Without deliveries of all the necessary BDKs in Syria, bases in Tartus and Khmeimim would not have existed at all. How to protect the Arctic and islands there without a fleet, I can not imagine. Maybe you know how to protect these territories with aviation, especially when the weather is bad. And do not say that there is all-weather aviation. Any aircraft has weather restrictions.
          2. Cyril G ... 8 May 2020 09: 13 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Do not poach Japan already, Yes, and against poachers there is the FSB Bohr.
            -And the use of TNWs, for example, according to the Kuril invasion forces, is the most reliable scenario.
        5. mmaxx 7 May 2020 13: 43 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          There is one thing but.
          If you are preparing for a global war with NATO, led by the United States, then you do not need anything at all, except for strategic nuclear forces (and ...) and air defense.
          The USSR was preparing, but the war did not come. But a bunch of local wars where you need to use force have passed. And they will go again. But for such cases, we need a regular fleet. Yes, even so that just the same Americans or Norwegians do not hobble in the North, as well as the East and South.
        6. Razvedka_Boem 7 May 2020 17: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          He wrote more than once in comments that the fleet is being built on the basis of the diplomacy that the state is leading, that is, the development of the fleet is subordinated to politics.
          Large nuclear carriers are an expansionary policy.
          There used to be "gunboat diplomacy," now it's "carrier diplomacy."
          This of course is the USA.
          Russia at the moment and in the foreseeable future will not look for overseas colonies, it and its own land is enough.
          Certain operations, such as the Syrian one, were the exception and there they more decided the actions of the MTR, which by the way showed themselves brilliantly.
        7. Starshina 8 May 2020 20: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I agree with you on everything except frigates 22350. In their place I propose submarines with Zircons and nuclear cruisers of the KIROV type converted into ships arsenals with hypersonic missiles. This will be the first line of defense based off the coast of the United States that does not require escort and escort ....
    2. Snail N9 6 May 2020 08: 32 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      Another crazy theory is that universal landing ships can replace aircraft carriers. Somehow it was strange quickly and tightly she registered in the heads of our citizens.

      Indeed, a "strange article" ... The "strange author" seems to think that it is the citizens of the country who make decisions - which ships to build for the Navy and which not to build ... As far as I know, those who make such decisions are far purple. what is there
      "registered in the heads of our citizens" ....
      1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 11 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        As far as I know, those who make such decisions are far purple, that there,


        Not really. And I had the opportunity to verify this once.
        1. Nemchinov Vl 10 May 2020 19: 32 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Snail N9 As far as I know, those who make such decisions are far purple, that there .... recourse yes
          - timokhin-aa Not really. And I had the opportunity to verify this once.
          belay
          Then too much to explain ... request
          Quote: Kalmar
          So, if suddenly some Japan once decides to arrange a “Kunashirnash” according to the Crimean scenario (landing “ichtamnets”, a referendum and annexation), then the presence of nearby Pacific Fleet combat ships will cool the ardor of samurai far more than the hypothetical probability of getting a portion of the peace atom to your head.
          no argument yes
          Quote: Semenov Kolka
          ... it’s best to have powerful missile-carrying aircraft, capable of driving Japan into the Stone Age even without nuclear weapons with the help of missile launchers and quasi-ballistic missiles such as Dagger + which are covered from the air by three hundred Su-57s. Then it will not come to any landing, or even to war — there are no fools.
          Also varik, but the same money - NOT small ... what
          Well, again, to Alexander (bored without him on the forum)
          -
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          ... In order to evaluate the “wisdom” of the decisions that the military-political leadership of Britain took a little later ...,
          Maybe we later ...?! what There will be 6/6/3 frigates 22350.1 and at least 5 ships of the EM / BOD class in the real combat strength of the fleet (SF / Pacific Fleet / Black Sea Fleet) (albeit the same "virtual - 22350M" or 21956 or 11560 in "modern processing") in the North and Pacific Fleets, only then it will be possible about aircraft carriers ..... Otherwise, there’s nothing to accompany them with, not - "exposing the fleet" to "NO"....?! recourse Well, it seems to me .... repeat
  2. Avior 6 May 2020 06: 38 New
    • 8
    • 10
    -2
    . Of course, on small aircraft carriers with normal aircraft, all these factors also act in full.

    The thesis is partially correct, but in the future the author forgets about it, riding his beloved horse about inferior vertical take-off carriers
    Why, in part, because vertical helicopter landing is easier than landing on an air finisher and all other things being equal, everything that the author wrote confirms that an aircraft carrier with a high-altitude aircraft is better and more reliable in operation than an aircraft carrier with horizontal landing aircraft and is less critical to weather conditions.
    You don’t just need to get to the air finisher — you need to get to a strictly defined part, if the hook hooks the cable closer to one of the edges, the cable breaks due to uneven loads. What we observed on Kuznetsov.
    Thus, if you want to increase the reliability of the use of a ship of the same size, you will either have to use SVVP or put expensive pitching damper. smile
    As for Nimitz, it is, of course, better to be rich and healthy than the poor and sick.
    Of course, a large aircraft carrier is better than a small aircraft carrier.
    But much more expensive to manufacture, operate and technically much more complicated.
    1. vVvAD 6 May 2020 07: 53 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      I ask you not to forget that VTOL need to take off at this very pitching. And if he also flies vertically, then his radius, flight time and ammunition will make this venture useless. It’s easier to use “calibers” with “zircons”. Also, do not forget that no one has yet been able to build Aircraft AWACS aircraft. And an aircraft carrier without its own eyes will act blindly or distract part of the wing (which, by the way, is not adapted for prolonged barrage and cannot have normal MIG-31 or SU-57 capabilities for managing an air group), which will be extremely expensive (by sorties), inefficient and will reduce its strike potential, and therefore it will be first discovered by a full-fledged aircraft carrier and immediately sunk in combat conditions.
      AUTHOR: I would like to hear his opinion regarding full-fledged aircraft carriers of the minimum dimension in our realities (including functional purposes), i.e. about 40-50t. tons, in particular, in the variant of a half catamaran from KGNTS.
      1. Avior 6 May 2020 07: 59 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        Please do not forget that if the VTOL aircraft still need to take off at this very pitching. And if it also flies vertically, then its radius

        and it will be easier to take off in horizontal mode, the lifting force and it will be adjusted by the fan and the nozzle inclination, in case of a gust of wind, for example, the automation will simply add lift, or set it in advance with the required margin, the radius will decrease slightly, but the reliability of operation will be drastically will increase.
        Also, do not forget that no one has yet been able to build Aircraft AWACS aircraft.

        there are helicopters.
        will be quickly sunk by a full-fledged aircraft carrier.

        undoubtedly they have great opportunities.
        but they are much more expensive and not the fact that in general all of them can realize
        1. Alexey RA 6 May 2020 11: 03 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Avior
          there are helicopters.

          And how many helicopters will be required to ensure continuous airborne watch at a distance of 100 miles from AB (we don’t want to highlight the AB by hanging the AWAC right above the order)? Given the fact that AB is also moving.
          At the adversary for the duty of one machine with rotation, one deck squadron from 4-5 Hokaev is enough.
          1. Avior 6 May 2020 11: 22 New
            • 6
            • 3
            +3
            Helicopters are not able to provide the capabilities of Hokaev, especially on duty for a long time. It is obvious.
            But this does not mean that AWACS helicopters are not needed at all. They are quite capable of providing AWACS for a limited time, for example, during the landing, when it is most vulnerable.
            This is not very good, but much better than nothing.
            PS And is there really where to base the Hokai analogue?
            1. Alexey RA 6 May 2020 11: 36 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Avior
              But this does not mean that AWACS helicopters are not needed at all. They are quite capable of providing AWACS for a limited time, for example, during the landing, when it is most vulnerable.

              Aircraft carrier capable of providing air defense of its own group for a limited time - it's money down the drain.
              What are we - will we ask the enemy to wait until our AWACS crews have a rest, and the equipment passes MOT? Or will we stuff AV helicopters with AWACS to ensure round-the-clock duty? wink
              For some reason, they cannot understand for us that one of the main “features” of the AB — providing control over large spaces and a huge air defense radius — is based precisely on the possibility of round-the-clock target detection at any altitude over a long distance.
              Quote: Avior
              PS And is there really where to base the Hokai analogue?

              And if there is no analogue on the deck, then it’s not AB motor mechanic Polesov: very similar to real, but not working. Sort of mass-dimensional model of an aircraft carrier. smile
              1. Avior 6 May 2020 12: 07 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                What are we - will we ask the enemy to wait until our AWACS crews have a rest, and the equipment passes MOT?

                depending on which opponent
                if it’s coastal or without aviation, then you decide when and how close it will be to him.
                And if, for example, you cover your own shore, then there can be on duty and coastal AWACS.
                But the coastal air defense zone with an aircraft carrier will go much further.
                There was, I recall, an article either by Timokhin, or by Andrei from Chelyabinsk with an analysis of real, purely land-based air defense at sea.
                1. Alexey RA 6 May 2020 13: 21 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  Quote: Avior
                  And if, for example, you cover your own shore, then there can be on duty and coastal AWACS.

                  At a distance of 500-600 km from the coast - in the area of ​​the same Bear? wink Closer to the shore, there is no point in using AB - there, and coastal aviation will cope.
                  In addition, we rest on the interspecific interaction of the airborne forces and the navy and in the concentration of forces (146%, that all ground-based AWACS will pick up the air force for themselves)
                  1. Avior 6 May 2020 14: 32 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    There was a detailed article on the real effectiveness of coastal aviation and the air defense frontier.
                    If for a short time, a noticeable number of fighters cannot be on duty 500-600 km from the coast, then there are 700-800 at least from their airfield.
                    and if you don’t do it, then the battle will end before they are raised and they arrive.
                    And the presence of carrier-based aviation is the operational reserve of the battlefield.
                    2 dozen, but they are nearby.
                    1. Alexey RA 6 May 2020 15: 55 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: Avior
                      If for a short time, a noticeable number of fighters cannot be on duty 500-600 km from the coast, then there are 700-800 at least from their airfield.
                      and if you don’t do it, then the battle will end before they are raised and they arrive.

                      That's right. I repeatedly wrote in comments on the aircraft carrier topic that the maximum radius of operation of coastal fighter aircraft when covering ships is determined not at all by the fuel supply, but by the range of detection of the enemy and the time of approach of reserves from our nearest airfield.
                      The approach time of the reserves from the coastal airfield to the covered ships should be less than the time interval between the detection (and recognition) of the strike group of the enemy aircraft and their reaching the launch range of the ships. Otherwise, coastal cover is ineffective and pointless: the IA on-duty group that did not have time to gain reinforcement will be destroyed by the air clearing group, and by the time our reserves approach, enemy fighters are already firing at the bare ships.
                      As a result, we get the maximum effective coastal aviation radius of about 400 km.
                      Quote: Avior
                      And the presence of carrier-based aviation is the operational reserve of the battlefield.
                      2 dozen, but they are nearby.

                      Not only. This is still a sharp reduction in the enemy’s strike group - as part of the strikers will have to be transferred to the air clearing group. And in the air defense of AB itself (well, how will the Russians decide to deal with the causes, and not with the consequences, deciding that the best air defense is to destroy the enemy’s aircraft? smile ).
                      1. Avior 6 May 2020 16: 06 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        That is, in fact, the question is quite wide
                        I think this article turned out to be very global,
                        it really needed to be broken down into several questions
                        1. Opportunities for creating a catapult aircraft carrier in Russia.
                        2. The possibility of using a springboard aircraft carrier without VTOL
                        3. The possibility and timing of the creation of VTOL in Russia
                        4. The boundaries of application and possible tasks of aircraft carriers with VTOL
                        and so the argument goes about everything at once
                      2. Alexey RA 6 May 2020 17: 59 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Avior
                        1. Opportunities for creating a catapult aircraft carrier in Russia.

                        In the presence of clearly defined and imputed TK laughing everything is possible. For large AV, we even have a power plant.
                        Quote: Avior
                        2. The possibility of using a springboard aircraft carrier without VTOL

                        To do this, you need to make a springboard AWACS. Well, or to get coastal AWACS from the VKS for the Navy and work in their radius (and also operate them by the Navy).
                        Both tasks are approximately of the same order of complexity. smile
                      3. Avior 6 May 2020 18: 14 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        In the presence of clearly defined and imputed TK laughing, everything is possible. For large AV, we even have a power plant.

                        GEM is like VNEU, only with G? smile

                        Submarine Amur 1650 with VNEU
                        Submarine with non-volatile energy system (VNEU)

                        https://www.aoosk.ru/products/amur-1650-s-vneu/

                        To do this, you need to make a springboard AWACS.

                        Easy. Only to put more propellers, it will take off without a springboard smile

                        hi
                      4. Alexey RA 6 May 2020 19: 16 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Avior
                        GEM is like VNEU, only with G?

                        It’s like VNEU, only the letter A is replaced with the letter A. The only thing we have no problems with is the GEM starting with “A”. smile
                        .
                        Quote: Avior
                        Easy. Only to put more propellers, it will take off without a springboard

                        I propose not to be limited to half measures, but to immediately use the radar fairing as the main propeller, giving it the appropriate shape. laughing
                      5. nedgen 7 May 2020 13: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I don’t understand Sergey why are you so fixated on vertical lines? Well, a tiltrotor cannot be a normal AWACS. And interfere with the propellers of large diameter. And take-off vertical jumps from the springboard during on-board rolling is even more dangerous than for normal aircraft. So light AB with vertical lines especially in the Barents Sea on ... Not needed. And for AWACS helicopters, even with the same radar power (which, in principle, is impossible not only because of the size of the antenna, but also because of the inability to generate enough energy.), The possibilities are less because of the much smaller ceiling than aircraft. How do you imagine a helicopter flying at an altitude of 10km? This means that the detection range of non-flying targets in AWACS helicopters is three times less than that of AWACS aircraft. So the AWACS plane has NO ALTERNATIVE takeoff. Despite all your efforts, prove the opposite. The DRLO helicopter was and is a necessary measure. And the proof is the development in the USSR of a deck-based AWAC at the An aircraft base with the ability to take off even from a springboard. And one more small but VERY essential detail. No one in the world except the USA has any convertiplanes. Despite their low carrying capacity (which does not pull equipment and radar generators), their development will cost, if not at full cost, then at least half the cost of a normal carrier, at least 60-75000 tons of displacement. So development is not worth the cost.
                      6. Avior 7 May 2020 13: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        To the DRLO tiltrotor - it was a joke, this is not in nature, this is not a photo.
                        But there are no fundamental obstacles to making it - the technical capabilities of the Osprey are approximately at the S-2 level, that is, Hokaev. Moreover, S-2 aircraft carriers are already changing to Osprey.
                        Screws will not interfere.
                        There are no other deck-based AWACs except American Hokai, Ana didn’t have this, there was only an idea, An from the catapult, but they did not accept it.
                        VTOL is also American.
                        And I did not dwell on VTOL aircraft, this is a niche plane.
                        Just one of its niches is a simple, technically inexpensive aircraft carrier.
                        If it is possible to build and maintain a classic ejection aircraft carrier financially and technically, it will have great potential.
                        But in my opinion, there is no such possibility
                      7. nedgen 7 May 2020 19: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        To the DRLO tiltrotor - it was a joke, this is not in nature, this is not a photo.
                        But there are no fundamental obstacles to making it - the technical capabilities of the Osprey are approximately at the S-2 level, that is, Hokaev. Moreover, S-2 aircraft carriers are already changing to Osprey.


                        Well, about the fact that you can make AWACS from the Opprey, you were right, there is already a version of EV22, for royal neuvi. But on state aircraft carriers osprey does not replace the C2 Hawkeye but the S2 Viking. And replace it as an anti-submarine and a transporter and not as an AWAC.

                        Quote: Avior
                        There are no other deck-based AWACs except American Hokai, Ana didn’t have this, there was only an idea, An from the catapult, but they did not accept it.


                        Well, there is already a U22 evprey. And at one time they worked on the Yak-44 or Yak-443, but due to a stupid policy during EBN, funding was closed and Yak could take off from the springboard. And the plane was just a layout. And the An-71 was built in three instances, but unfortunately he needed a catapult.

                        Quote: Avior
                        VTOL is also American.
                        And I did not dwell on VTOL aircraft, this is a niche plane.
                        Just one of its niches is a simple, technically inexpensive aircraft carrier.
                        If it is possible to build and maintain a classic ejection aircraft carrier financially and technically, it will have great potential.
                        But in my opinion, there is no such possibility

                        The problem is that on existing technologies, VTOL aircraft will be inferior to a normal aircraft. And this is a fact. Yes, VTOL is a poor aircraft, but to build aircraft carriers for VTOL aircraft if there are no most VTOL aircraft and this is nonsense. Developing a normal VTOL aircraft will definitely be much more expensive than a normal BIG aircraft carrier. If the Yak-141 flew and stood in service, this is one thing, and if it is not there and even there is no project, then what the hell is building aircraft carriers under a DOUBLE aircraft? Moreover, UDC can easily carry 5-10 VTOL aircraft, and two of these have already been laid or will soon be laid in Kerch.
                        As for the impossibility of building a large aircraft carrier, I’m not entirely sure about the jet. I mean that it is NECESSARY to put things in order in the economy, not only in shipbuilding. But UTB can not be done until when the main thing is not to do, but to cut the budget. And for this, first of all, it is necessary to send the leadership of the central bank far and for a long time and replace people for whom the economy is in the first place and not the profit of the banks. The same thing can be done with the government, the judicial system, and then suddenly it turns out that money and opportunities are available. Of course, I’m not saying that we should immediately begin to build an aircraft carrier, but the design and development of the project and everything connected with it all the more necessary. And to restore order in the fleet.
                      8. Avior 7 May 2020 20: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        . there is already an EV22 version for royal neuvi.

                        No, there is only a name and several different projects and a proposal to the Royal Navy and India
                        But it’s really not in nature yet
                        Vikings with an aircraft carrier have long been removed
                        There is Hokai and the same S-2 Greyhound aircraft in the transport version.
                        It is the S-2 that is being replaced by Osprey now - the S-2 does not fit the F-35 engine.
                        . The problem is that on existing technologies, VTOL aircraft will be inferior to a normal aircraft.

                        Compare versions of VTOL f-35v and deck f-35s
                        They are practically equivalent, differ in radius, it is 830 km for VTOL aircraft and 1100 for deck carrier.
                        But if you look at the deck Hornets, they have the same radius as the VTOL aircraft, and he suits the Americans too.
                        Moreover, it is enough for a niche application.
                        . Developing a normal VTOL aircraft will definitely be much more expensive than a normal BIG aircraft carrier

                        Definitely not.
                        Much cheaper.
                        The aircraft carrier will have to do and develop from scratch, these are huge amounts.
                        Gorshkov’s repair alone cost 2.3 billion, but he’ll have to build it from scratch, the plant remained in Nikolaev in Ukraine, and he doesn’t have the opportunities now that he had.
                        The Soviet Union, before reaching the project of a really combat-capable aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, built a dozen aircraft-carrying ships, gaining experience, now China is following the Soviet route, and also gaining experience at first.
                        And in Russia, even the destroyer is now a big problem to build.

                        And with VTOL, it’s just easier.
                        Design bureaus and fighter factories have been and remain in Russia, they have experience in developing modern aircraft, they have Avionics, engines, etc. from the Su-57 and Mig-35 developments, you just need to combine everything together.

                        And then it can be applied to Kuznetsov, making him really combat-ready, and to UDC.
                        And only then, with experience, if there is money, you can think about an aircraft carrier.
                        hi
                      9. Nemchinov Vl 10 May 2020 19: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        And only then, with experience, if there is money, you can think about an aircraft carrier.
                        and if in sufficient quantity, there will already be pennants necessary for the formation of AUG (well, I would add) . hi
            2. bk0010 6 May 2020 18: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              y or knock off the coastal aircraft AWACS at the Navy for the Navy
              What for? Let the fleet set the videoconferencing task in its interests. The structure of the aerospace forces was poured into the country's air defense (not jointly based, but completely infused), strategists, why not bring naval aviation as part of the aerospace forces as well? Suppose that at the very top (well, or at the very top, so that his orders could not be ignored) there will be a man in black uniform, and all the rest in blue.
            3. Avior 6 May 2020 18: 55 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Let the fleet set the videoconferencing task in its interests.

              VKS may not obey smile
            4. Alexey RA 6 May 2020 19: 32 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: bk0010
              What for? Let the fleet set the videoconferencing task in its interests.

              The fleet cannot set the tasks of the aerospace forces - these are equal types of aircraft. The fleet can draw up action plans, including the videoconferencing system, and then approve them "above." Or not to say - if (more precisely, when) the airborne forces convincingly prove that they do not have free airborne AWACS, unless you remove one from Moscow’s air defense. smile
              Quote: bk0010
              The structure of the aerospace forces was poured into the country's air defense (not jointly based, but completely infused), strategists, why not bring naval aviation as part of the aerospace forces as well?

              Because then you can forget about naval aviation. If the Naval Aviation Command is created as part of the Air Forces, then the first thing it will do is to take all the aviation from the fleet, subordinating it to itself. smile And each flight - to detect the same submarines, to cover ships, to reconnaissance - will have to be coordinated through Moscow, through this very command. And then to ensure the interaction of the Air Force planes and Navy ships - there is one coordination of frequencies, callsign tables and squares on the maps of which is worth (EMNIP, there was a heartbreaking story on the Bigler - how border guards tried to transmit to the Navy the tracking of submarines accidentally discovered by them).
              And the situation will regularly arise that there are no free planes for the Navy - they all solve the tasks of the Air Force.
            5. bk0010 6 May 2020 19: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And each flight - to detect the same submarines, to cover ships, to reconnaissance - will have to be coordinated through Moscow, through this very command
              Why, if the naval will command it all? Amers command an aircraft carrier, but he acts in the interests of the fleet, not the Air Force. Solving organizational problems is difficult, but cheap. At the same time, people will appear who can speak the same language with the fleet and aviation. And there, you see, the communication and target designation systems will be made compatible. And then the land hunters will be pulled up. And let us live!
            6. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 13 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              It’s so good that you are on this site!
              wink
        2. Nemchinov Vl 10 May 2020 19: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Avior
          1. Opportunities for creating a catapult aircraft carrier in Russia.
          .. belay
          Quote: Alexey RA
          For large AV, we even have a power plant.
          formally - "YES", but there’s nothing to him - "Escort pennants create" ...?! recourse
          Quote: Avior
          4. The boundaries of application and possible tasks of aircraft carriers with VTOL
          lol
          Quote: Alexey RA
          To do this, you need to make a springboard AWACS. Well, or to get coastal AWACS from the VKS for the Navy and work in their radius (and also operate them by the Navy).
          request and to solve this problem, it seems they decided to build a UDC, on which in the Mediterranean, no less than 5 units of KA-31 will be needed ?! .... winked
      2. bk0010 6 May 2020 18: 14 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        2-4 should not be considered until the appearance of a sane VTOL, even if not ours (the sanity of the F-35B has not yet been confirmed). If the VTOL aircraft will be as they were and are, then such aircraft carriers and planes are not needed.
      3. Avior 6 May 2020 19: 02 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Reproduce smile


        Will wait smile
  • vVvAD 7 May 2020 10: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    T.O. the helicopter carrier's area of ​​application as a whole is anti-Papuan operations. Q.E.D.
  • Newone 6 May 2020 21: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, in general, then 2 + corvette for refueling 100 km.
  • vVvAD 7 May 2020 10: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and it will be easier to take off in horizontal mode

    Yes, sure. But, since they need to take off in an airplane way, then we return to the problems of using an air wing with a high score. In addition, I would like to see how the F-35 or any helicopter will land on the deck, walking with a walker, as in the photo with the banked Independence. So the problem has not been solved even once.
    have helicopters

    Only now their radius can not be compared with that of deck-based AWACS. They are still suitable for defending a warrant from an air attack and guiding missiles, but I'm sorry to search for a potential enemy 1000 km from an aircraft carrier.
    1. Avior 7 May 2020 20: 52 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      ejection or non-ejection aircraft carrier- with the size of the ship is not directly related.
      There are large ones for VTOL of 70 thousand tons, like the British, there are small ones like the French ejection of 40 thousand tons, there is UDC of 40 thousand tons.
      And for some reason you refer to this photo, on which an old small ship.
  • Usher 6 May 2020 10: 07 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Avior
    . Of course, on small aircraft carriers with normal aircraft, all these factors also act in full.

    The thesis is partially correct, but in the future the author forgets about it, riding his beloved horse about inferior vertical take-off carriers
    Why, in part, because vertical helicopter landing is easier than landing on an air finisher and all other things being equal, everything that the author wrote confirms that an aircraft carrier with a high-altitude aircraft is better and more reliable in operation than an aircraft carrier with horizontal landing aircraft and is less critical to weather conditions.
    You don’t just need to get to the air finisher — you need to get to a strictly defined part, if the hook hooks the cable closer to one of the edges, the cable breaks due to uneven loads. What we observed on Kuznetsov.
    Thus, if you want to increase the reliability of the use of a ship of the same size, you will either have to use SVVP or put expensive pitching damper. smile
    As for Nimitz, it is, of course, better to be rich and healthy than the poor and sick.
    Of course, a large aircraft carrier is better than a small aircraft carrier.
    But much more expensive to manufacture, operate and technically much more complicated.

    Everything is upside down! And here avifinishery, this "problem" is solved by training and technology, where does the concept? the development and construction of VTOL aircraft is millions of times more expensive than installing tanks in a ship))) Don't you think so? You carry a blizzard, just to write something.
    You were once again told that this is a penny saving, which leads to the fact that money is wasted! There is a saying "we are not so rich that we would buy cheap." And still I can’t understand, and that aerofinisher? This is how to reason when buying a car, what kind of caps to put or wheels. Although the car itself and its main characteristics, this generally has nothing to do.
  • timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 23: 30 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Thus, if you want to increase the reliability of the use of a ship of the same size, you will either have to use SVVP or put expensive pitching damper.


    They already stand on any ship, just without fanaticism. And for a 45-60 ton aircraft carrier with a VTOL aircraft, it’s necessary to shoot, I think.
    1. mmaxx 7 May 2020 13: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And on the way. So that even such thoughts do not appear. No better than small ones.
    2. Avior 8 May 2020 00: 58 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      and for 40 thousand tons it is not necessary if without VTOL? on the Champs Elysees then take a look .....
  • mmaxx 7 May 2020 13: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    No. VTOL aircraft beat during landing much more than conventional aircraft.
  • SovAr238A 8 May 2020 00: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    About getting to the aerofinisher - do not make a problem out of this.
    The US Navy also includes very young pilots, and there are 25 year old boys who have 200-250-300 hours of flight from aircraft carriers every year.
    Moreover, reservists with 3-5 thousand raids per aircraft carrier nearly 15 thousand.

    But vertical pilots with Harrier experience are just a few ...
  • Starshina 8 May 2020 20: 55 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In Russia, they have nowhere to moor!
  • LeonidL 6 May 2020 06: 45 New
    • 11
    • 14
    -3
    "we cannot build a new aircraft carrier here and now, but we can overpower it in the near future, at least in a simplified form "- If not here and now, then in what such a bright future? After what? Or, by a wave of a magic wand? And if in a simplified form then ... this"meaningless fornication for the creation of inferior boats "
    "And with a little effort, we can master a fully-fledged nuclear ship, we just need to figure out what to do with those shipyards that are needed to build it later, when it will be built." - Admiral-amateur Mr. Timokhin advises a little effort. Is that how to strain up? Will pull up? To whom? The author himself? Build his score? Great idea. Only very often, tightening leads either to a hernia, or to damage to the air. And the words about what to occupy the shipyard (!!!) later are very beautiful ... Probably for the construction of a fleet of cheap under-destroyers according to the benefactor’s miter method? Well, yes, it’s easy with shipyards, they still need to be built, too, because someone will get a little money? Well, the fact that even a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier built again does not get a place for basing, an escort, infrastructure, a trained crew, escort and supplies, and the other author does not bother. He is above the fleet’s prized being.
    Following this, the author is ready to make the reading public happy with what the author needs ... "first make out another crazy theory - that universal landing ships can replace aircraft carriers. Somehow it was strange quickly and tightly she registered in the heads of our citizens.". Here’s an idea registered! And the author, he’s a very special naval specialist, really got to the point of self-education, where he was treated to stupid admirals and citizens with an idea written in their heads.
    And what a time went in Russia! People who did not serve in the Armed Forces, without a military (VM) education, suddenly became the main theoreticians and experts in everything that they do not know. The haste takes. Maybe this is a new disease? coronavirus prevalence?
    1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 15: 23 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      And what a time went in Russia! People who did not serve in the Armed Forces, without a military (VM) education, suddenly became the main theoreticians and experts in everything that they do not know. The haste takes. Maybe this is a new disease? coronavirus prevalence?


      I’ll even say more. What kind of times went into Russia when the guys registered with a psychiatrist, and for this reason who never served anywhere and apart from their native hospital did not see anything, who in life did not have the status of a capable citizen, suddenly start on the basis of their pathological fantasies (like " I’m a Soviet nobleman and served in the Navy all my life, I don’t give a damn that I don’t know what my higher-level governing bodies were called, I don’t “remember” VUS and I am confused about dates, I still served my whole life, in between hacks ”) they shut up their mouths and mentally healthy people?

      Tell me please.
      1. LeonidL 6 May 2020 20: 50 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Is it that the amateur admiral deigned to speak out about himself? My condolences to you sick Sasha. You don’t overwork, my dear, one such Russian Napoleon has overworked and is now sitting on the bunk.
        1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 23: 26 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          No, I spoke about you. You were weird with dates, and you didn’t know that there wasn’t the Main Staff since the fifties, claiming that you served 42 calendars in the Navy.
          This is me about you, LeonidL.
          1. LeonidL 6 May 2020 23: 43 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            You came up with this - you wrote clearly about 43 and a half years of sovereign service. Do not lie, Sasha. Miracle with dates is normal, this is exactly what confirms honesty. You, young man, are checking everything, but I’ve remembered it because I’m too lazy to climb into the Internet. Forgotten, sinful. Is this the biggest sin? Now about you, Sasha. You wrote that you did not serve and did not study? But out of great love, they read a lot, engaged in self-education. After all, the truth. So you are an amateur with admiral's ambitions. You teach the leadership of the Moscow Region and the Navy what and how and how much to build, how to command, a certain naval commander-theoretician. You are indefatigable. Now about psychiatrists. It’s because you informed Sasha that you have a certificate from a psychiatrist. It was like that. She is a parachutist for a petrel, a winner in running from bears, a bozelit in a napalm kitchen, a conqueror of Northern Norway and Svalbard, a mineral of the Baltic Sea, etc., is simply necessary. Otherwise, after all, you are scuffle (I think purely theoretical) and literary-warlike pranks, groundless statements and slander on the leaders of the country and the Navy, and they can sue. And here I have a reference without the need for what I already have at hand in a safe. As for the status, here is your flight of indefatigable imagination, not otherwise from overvoltage. and indeed you are very boring and gray in reality. On the basis of your phrases Sasha, I wrote you my thoughts. Read it again. And it is not worth the "peasant son" to reproach a man of noble birth. I don’t reproach you with origin, vice versa. Health to you, success and next achievements. I even congratulate you on the holiday. Officer Sasha for the kid is not offended.
            1. timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 20: 48 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              You are just a sick person, we have already sorted out your "service" with you. On years.
              You did not get a stone flower, LeonidL.
              You haven’t served anywhere, you haven’t written any secret books.
              1. LeonidL 8 May 2020 05: 37 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Do not believe Mr. Admiral amateur Sasha? Well, it is not necessary. Suppose for a moment that this is true in reality, and not in your twilight consciousness. But after all, all that I write about you to people is your real “achievements” and “accomplishments” in your presentation. However, this article ends. What am I supposed to flaunt you if there are no readers already? I'll wait for a new opus. Although they don’t pay me a lot of money for comments, unlike you. Well, then you live from this, because with your beloved Klava you spend a little time, your fingers are callous for self-torture for the good. Well, about those who throws info to you, I already wrote. And why are you so hysterical then? I am not talking about you, dear peasant son, Mr. Admiral, an amateur adversary, unlike you. Well, yes to me, what you write is violet - it’s even nice to sit with friends, read, laugh. Yes, a particularly retired audience noted a joke about how you banned corvettes and frigates ... It was very funny, they laughed a lot.
    2. SovAr238A 8 May 2020 00: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Imagine that even in Soviet times, half of the high-class officers of the military design bureaus did not serve in the army and navy.
      But they designed these planes, ships and boats, they tested them on contented work, etc.
      Developed and implemented communication systems and algorithms, they are also BIUSs. Unlucky.
      And they knew an order of magnitude more than generals and admirals ...
      1. LeonidL 8 May 2020 05: 56 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        AL, it’s only very often and quite logically that all these creations of “not serving” were sent by the servants for complete uselessness and idiocy to the fifth point with their feet, and what was being shoved was sent after a rather short time. For example, the work of OstekhBuro ... Kurchevsky’s guns, remote-controlled everything from boats to tanks and four-engine bombers ... Of all the works of quite talented scientists and designers, only radio mines were used in the war. ideal - everything was so ahead of its time that it could not be realized for battle, although it was created by talented civilians. Or served poorly as a Tupolev torpedo boat. Full of examples from the post-war past, and the present time throws up examples. The clearest example is the work of Mr. Admiral-amateur Timokhin. Without a military or naval education and never serving anyone anywhere. Do not believe? Ask him this question. A man is undoubtedly versatile knows everything about everything and has surpassed everyone in everything, but if his imperative requirements for the authorities, admirals and generals are realized, then the collapse of the RF Armed Forces is certain. What is there. The whole economy and industry will be covered by a basin. Because the country’s road to hell is paved with the good desires of non-professionals. Remember the damned 90s when they steered amateurs of all stripes in all ministries ... Do you want a repetition? ... But the ordinary layman, the ordinary construction battalion of the reserve, timokhiny and other charmers of the authorities and embroidered stars are very nice. "Well, they say he didn’t study them like ours, didn’t serve, but what a rascal!” ... I hope you are not one of them.
    3. Starshina 8 May 2020 21: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Hurry takes when you see how these admirals manage the repair of KUZNETSOV!
  • Per se. 6 May 2020 07: 26 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    The ability or inability to lift and receive aircraft directly depends on how often and at what angles the deck level fluctuates.
    Interesting findings, Alexander. "Defective aircraft carriers and their price to society," the very name of the article, already a sentence, a verdict under which we attract what is convenient to the topic.

    Firstly, the roll of the flight deck is just less critical for vertical launch or landing (if it is necessary for the VTOL aircraft, which can take off from a short take-off or from a "full", saving fuel) than for a catapult and an aerofinisher, with horizontal take-off and landing, on a conventional deck aircraft. But, this, after all, is not essential, we attract what is convenient by the ears?

    Secondly, why prove that, figuratively speaking, the Lexus is cooler than the Priora? Not all fleets can afford a heavy nuclear carrier, and, most importantly, a light aircraft carrier is not an alternative, but an addition to a heavy one. Like VTOL, not an alternative, but an addition. In addition, VTOL is still far from perfect, it is a relatively new type of aircraft that will be improved. VTOL is useful, both in the fleet, where it, like helicopters, has its own niche, and in army aviation, especially in the prospect of destroying kilometer runways with the first strike, and if possible, VTOL can take off from any pit, have better prospects for camouflage and security on earth.

    It is a pity that behind the trees we do not see the forest, and in general ...
    1. SVD68 6 May 2020 07: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      Not all fleets can afford a heavy nuclear carrier, and, most importantly, a light aircraft carrier is not an alternative, but an addition to a heavy one.

      From the first part of the phrase it follows that it’s not just an addition, but an alternative.
      1. Per se. 6 May 2020 08: 54 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: SVD68
        just not an addition, but an alternative
        No, Victor, it’s an addition. There is NATO, there is a division of zones of responsibility and collective participation, where full-fledged AOG are fully provided by the United States. Take the States themselves, which could well have purely decked aircraft, so no, why did they need to create the F-35, create a variant of the VTOL aircraft in a topic in which they lagged behind, having only the AV-8A from the British “Harrier”. Everyone does stupid things if you listen to Alexander, and the Americans, and the former "mistress of the seas", Britain, everyone who builds ships less than the Nimitz, uses VTOL.

        Now, Alexander (to the comment below), your “Where do you all get this stupid? Who told you about this?” This is just not true."What's wrong, the fact that the helicopter and the VTOL are less dependent on the roll of the deck during take-off and landing? Prove that you’ve well illustrated the different details of the pitching. It is clear that it’s better to be young, healthy and rich, than the old, sick and poor. It’s just that it’s hardly correct to prove that VTOL aircraft and light aircraft carriers are weaker (and worse) than atomic monsters, different tasks for different military equipment. So, and diesel-electric submarines can be sentenced, like, - “Defective boats and their price for society "... By the way, unlike VTOL and UDC, Americans are diesels and they’re not building, what’s not the topic, and the US’s maritime authority can already be referenced.
        1. Alexey RA 6 May 2020 11: 20 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Per se.
          Take the States themselves, which could well have purely decked aircraft, so no, why did they need to create the F-35, create a variant of the VTOL aircraft in a topic in which they lagged behind, having only the AV-8A from the British “Harrier”.

          With the American SCVP, everything is simple. This is not a fleet vehicle, but a marine corps. Which wanted to have its own deck-based aircraft based on landing ships - to support the landing until the capture of coastal airfields. And since the ILC no longer has its own ABs for basing normal planes (the naval infantry supported the Air Force in the WWII), I had to get by with vertical lines. At first it was the Harriers, then they replaced them with the F-35B.
          About the Marine Corps squadrons on the big AB, I remember. But the ILC does not particularly hope for the fleet - the AUG during the DESO carry out their tasks and can leave the bridgehead at any time, leaving the marines without aviation.
          1. Per se. 6 May 2020 14: 22 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            This is not a fleet vehicle, but a marine corps.
            This machine, if we talk about the F-35B, has become a fleet machine, in the same Britain, other US allies at sea. In addition, the F-35B can act in aviation support for ground operations, that is, as a purely land fighter, if necessary in a military conflict at a remote theater of operations.

            However, it is not the case. Alexander Timokhin has extremes, this is, literally, all or nothing. “Everything” somehow does not work out, but more tends to “nothing” in our realities. Personally, I would be very happy if Russia had a couple of Ulyanovsk-type nuclear carriers, but here is the eternal dilemma where we don’t want to have a goat and we can’t have a cow ... In addition, I repeat, Yak VTOL -141 we would need, both for the fleet, and as a purely land fighter. We need a normal fleet and UDC, on which such machines would be in demand. So what is the dispute, give the atomic multi-meter floating ideal, or do you need nothing?
            1. Alexey RA 6 May 2020 16: 16 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Per se.
              This machine, if we talk about the F-35B, has become a fleet machine, in the same Britain, other US allies at sea.

              And this is purely British troubles. Exactly the same as in the days when they slaughtered the previous Queen Elizabeth, and then built "solid deck control cruisers"and stuck on them, the Harriers.
              The fleet wanted a full-fledged AB - with nuclear power plants, catapults and normal aircraft. But politicians saved on everything. And after another demand for savings - on catapults - the fleet found itself in a situation where there was no alternative to the F-35B. For Britain did not have its own SECs.
              In the end, due to the actions of politicians, the fleet received two aircraft-carrying barges almost the size of Forrestal, but with the air groups of two Invincibles on each. smile

              The British political leadership has reached such a degree of insanity with this saving on boatsthat has ceased to calculate even the domestic political consequences of their decisions. It got to the point that party comrades had to lead to the meridian Prime Minister, who decided to abandon the construction of the second AB - indicating that the result of his savings would be the dismissal of almost 50 people. Moreover, these dismissals will be right before the elections and just in those constituencies where the position of the party was not too strong.
            2. bk0010 6 May 2020 18: 26 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Per se.
              In addition, I repeat, we would need Yak-141 VTOL aircraft
              Yak-141 is not needed. A good VTOL is needed.
              Quote: Per se.
              So what is the dispute, give the atomic multi-meter floating ideal, or do you need nothing?
              Serve what can solve the tasks. If you can just fly from it - no need. If for some reason the AWACS plane cannot take off from it (namely, the plane - the helicopter does not roll: flies too low and too low, the powerful radar cannot power) - no need. It can’t provide the rise of an air group to solve the assigned tasks - no need. Etc.
              1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 28 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                A good VTOL is needed.


                What for?

                Serve what can solve the tasks. If you can just fly from it - no need.


                So.
                1. bk0010 6 May 2020 20: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  What for?
                  For army aviation
                  1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 22: 15 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    We do not have army aviation, even helicopters are part of the aerospace forces.
                    VTOL is not needed, it has no tasks that could not be solved without it.
                    Therefore, the videoconferencing system is backtracking on this idea in every way - right now.
                  2. mmaxx 7 May 2020 13: 50 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    After all, they tried to use the Yak-38 on land. They refused with horror after they tried. That one is hemorrhage.
              2. Per se. 7 May 2020 06: 58 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: bk0010
                Yak-141 is not needed. A good VTOL is needed.
                Yes, a good VTOL, but, for its time, the Yak-141 was an achievement that was far ahead of the time, surpassing its competitors. Therefore, I cited it as an example, it was already a flying, almost ready plane, on which several world records were set. If you revive the vertical, you still have to start from the work of Yakovlev Design Bureau, from the main developments on the Yak-141.

                Understand correctly, I have already emphasized that VTOL is not an alternative to a carrier-based ejection launch aircraft (or springboard), but an addition. In addition, it is possible, in addition to a vertical launch, to make modifications without it, as in the F-35, that is, for example, the Yak-141, there could be a purely deck fighter with a brake hook for the aerofinisher, as well as a light land fighter for the Air Force. Finally, the VTOL aircraft, without the need for a vertical launch, can very well use the traditional one, saving fuel, while a conventional aircraft does not have such a choice.

                I do not agree with Alexander Timokhin on VTOL, in his categorical "why." Then, that vertical take-off and landing is not a fat demon, but a very useful function in war. Yes, while the cars are not as perfect as we would like, but now they have their own niche, and these cars will have a future. We were the leaders in the topic by making the Yak-141, and without returning to development, we can already be left behind forever. That's the whole story, but Alexander needs to understand that without the topic of VTOL aircraft there will be no topic on an aircraft carrier, if he really cares for the fleet.
        2. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 22: 54 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Now, Alexander (to the comment below), your "Where do you all get this stupidity from? Who told you that? It's just not like that." What's wrong, the fact that the helicopter and VTOL are less dependent on the roll of the deck during take-off and landing?


          SKVVP are as dependent on take-off as a regular airplane. Because the roll of the roll during take-off both in a conventional airplane and in VTOL aircraft will lead to the same consequences.

          With a vertical landing, the vertical oscillation of the deck and the vertical speed of descent of the aircraft are important. When leaving the glide path, where at Su-27 / .33 this speed is 3-5 meters per second immediately before touching the deck, a few seconds before this moment it drops to 1,5-2 m / s near the fighter. With this vertical component of speed, the plane lands.

          Now, with a stopwatch in our hands, we are watching Harrier’s landing.


          The speed is at least not lower. The plane from impact from the deck already bounces.
          Now, if we are talking about a light aircraft carrier, add here the movement of the deck towards the wheels at a speed of a meter per second.

          Regarding the video, this is Uosp type UDC, 40+ thousand tons, more than 200 meters of waterline length. So, just in case.

          These are all questions that have already been eaten up. VTOL has exactly one advantage, the present - it needs a smaller distance for take-off and landing.
          Everything else is a hard minus.
          1. Newone 7 May 2020 01: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            VTOL has more than one advantage. In addition to a shorter take-off and landing distance, the speed of lifting / landing of the VTOL group of aircraft is MUCH higher. For a carrier carrying fighter cover KUG is a HUGE advantage.
            1. mmaxx 7 May 2020 13: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              That's just the duration of the flight after that, no. It would be enough for landing
            2. timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 20: 43 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Only then will they not have fuel for battle. This advantage is a thing in itself.
              1. Newone 7 May 2020 22: 01 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Why not, Alexander? They don’t need to fly far, the enemy himself flies to us, the combat load in the fighter version is minimal.
    2. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 08: 03 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Firstly, the roll of the flight deck is just less critical for vertical launch or landing (if it is necessary for the VTOL aircraft, which can take off from a short take-off or from a "full", saving fuel) than for a catapult and an aerofinisher, with horizontal take-off and landing, on a conventional deck aircraft. But, this, after all, is not essential, we attract what is convenient by the ears?


      Where do you all get this stupidity? Who told you about this? This is simply not so.
    3. Usher 6 May 2020 10: 09 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      What nonsense did you write about the roll? Can I have a detailed explanation?
    4. Cyril G ... 8 May 2020 09: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      As for the VTOL, it is correctly said
  • Dmitry from Voronezh 6 May 2020 07: 35 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    An interesting article with an abundance of facts and examples. However, it is not certain. The British aircraft carriers in the Falkland conflict also played their part successfully, so the winners are not judged. It is possible that classical aircraft carriers would do better, but this is from the category of “what would happen if ...” It is also impossible to agree that Russia has some special opinion about light aircraft carriers, UDC and VTOL aircraft. Rather, there are problems with the construction of large ships in general. Who and for how many years will be able to build us an aircraft carrier with a displacement equal to Kuznetsov? 15 years? 20 years? So it’s clear that different ideas about light aircraft carriers and UDK aircraft carriers are beginning to appear here ... At least such ships can be mastered now, and then if shipbuilding enterprises manage to be pulled up, you can think about normal aircraft carriers. But this is a question of 10-15 years ...
    1. Usher 6 May 2020 10: 16 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      An interesting article with an abundance of facts and examples. However, it is not certain. The British aircraft carriers in the Falkland conflict also played their part successfully, so the winners are not judged. It is possible that classic aircraft carriers would do better, but this is from the category of "what would happen if ..."

      facespalm is simple! When you read, do you understand the words? And then "what would happen"? It's not about that !!!! It's just that the British light aircraft carriers almost did not cope, and they were simply LUCKY. And if there was an adequate adversary, then there would be a rout! And the very concept of a light aircraft carrier is flawed, the same story with the Yorks and the British always came up with projects of a "cheap" ship, and all this turned out not to be economical, but to destroy or shame. Even when I read Parks about the battleships of Great Britain. He came to the thought of why build deliberately weaker ships, the point is in them? If the ship still has to meet the enemy and he will be weaker. What would drown? To do this, build "cheap" ships? It's like a proverb "we are not so rich that we would buy cheap things"
  • Niko 6 May 2020 07: 40 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Interesting two articles. First, it is explained that small aircraft carriers, and even more so, with SVVP are no good, and the example of the unloved English at the Falklands shows that both small ships and SVVP are quite capable of coping with the task (albeit not a task ....) and about pitching and SVVP an interesting idea ... A big and expensive one with good planes is better than a small and old one with bad planes a new idea in general (and right there about Kuznetsov)
    1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 08: 04 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      At the Falklands, the Britons ran AGAINST the qualities of their technology, and not thanks to them.
      In a previous article, this is discussed in sufficient detail.
      1. Niko 6 May 2020 13: 55 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        I do not agree. In the last article, the myth that SVVP is BETTER than usual in a particular case is exposed, with this everything is ok. But what does the thesis mean that the airborne forces and the corresponding aircraft carriers are not able to cope with the specific task? (Even if you accept the view that conventional planes (even better than basic aviation would have handled it better) Of course it's cool how to approach the coast at 44-45m with such a number (and quality) to any coast that you can simply grind both the base and carrier enemy aviation, but in the modern world even the usa, with their monsters and the rest, will not be able to afford this anymore?
        1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 31 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Several staff officers capable of:

          1. plan a synchronized raid from two air bases, not in turn, but simultaneously.
          2. Understand, it is necessary to attack transports, not missile ships.

          And Britain would lose the war. But against the scrap in the form of 25-30 Phantoms such a technique would not work.

          They stayed on the bloody nozzle there. A miracle.
          1. find2312 6 May 2020 22: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, for example, the British would have saved Ark Royal, and that, in the South Atlantic, there are frequent storms and just excitement above 5 points according to Douglas (wave height above 4 meters) and everything under such hydrometeorological conditions Phantoms are not like Ark, they are not to Nimitz will be able to sit down (vertical movement of the stern upwards of more than 13 feet (4 meters) and an aircraft hitting the stern; landing on Nimitz with pitching of more than 2,5 ° is prohibited.
            Naturally, Ark’s limits are even higher, so Ark with Phantoms would swing like a piece of iron, and Argentine Etandars would impose exosets with impunity, if not Harriers, of course, they could naturally land with helicopter restrictions typical for helicopters
            1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 23: 08 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              And the Harriers would fly quietly, right? They cannot "land with restrictions for helicopters", these are the restrictions with which helicopters land.
              This is somewhere 4 points


              Well, the question of taking off from a small boat with a volition of at least a point of three was not disclosed, then Harrier did not fly vertically with a combat load.
              1. find2312 6 May 2020 23: 59 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Here are the restrictions on landing aircraft of an aeronautical landing on a CVN of Nimitz class, everything is described in detail with links, if you study the Atlantic fleet near the Falklands, you can understand that in the autumn-winter period Nimitz will be ready for deck aircraft for about 30-40% of the day for a month it is because of the restrictions on pitching and wind, on Ark Royal these figures will be even worse.

                Here is the detailed link for the above https://vk.com/wall-173678697_91672
                1. timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 20: 52 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Yes, I understand that Nimitz will have a lot of restrictions, the question is that for a tin 210 meters long, these restrictions will begin much earlier and precisely by keel pitching, and put some sophisticated dampers into it in order to board the wave and Still, you can’t lift the plane because of the small volumes. Maximum rudders.
                  1. find2312 7 May 2020 21: 28 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    The problem is precisely that the aircraft of the aerofinishing landing are simply obliged to keep the landing glide path angle of 3,5 ° or maximum 4 ° on landing, deviations in the course no more than 3 °, deviation from the center of the AF receiving cable no more than 3 meters, aircraft speed no less than 230 km / h, headwind no more than 30 knots.

                    At the same time, a glide path change of 2 ° down (pitching) is an aircraft strike in the stern, a glide path increase of 2 ° is a strike on a deck with a Vy of more than 7 m / s and destruction of the aircraft on the deck, course deviation, landing with speeding or landing off-center of the cable - breakage of the AF receiving cable with the corresponding consequences for the ship and aircraft.
                    The headwind of more than 30 knots is the impossibility of landing due to a tangled track from the corner deck and the superstructure of an aircraft carrier.

                    So, all these restrictions, characteristic of Nimitz and especially Ark aircraft, do not apply to SUVVP (Harrier or F-35B), for which, when landing on an aircraft carrier, you don’t need either a specific glide path, or keeping a certain, strictly constant speed, or receiving strength cable, no headwind speed, as SUVVP can just sit in the direction of the stern on an aircraft carrier walking in the wind.

                    Conclusion: an aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type and especially Ark in the conditions of the Atlantic Ocean, in wartime, at the most crucial moment of an enemy attack, it may turn out to be sky-ready by aircraft due to ocean waves over 5 points in Douglas and winds over 30 knots
              2. Cyril G ... 7 May 2020 11: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Rather, five, again becoming a nose to the wave, you can reduce the pitching as much as possible by paying a keel, but it will be easier to live here.
                1. find2312 7 May 2020 12: 50 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  This can be reduced, but on keel pitching with vertical movements of the stern exceeding + -13 feet (4 m), landing on Nimitz is impossible, because under normal conditions the hook passes the stern at a height of 14,1 feet (4,3 m), it remains when moving the stern +4 m, the reserve is only 30 cm, and with any slightly higher wave the plane will crash into the stern.

                  This daytime, in the dark, the restrictions on pitching are even tougher.

                  And these parameters are max. keel pitching for Nimitsa in 100.000 tons of displacement, and for a small (53.000 tons) limitation on pitching is even tougher
              3. Demagogue 7 May 2020 13: 23 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Alexander, again pull the owl on the globe. On a small boat and from the sky taken by pitching an example. Here is a link for a video of the f-35v landing on America at 4 points. https://www.businessinsider.com/f35b-vertical-landing-sea-2016-11
                Generally no problem. I give this video, because it has information on the sea state. And so here are still curious with landings on the smaller size Vos and with a lot worse weather. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jg9sRj9CZA0&t=498s
                1. timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 21: 48 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Planners said the F-35B was testing in sea state 4 with swells of up to 6 feet accompanied with approximately 15 knots of wind.


                  According to the Douglas scale, 4 points are waves from 1,25 to 2,5 meters, so there is no contradiction. The ship in the video shakes, but white breakers are not visible, this is not the strongest excitement in fact. He would not fly closer to the edge of the scale.

                  Well, in the text a jamb, swell is a swell, and there the wind. Okay.

                  Well, America is not an easy aircraft carrier; it is a very large ship, if it had a catapult, at 1,8 meters there it would be possible to land the Hornet.
                  And the article is about ships, basically.

                  And so here are still curious with landings on the smaller size Vos and with a lot worse weather. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jg9sRj9CZA0&t=498s


                  Judging by the waves from two to three points. Mostly two. And yes, USPP is a huge ship, it is only slightly smaller than America, it is not an easy aircraft carrier.
                  1. Demagogue 7 May 2020 22: 00 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    https://www.mvs.usace.army.mil/Media/Videos/videoid/587893/

                    Here you have the breakers. And now Rep. "Mat, give things back." And do not write that the breakers are not white enough.

                    With regard to the displacement of Vosp, 40 from 000 Izumo are not far gone.
                    1. timokhin-aa 10 May 2020 22: 45 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Andrei, for reference, this is 3 points from a high-sided vessel.


                      Regarding the rest.
                      You stubbornly illustrate my thesis about the inferiority of light aircraft carriers with the help of an example such as Wosp, which is larger in some dimensions than that mentioned in the Eagle article, for example, it is longer and its pitching is comparable to a large aircraft carrier. Why are you doing it?

                      Regarding the Izumo, this is probably the most meaningless ship on the planet. Its price, main power plant, REV and dimensions correspond to a normal aircraft carrier, approximately like the English "Vikrant"
                      For the same money that Russian Izumo will cost, you can build this one - https://topwar.ru/167092-avianosec-dlja-rossii-bystree-chem-vy-ozhidaete.html

                      At the same time, there is no need to develop VTOL aircraft, since it is much easier to create a modification of the MiG-29K with a reinforced nose and a front landing gear, this is literally a three-year question.
                      In contrast, ask how many Americans made the f-35b.

                      And again the question arises - why?
                      1. Demagogue 11 May 2020 08: 04 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Alexander, you are empirically approaching the analysis. You did not provide any reliable information on the restrictions on landing f-35v on udk. Give, we will discuss, I gave you a link where 4 points were announced at least. This is a fact, and in response I would like to get the facts, not speculation.
                        The USA, Italy, Japan, Spain, even Korea wants to use the udk in conjunction with the f-35v as an aircraft carrier, even Korea wants to base the f-35v on the small Dokdo and is designing a larger ship for it. The Japanese went to Izumo for 50 years, building several prototypes. No need to insult their mental abilities. Izumo costs 1.2 million, which is normal for the Japanese. We built an analogue in tonnage in the form of a mistral with the French for 650. And now, let's compare this with 8 billion for a full-fledged aircraft carrier. At half its cost, you can have 6 ships, of which 2 are under repair, and 4 are in service and really cover the mine on all possible TVDs.
                      2. timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 10: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Alexander, you are empirically approaching the analysis. You did not provide any reliable information on the restrictions on landing f-35v on udk.


                        I wrote on light aircraft carriers. With the monstrous American UDC, the question is different - they cost almost the same as a normal carrier with 25-30 aircraft with horizontal take-off.

                        Moreover, in a serious war they cannot be used until air supremacy is achieved.

                        And it, if there are no airdromes nearby, cannot be won without an aircraft carrier.

                        Give, we will discuss, I gave you a link where 4 points were announced at least.


                        So there and the height of the waves was announced. 4 points on an accepted scale - 1,25-2,5 meters. And there was 1.8. For a ship the size of Uosp tolerant, for a kid like Invincible is no longer there.

                        The Japanese went to Izumo for 50 years, building several prototypes. No need to insult their mental abilities. Izumo costs 1.2 million, which is normal for the Japanese. We built an analogue in tonnage in the form of a mistral with the French for 650. And now, let's compare this with 8 billion for a full-fledged aircraft carrier.


                        You must compare the Japanese with the Japanese. If they had added half a billion more, they would have received a 30-LA ejection aircraft carrier.

                        Izumo is not a well-thought-out concept, but a cunning maneuver to secretly "return to business" for everyone, like Hiyuga.
                        https://topwar.ru/150881-ostrie-kopja-skolko-realno-avianoscev-u-japonii-i-chto-oni-mogut.html

                        And he is never perfect. And he needs airplanes, which we DO NOT have.

                        Now, let's compare this with 8 billion for a full-fledged aircraft carrier.


                        A lot of. It can be cheaper.
                        And you can compare this with about 150 billion rubles for a full upgrade of Kuznetsov and a life extension program for this ship, which will allow him to be in service and operate normally until 2040, without interruption for long repairs.
                        Plus here 350-400 billion for a second aircraft carrier to replace.
                      3. Demagogue 11 May 2020 11: 27 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        1) How much is the Voz 40 tons superior to Izumo 000 tons in f-30v landing capabilities? With sources please.
                        2) Invincible 22 tons. I did not offer to build such a fishing machine. 000 is optimal. 30 tons are already 000 billion apiece. It is expensive for us.
                        3) We have a plane. Yak-141, it needs to be upgraded to the level of Raphael, and then on the basis of technology to make the 5th generation. The radius and combat load are excellent there.
                        4) Regarding combat qualities. The British at the Falklands defended themselves against the Argentineans many times superior to them. In defense, fighting is easier. The enemy has no fuel to conduct a maneuverable air battle. Even the 4th generation will give us the opportunity to cover up Kug. And reconnaissance of targets will give tsu for calibers from our self-propelled barges.
                        5) We will not build a large aircraft carrier. We have no project and experience. You must first build. A couple of prototypes to get to a full-fledged combat unit. With our designers for sure. Look at the Chinese, at the Japanese, 50 years to Izumo. That is, we will have a full-fledged aircraft carrier in 20-30 years. If it will be. By that time, maybe robots from Robotek will already have to take the tree back to the forest. And udk tomorrow and they can always be used as udk. Do not be lost.
                      4. timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 13: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        1) How much is the Voz 40 tons superior to Izumo 000 tons in f-30v landing capabilities? With sources please.


                        Andrei, do you read what I write to you? Izumo is the same GEM as a normal aircraft carrier and the same electronic weapon system as a normal aircraft carrier has the same two lifts as a normal aircraft carrier and almost the same amount of steel.
                        The question arises - why build Izumo, if adding side sponsons (+10000 steel), slightly narrowing the contours of the submerged part to maintain speed, buying two catapults and a set of finishers on the same thing, you can build a normal aircraft carrier?
                        And where is the pitching?

                        But still I will answer.
                        At the zero wave at Wosp, the pitching period is almost the same, the difference is 0,3 seconds.
                        On a wave, the difference between Wasp and Izumo will increase as the ratio of wavelength (which can be different at the same height, that is, points here past) to the length of the ship increases.

                        In general, they are not very different from each other, the difference in length is several meters, with a draft of 0,6 meters.
                        Are you happy with this answer?

                        2) Invincible 22 tons. I did not offer to build such a fishing machine. 000 is optimal. 30 tons are already 000 billion apiece. It is expensive for us.


                        Why expensive? Three Ash - an aircraft carrier without an air group. Have you noticed how bad your pocket is after the first two Ashenes? No?

                        3) We have a plane. Yak-141, it needs to be upgraded to the level of Raphael, and then on the basis of technology to make the 5th generation.


                        This is just a frivolous conversation. How to understand "upgrade to the level of Raphael"? You look at Rafal's load on the wing, thrust-weight ratio, the number of suspension points of weapons, do not be lazy. How are you going to upgrade the Yak to this level.
                        And most importantly - why, if we already have a MiG-29K?

                        4) Regarding combat qualities. The British at the Falklands defended against the Argentineans many times superior to them


                        A couple of military advisers from the USSR - and would not resist. Do you want our wars to be won at that level of luck too? And if it does not burn out?
                        In 1990, in my year, at the GosNII AC, I carried out a mathematical simulation of the Falkland War with our ships, it turned out that if a ship with a TTX was shaved like about Kuznetsov’s, not a single Argentine fighter could have carried out any NK attacks in the strait, in principle .
                        Do you understand the difference between this and what really happened?
                        That's what this whole series is about.

                        Look at the Chinese, at the Japanese, 50 years to Izumo. That is, we will have a full-fledged aircraft carrier in 20-30 years.


                        If you hit it now, then after 15. With 10 years to build.
                        In the presence of ready-made aircraft.
                        And just creating a prototype of the VTOL aircraft will take just as many years. And somewhere 1/5 of the cost of the ship.
                      5. Demagogue 11 May 2020 14: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        1) The second elevator is not a problem at all. Making a race out of our udk is also optional. We need a sufficiently improved version of Mistral, more sharpened by the functions of an aircraft carrier. And this is 650 million, well, 800 maximum. The main thing about pitching, we finally decided, like Vosp. Plus minus.
                        2)
                        Have you noticed how bad your pocket is after the first two Ashenes? No?

                        I may have noticed after the rook. Udk we are already building some. I do not follow, but it seems like a miserable Surf. For the same money, you can do something more decent. What, see above.
                        3) The yak is quite real. At sea, no matter what the load. The English won with the defective Harriers.
                        4) Here are the benefits Kuznetsova is not sure at all. Would break all the cables on the second day and that’s all. The cauldron would have knocked and argi found it by smoke. We have poor operation of complex mechanisms.

                        Looking at the Surf and Storm projects, I generally hardly believe that something can happen. Yes, and we all have one no deck cars. No drill. Neither the Mig-29 nor the Su-57 are deck decks.
  • Niko 8 May 2020 08: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And by the way, it’s possible for FSMS to improvise a little to build an additional base on the coast for “2 kopecks” (compared to your “right” aircraft, too
    1. timokhin-aa 10 May 2020 22: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Likbez.
      https://topwar.ru/170069-likbez-bezajerodromnoe-i-rassredotochennoe-bazirovanie-aviacii.html
      1. Niko 11 May 2020 11: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I sent your educational program along with an article to the defense departments of all countries that have light aircraft carriers in service and plan to build them, and also have plans for "under-planes" (from the USA and RUSSIA, to Japan, etc., etc.) They are all in shock at last there was one clever who explained everything to them (I think they will send me a fee)
        1. timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 13: 42 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Silly irony, in essence, there is something to say.
          By the way, taking into account how much sabotage our MO is carrying out on work on the domestic vertical line, at least one country understands everything perfectly.
          1. Newone 11 May 2020 14: 56 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            In essence, Timokhin should write an entire article with a description of where you are wrong in his pathosly named article.
  • timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 22: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But what does the thesis mean that the airborne forces and the corresponding aircraft carriers are not able to cope with the specific task?


    The thesis was that they cope much worse than normal aircraft carriers and normal aircraft in the same situations, with a high risk of failure.
    1. find2312 7 May 2020 22: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In ocean conditions, with a roll of more than 5 points, or a wind of more than 30 knots, an Nimitz class aircraft carrier will crash the entire air group for landing, while Harriers or more powerful F-35B jet nozzles in terms of thrust nozzles will take off for themselves and moreover board a smaller ship - this fact, all the arguments above I cited
  • mmaxx 7 May 2020 13: 56 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In the Falklands, the Britons won by tradition. Came to war - we must fight. You take what you eat and fight. The fleet, like a piece of iron, was bad, and the fleet, as an organization, was quite good to itself. It's somehow quite traditional for them. wink
    1. timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 21: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Something like that. Organization and preparation won, not technology.
  • Nemchinov Vl 10 May 2020 20: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    At the Falklands, the Britons ran AGAINST the qualities of their technology, and not thanks to them.
    In a previous article, this is discussed in sufficient detail.
    and in relation to the shipbuilding of the Russian Federation, it must be understood how ?! But wouldn’t we lay an aircraft carrier in 90-100 thousand tons. ?! we will form AUG from .... One avik and .... five icebreakers ...?!
  • kpd
    kpd 6 May 2020 07: 47 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Any aircraft carrier - "money down the drain", like other types of warships. They are built in order to reduce losses, and not in order to earn.
    1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 08: 17 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Only in one case they reduce these losses, and in the other - just ships for money.
      And this is a big difference.
  • Demagogue 6 May 2020 07: 50 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    The author did not give the data on the pitching, which I requested earlier. Instead, photos are posted. At what pitching the Japanese Izumo will not be able to launch f-35v? Simple question.
    1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 08: 06 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Not easy, you need to calculate Izumo using a rather complicated hardware, and relying on figures from open sources.

      The question is not this, but is it a better ship with catapults and F-35C?
      1. Demagogue 6 May 2020 08: 46 New
        • 9
        • 3
        +6
        Better if your country is called USA. A bunch of marine TVD and communications that need to be protected, and money is not limited. According to Izumo, just one simple digit. On frigates, helicopter decks can operate up to 6 points or more. These are small boats of 4 tons, and here 000. Accordingly, the f-27v is upright up to 000 points exactly. Vertically. What are 35 points?
        And doesn’t it seem strange to you that the same Americans are building a bunch of lhd and lha and conducting exercises on how to use them as aircraft carriers with f-35v? The Japanese want 3 pieces. And the Chinese are hysterical about this. What is it for? After all, a waste of money.
      2. find2312 6 May 2020 13: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        On the issue of the possibility of flights from a Nimitz class aircraft carrier in conditions of sea waves (namely, the possibility of landing a CX class fighter, and not ship seaworthiness), there is a note https://vk.com/wall-173678697_91672
  • Avior 6 May 2020 07: 52 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    The three main problems of aircraft carrier construction are the technical complexity, the construction cost, and the time and cost associated with it, the technical complexity of the operation.
    1. Technical complexity - an aircraft carrier under VTOL is incomparably simpler in design and technical complexity than a classic aircraft carrier.
    France built its Charles de Gaulle for 16 years, despite the fact that they could use the help of the Americans as much as they needed.
    For example, a huge bonus - they did not have to create catapults themselves, they just bought them from those who have vast experience in this matter.
    Otherwise, a couple of catapults would have pulled a good plus a half cost, or even more, an aircraft carrier is a unique technique in a single production.
    If at all created, that is not at all a fact.
    Price is a separate issue. The more expensive, the higher the likelihood of delaying construction.
    The cost of de Gaulle is about 3,3 billion, as they say.
    In practice, this led to constant delays in construction. So it’s with them, with their experience and, again, unlimited possibilities, to get help from those who have eaten a dog on aircraft carriers (well, or a hot-dog carriage of hot dogs smile ).
    How long will construction take without this help? 30-40 years and two more money?
    When the British, probably reading the articles of Alexander smile, decided to make a classic aircraft carrier instead of VTOL aircraft, only this doubled the price, already considerable. Well, they thought better of it, and finished the construction, otherwise it would also be unfinished for 30 years.
    But their aircraft carriers are a different story about how you do not need to build aircraft carriers and not try to do better instead of just good.
    All this resembles a summer residence, when the owner swung to three floors, and then the circumstances changed as expected and there is an unfinished summer cottage, pulls money, and its owner looks at neighbors who have a simpler cottage, but have it.
    Spaniards bake their Juan Carlos like pies, sometimes faster than project deadlines.
    A similar situation with other UDC.
    The usual price of a large UDC is 1 billion plus or minus.
    Technical complexity is incomparably less than that of classic aircraft carriers.
    No wonder they are being built quickly.
    However, there are exceptions. There are two, more precisely one and a half smile .
    Americans (with these it’s clear, and even the technical complexity of the aircraft carriers creates problems even for them, and they need money, like Popandopulo’s from Wedding in Robin, they’ll still draw smile ) and the Chinese are half-they have not yet reached the level of normal classic aircraft carriers, and how they will go, no one knows until their level is training, the level of Kuznetsov, and the maximum is conditionally combat.
    The Chinese, by the way, did not begin to reinvent the wheel, but went completely along the Soviet path, from springboard to springboard and then to purely catapult.
    Therefore, the alternative is worth it - or you will have a UDC or a light aircraft carrier (the line between them will be washed away in the future) in an acceptable time frame or you will, perhaps in forty years, have a classic one.
    Well, the third option is to have a training one - without catapults and VTOL.
    It makes sense if after that you intend to quickly create a normal battle-like the Chinese.
    So the choice is really simple - or you will most likely have an aircraft carrier simpler or even higher - no.
    1. SVD68 6 May 2020 08: 10 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Avior
      Therefore, the alternative is worth it - or you will have a UDC or a light aircraft carrier (the line between them will be washed away in the future) in an acceptable time frame or you will, perhaps in forty years, have a classic one.

      Here the question is - why do we need a light aircraft carrier? What tactical schemes will it be used in?
      For example, Admiral Zamvolt proposed building light aircraft carriers as an escort of convoys to protect Soviet single-range bombers Tu-16, Tu-142 from single attacks. And for what?
      1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 08: 47 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        And we don’t need anything, and talk
        1. Cyril G ... 6 May 2020 09: 21 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          So to us and a large aircraft carrier, actually speaking, is useless.
      2. Avior 6 May 2020 09: 34 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        For the same as everyone else.
        Universal ship for all occasions.
        Expeditionary missions against a weak adversary, strengthening presence in case of possible limited regional conflicts, enhancing aviation capabilities in case of major conflicts near their coasts within the reach of coastal aviation - as an operational reserve with quick response, monitoring communications, blocking and releasing operations outside of coastal aviation etc.
        For war with the United States is suitable to a limited extent.
        Only from the USA there are rockets.
        But if Spain or Italy suddenly decides that Spanish fishermen, and not Russian, should fish in this sea and begin to arrest Russian ships there, there is simply nothing to answer.
        And even if a conflict arises there and they strike a warship, no one will respond with nuclear missiles, but the rest is very small.
        Well, some conditional tomatoes can still be banned, but this is not serious.
        And the presence of such a UDC over the horizon with a daily flyby of the region greatly sober up anyone.
        hi
    2. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 08: 16 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      1. Technical complexity - an aircraft carrier under VTOL is incomparably simpler in design and technical complexity than a classic aircraft carrier.


      It is easier to catapult and finisher. We know how to make finishers and almost completed the catapult in due time. The rest is indistinguishable provided that the sizes coincide. The same power plant, the same drives, etc.
      Only the output possibilities are not comparable.

      Price is a separate issue. The more expensive, the higher the likelihood of delaying construction.


      Well, let's see how the Britons saved, we think. The facts are there.

      Spaniards bake their Juan Carlos like pies, sometimes faster than project deadlines.
      A similar situation with other UDC.
      The usual price of a large UDC is 1 billion plus or minus.
      Technical complexity is incomparably less than that of classic aircraft carriers.


      You understand already - this is not a fetish, to have boats with airplanes, any. This is a weapon, and it should be able to be used for its intended purpose.
      On our theater, for example, it is mandatory. And where will Juan Carlos be, if there are complaints about even Cousin's seaworthiness?
      And how many tons of bombs per day can be delivered to the enemy from Juan Carlos, if he presses the bomb?
      5 tons?

      Therefore, the alternative is worth it - or you will have a UDC or a light aircraft carrier (the line between them will be washed away in the future) in an acceptable time frame or you will, perhaps in forty years, have a classic one.


      We ALREADY HAVE an aircraft carrier, the money needs to be sent to bring it into a combat-ready state, then based on the NPKB's achievements, make a normal ship, even if they build it for 10 years.
      You re-read the last article again, because there is a comparison of VTOL aircraft with normal aircraft at least in terms of combat load.
      And there is such a nuance as the timeline for the development of VTOL and its cost.
      As a person who delves into these topics for a long time, I declare - 20 years and about 60-70 billion before the first flight.

      Then half of the commentators will die when he takes off. What is the sense to interfere in this fornication now? We will be able to build an aircraft carrier faster than to do VTOL.
      1. Avior 6 May 2020 09: 18 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Well, let's see how the Britons saved, we think. The facts are there.

        and I wrote, this is an example of how you do not need to build aircraft carriers.
        After all, they converted it into a catapult, and when they saw that it was raising the price by half, they refused.
        but left a place for catapults and finishers.
        It is easier to catapult and finisher. We know how to make finishers and almost completed the catapult in due time.

        its time was 30 years ago, and the catapult was not completed. and no one knows whether it turned out then or not.
        In any case, do it again, with unknown prospects to do at all.
        And nowhere to install them anyway.
        the French needed 16 years with knowingly reliable ready-made catapults and finishes
        so
        Only the output possibilities are not comparable.

        not an alternative, but the illusion of an alternative.
        You understand already - this is not a fetish, to have boats with airplanes, any. This is a weapon, and it should be able to be used for its intended purpose.

        it’s not a fetish, like Kuznetsov is now.
        And where will Juan Carlos be, if there are complaints about even Cousin's seaworthiness?

        Nimits also have a limitation. What are they not good for?
        Any ship is a compromise between the possibilities and the amount of money you can pay. A ship of 30-40 thousand tons is quite seaworthy by definition.
        And the smaller British aircraft carriers showed it in the Falklands.
        We ALREADY HAVE an aircraft carrier, the money needs to be sent to bring it into a combat-ready state, then based on the NPKB's achievements, make a normal ship, even if they build it for 10 years.
        You re-read the last article again, because there is a comparison of VTOL aircraft with normal aircraft at least in terms of combat load.

        Kuznetsov is the ship on which the VTOL aircraft were to become the basis of the air group.
        In this form, it makes sense as a battle. In its current form, it’s only as an educational one, as the Chinese directly call it, without fetishism.
        About 10 years is a joke?
        The French, in the presence of proven and tested the most complex components and construction experience, have been building for 16 years.
        in the absence of all this, at least 2 times, if at all technically and financially possible, who could talk about current finances and opportunities in 1991.
        After 30 years, a minimum means never.
        comparison of VTOL aircraft with normal aircraft at least in combat load

        Firstly, even VTOL aircraft with a load of 500 kg-ton are much better than none, secondly, now it is less relevant than forty years ago due to the development of guided ammunition, and thirdly, something else. Compare the F-35 in versions B and C for the maximum combat load? It is the same, 9 tons, in reality, all the same, the third part is used, or even less.
        As a person who delves into these topics for a long time, I declare - 20 years and about 60-70 billion before the first flight.

        Yes, the aircraft carrier is 10 years old, and the aircraft is 20.
        In aviation, there was a much greater margin of opportunity than in the Navy.
        There are fresh developments on the Su-57.
        All you need is a decision to make such a plane, just normal, and not try to do "having no analogues in the world." Let it have analogues, to hell with it.
        But in 7-10 years the plane will be.
        It will suit both Kuznetsov and UDC.

        In parallel to build UDC.
        Even if the aircraft drags on for a while, the first time the UDC can be armed with helicopters, there are no problems with them.
        It will be a guaranteed tit in the hand, and not an abstract crane in the sky ....
        hi
        1. Usher 6 May 2020 10: 23 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          not an alternative, but the illusion of an alternative.

          These are just your words, you can normally argue, and not write somehow incomprehensible letters for your FAQ? I noticed that you constantly write criticizing everyone and relying simply on the air in your criticism. The pathos and insignificant words "not an alternative, but an illusion of an alternative" you can go down from heaven to earth and scatter what and how? On the VTOL account, here you’ll just be very mistaken,
          Compare the F-35 in versions B and C for the maximum combat load? It is the same, 9 tons, in reality, all the same, the third part is used, or even less.
          you distort again, the Angruzka is one, so the range is different. Do you understand what this is about? You just get to the bottom of the words, like some sort of ZEK in the "hut."
          1. Avior 6 May 2020 11: 06 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            I am flattered that you follow so carefully what I write in the comments.
            You have such a personal dislike for me that you can’t even eat, but follow me all?
            In fact, I wrote to a specific person with whom I had discussed this question more than once, and brought such evidence to him.
            If you wedged in someone else's communication, you could ask at first, and then express your opinions, and even in a harsh form outside of decency.
            Well, I will explain to you personally, although I am not obliged to do this.
            Actually, I personally don’t owe you anything, I didn’t write all this to you, but to Alexander Timokhin, whom I attribute to the group of the most interesting authors at the VO, although I do not always agree with him.
            1. The construction of such large and technically complex ships as an aircraft carrier requires experience, and if it is not there, but it is not, then the accumulation of this experience, and this requires a lot of money and time.
            What we now observe in the example of China, they are following the path of complication and operating time in the construction of aircraft carriers.
            First, they completed the semi-completed Soviet springboard, then created a similar one of their own, then they make an intermediate catapult-springboard, and only then they want to switch to a full-fledged ejection aircraft carrier. This is the right approach to construction with a consistent accumulation of experience.
            Do you consider it real in the current Russian conditions?
            2. A classic aircraft carrier is such a technically sophisticated ship that today in the world they are independently built by a single state, you yourself know which, with vast, almost a century of experience in such construction and very large financial resources for obvious reasons, they print them.
            Moreover, even with its help in complex issues, the classical aircraft carrier in the foreseeable time also managed to build only one single state, France. They just bought the most technologically sophisticated components from the Americans.
            Will the States of Russia sell them? For example catapults? In addition to the States, no one has yet been able to create them in at least the last half century, there has been an attempt to create them in the USSR, but it has not been completed and no one knows if they would have tarred even then to create a catapult suitable for actual use in combat conditions.
            3. UDC and light aircraft carriers build and possess them in a larger number of states, but even a very limited number of finger countries can even build them, it’s enough to count, perhaps.
            Which also indicates the complexity of the task.
            Moreover, countries that are building or are planning to build classic aircraft carriers do not refuse UDC, and they are also building them, from which we can conclude that even the presence of a classical aircraft carrier is not considered an alternative to UDC, and it still needs to be built.

            On the VTOL account, here you’ll just be very mistaken,

            i see you
            in your criticism you rely simply on the air.

            one load, so the range is different. Do you understand what this is about?

            Do you yourself understand? And what should be the range?
            In any case, in most tasks, the load will be much lower than the maximum, 9 tons is not something that can not be accommodated in the internal hatches, but it is also difficult to suspend on the external suspension.
            Hopefully not wasted time.
            No, well, it’s your business, carefully monitor what I’m writing on, then I see that the cons suddenly started appearing on the most innocent posts. Now understand.....
            1. Usher 6 May 2020 11: 28 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Again, just words. At the expense of range, it is YOU who found fault with the characteristics taken out of context.
              1. Avior 6 May 2020 11: 34 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Take a close look at the range of modern U.S. American carrier-based aircraft.
                And then compare with the range of the F-35V
        2. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 21: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          its time was 30 years ago, and the catapult was not completed. and no one knows whether it turned out then or not.


          The catapult of the Proletarsky factory almost failed, and, in general, it was clear what was being done there to make it work.
          But already in the post-Soviet era, the carts flew from Russian electromagnetic installations (experimental catapults, in fact, simply not in the serial version suitable for installation on a ship).
          All documentation has been preserved, calculations and technologies have been preserved, except for us now Indians and Chinese make catapults and we can cooperate with all.
          There is no problem making a catapult.

          the French needed 16 years with knowingly reliable ready-made catapults and finishes


          This is the result of insane attempts to cram the unseen. De Gaulle has the world's most charged pitch damping system. No wonder they fumbled with him so much.
          They also did not have a finished ship nuclear power plant, it is obviously easier with us.
          Our finishers, by the way, are also ready.

          Nimits also have a limitation. What are they not good for?


          They have, yes. But much smaller than any Juan Carlos.

          Firstly, even VTOL with a load of 500 kg- ton is much better than no


          There is such a thing as a "waste of money." That 500 kg, that zero - the same. Then it’s better to spend money on a coup d'etat, or on a war with the wrong hands, like Obama in Syria, or come up with something else similar — it will be cheaper.
          The benefits of investing in warships and aircraft are non-linear, when lowering the TTX of a weapon below a certain level, its value abruptly jumps to zero and remains there.
          Your VTOL aircraft capable of raising half a ton of bombs - from there.
          Even the Yak-38 could raise a ton.

          Kuznetsov is the ship on which the VTOL aircraft were to become the basis of the air group.
          In this form, it makes sense as a battle. In its current form, it’s only as an educational one, as the Chinese directly call it, without fetishism.


          Absurd logic. Let me translate into Russian - with a bad aircraft Kuzya warship, and with good training.

          In addition, you are mistaken about his air group. Back in 82, when the group of Rear Admiral Matveychuk was calculating all these issues, then the hypothetical Su-27K, MiG-29K and Su-25K, which failed, were taken as the standard.
          The ship itself was originally planned as an ejection, the springboard appeared there by Ustinov's personal decision, if you remember it by night.

          Yes, the aircraft carrier is 10 years old, and the aircraft is 20.


          The PAK FA program started in 2003 on the basis of a previous almost twenty-year reserve.
          In this reserve, there was, for example, the Berkut airplane, on which a lot of things were worked out, at least in terms of materials. And with Golden Eagle together, we are talking about many decades of work.
          Until now, the plane is not really in the series.
          Do you want a much more complex toy to quickly develop?

          Right now there is a research on SKVVP. This is not OCD, not development, this is a program to create a scientific and technical reserve, an analogue of "Fighter-90."
          That is, by analogy, five or six years of research and experiments are waiting for us, necessary only to begin the development of a tactical and technical task.
          Which itself takes a couple of years.
          Then the development of the aircraft.
          And this is without taking into account the fact that both the VKS and the Navy are repulsing from this program as they can, and very successfully, if you look at its financing.
          Because if you do not repulse, then they will be forced to take IT into service instead of normal airplanes, and who in their right mind would want this?
          So how long should we wait for the SCVP?
          And how much will it cost? PAK FA cost 60+ billion without taking into account the cost of NTZ and OCD financed through the Ministry of Industry and Trade.
          And how much will it cost you then?

          There are fresh developments on the Su-57.


          Are they somehow sideways to the SKVVP?
          None

          Here's an option to create a ship Su-57K for ten or twelve years is quite real. But he will need an appropriate ship.
      2. ser56 6 May 2020 20: 49 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        As a person who delves into these topics for a long time, I declare - 20 years and about 60-70 billion before the first flight.

        1) It would be nice to have a miscalculation of the country's development prospects at this time ... hi We will spend the money, we will stay again with New Ulyanovsk on the slipway ... hi
        2) I note that the experience of Kuznetsov in Syria was not very ... request Is it time for classic AB? They turn into white elephants due to the complexity of cm. US experience - most ABs are not combat-ready ... request
        3) Our shipments by sea go to NATO countries or Japan / Korea - US allies too ... And do we need to protect these communications from NATO? Or am I misunderstood something? hi
  • Avior 6 May 2020 08: 17 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    There is the second part of the problem - this is the technical complexity and cost of operation.
    After all, the British got rid of aircraft carriers, including because they were not only difficult and expensive to build, but also had the same problems in operation.
    Actually, this is also one of the reasons why not so many aircraft carriers are being built in the world.
    The fact that the technical complexity of operating classic aircraft carriers is much more complicated than the UDC is evident not only from the experience of France, but also from the States themselves.
    All the time under repair.
    And this is again the cost.
    But this is especially evident in the number of crews (which, in fact, also need to pay a decent salary, a very large part of the cost of operating, especially if you have a ship at sea, not against the wall), which clearly shows the complexity and cost of operating different ships.
    The usual team (excluding the air group, of course) UDC 30-40 thousand tons - from 160 people, like Mistral, to about 270-330, like the Spaniards or Italians.
    An English aircraft carrier of VTOL aircraft in 70 thousand tons - a team of 600 people.
    and now we look at Charles de Gaulle at 40 thousand tons - team 1200.
    Nimitsy - 3200.
    What is the conclusion?
    If you do not have money and you want an aircraft carrier, your choice is UDC.
    If there is no money and you do not want any aircraft carrier in the foreseeable future, your choice is a classic aircraft carrier. smile
    hi
    1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 08: 48 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      When will you already understand that the UDC is not a carrier, but a ship with a different purpose? However, the next part is just about that.
      1. Avior 6 May 2020 10: 00 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Thank you, I knew it from the beginning. smile
        UDC is just for that and that provides universality.
        In the absence of money, a very useful quality.
        Moreover, the line is blurred.
        Look at the light aircraft carrier Cavour, for example.
        Built in 6 years.
        1. Kolka Semenov 6 May 2020 16: 53 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Here, perhaps, I do not agree. Russia does not need either an aircraft carrier, UDC, or VTOL aircraft.

          Sorry that wedged.
          1. Avior 6 May 2020 17: 03 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Everyone has the right to their opinion, especially since here we do not decide anything.
            Apparently, it was just necessary to separate the questions - one topic, whether it is needed or not at all, and the second, if necessary, which one.
            and maybe more topics.
            Threat you know that Egypt and Turkey have UDC? Each will have two, the Turks with the second will just solve the problem.
            1. Kolka Semenov 6 May 2020 17: 17 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              I know. We just do not need to be fools and repeat after these countries.
        2. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 21: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I don’t understand how an amphibious assault landing ship can replace an aircraft carrier.
          Wasp, as an aircraft carrier, is worse than the old man Hermes, already converted to a Harrier carrier. And much worse.
          And he is more than 40 kilotons, almost like De Gaulle.
          Why all this fornication? Do not bother horses and people in a heap. UDC - a means for landing. It is universal in the sense that it allows landing in various ways.
          Airplanes on it - a bonus, overlap between arrivals of normal aircraft from your shore or aircraft carrier.
          And they are not always there. There is nowhere to repair them, at the same Uospov, a small hangar does not allow more than half of the ship’s aircraft equipment even to fit inside, when the first Harrier breakdowns went to Kirsarge in Libya, it was necessary to change the air group on it, and there were fewer departures from it than fingers on hands.
          Why mix one with the other?
    2. Usher 6 May 2020 10: 24 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      If you do not have money and you want an aircraft carrier, your choice is UDC.

      since when did UDC become an aircraft carrier?
  • Cyril G ... 6 May 2020 09: 33 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    We already have an aircraft carrier,


    We do not have an aircraft carrier, and most importantly, there is no combat-ready air group. We have not prepared it for a quarter of a century. From the word in principle. And the fleet had the opportunity to do this. As a result, in Syria, only a third of sorties - namely 154, were carried out from the deck. You can’t even imagine a more effective demonstration of the striking wretchedness of the capability of carrier-based aviation against the backdrop of the work of the Air Force from Khimki. There is no understanding of the need for the presence of aircraft carrier forces either by the leadership of the Navy or even less so by the Defense Ministry, for obvious reasons. So, as you will have a hundred yards in your wallet, come again.

    And do not pozhalsta tell tales how famously Kuznetsov will cover the SSBN, this is demagogy. Our fleet has many more critical problems and much more serious ones.
    1. Cyril G ... 6 May 2020 12: 21 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Duplicate
      Aircraft carrier, one! a thing meaningless from the word in general, like a king gun about. Need as a mini division. The Nimitsev division is absurd under our military budget, so gentlemen marimans invest in coastal aviation if you have extra money and don’t buzz.

      We are still building “battleships” and we won’t be able to fight again at sea, for God forbid what, because we won’t leave the bay. How much can you dance on a rake? I’m already tired of explaining to Comrade Timokhin that the light forces will at least somehow be able to solve the problem with the assistance of the Air Force, Navy MA, and BRAV. Battleships, however, will not be able to solve the problem without the support forces from the word at all.
      Therefore, the priority of the decision should be different in the matter of confrontation at sea
      ,
      The development of the airfield network, the benefit is not only money down the drain as an aircraft carrier, but also necessary from the point of view of the development of the country's economy (The creation of air command posts there, where necessary).
      According to the videoconferencing system, the KBP will be finalized in terms of the ability of the IAP to use anti-ship weapons on IFIs and IS.
      There should be priority in solving problems and issues of marine intelligence ..
      Restoring the combat readiness of the OVR in matters of PLO and PMO. Providing the builder of the serial OVR corvette.
      Solving the issue with IGOs. Torpedoes, mines, anti-torpedoes.
      Solving the problems of submelting. The completion of the Boreev. In the course of modernization and completion, to ensure the possibility of reconciling the Kyrgyz Republic with Boreev.
      As forces to strengthen the OVR and solve problems in the DMZ, continue to build frigates ...
      Debatable - the construction of amphibious forces and expeditionary forces DMZ (Colonial gunboats, pr.22160 unsuitable for this purpose)
      That's how all this will be generally decided, then start thinking about AB
      1. mmaxx 7 May 2020 14: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, must we get rich sometime wink
        And there will be normal aircraft carriers. But little ones are not needed - that's for sure.
    2. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 21: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I remember your logic - if a soldier does not know how to shoot, he should not be trained, but cut from the armed forces and sent home.
      So we are done.
      1. Cyril G ... 6 May 2020 22: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Lying then why?
        1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 22: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The fleet does not know how to handle maritime aviation - it must be given to the VKS.
          The fleet cannot provide in full the volume of used nuclear weapons - it is necessary to disperse the nuclear forces.
          The fleet has dried up bringing the aircraft carrier and naval regiments into operational state — to disperse nafig, etc.

          This is your approach.
          1. Cyril G ... 6 May 2020 22: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            So I ask, why are you lying?
            I said a completely different fleet command basically does not want to do all of the above. The phrases are similar and the meaning is different. Change the admirals then and rule. True, we have much more serious problems on land, but this is a different matter. And on the topic for the third time I repeat - 1 aircraft carrier with an improperly trained l / s and an air group that for a quarter of a century have managed not to prepare things too expensive, useless and unnecessary for real combat operations. We need at least three of them and exclusively as part of the same division in the same fleet. And do not smear the entire map with a thin layer from Murmansk to Vladivostok. In mind, two divisions. But for the next 30 years this does not threaten us, and given the existing systemic problems in the fleet, see the list of problems by degree of importance, the aircraft carrier must be written off and forgotten.

            Yes, and it’s advisable to really transfer fighters and IS to the Air Force. Maybe they will fly even more.

            And I’ll remind you of the priority level problems.
            - The development of the airfield network, the benefit is not only money down the drain as an aircraft carrier, but it is also necessary from the point of view of the development of the country's economy (The creation of air command posts there, where necessary).
            - According to the videoconferencing system, the KBP will be finalized on the issue of the ability of the IAP on MFIs and IS to use anti-ship weapons.
            - There should be priority in solving problems and issues of marine intelligence ..
            - Restoring the combat readiness of the OVR in matters of PLO and PMO. Providing the builder of the serial OVR corvette.
            - Solving the issue with IGOs. Torpedoes, mines, anti-torpedoes.
            - Solving the problems of submelting. The completion of the Boreev. In the course of modernization and completion, to ensure the possibility of bringing the Kyrgyz Republic with Boreev.
            - As forces to strengthen the OVR and solve problems in the DMZ, continue to build frigates ...
            - Debatable - the construction of amphibious forces and expeditionary forces of the DMZ (Colonial gunboats, pr.22160 is unsuitable for this purpose)
            That's how all this will be generally decided, then start thinking about AB
            1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 23: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              So you deny the possibility of replacing admirals, isn’t it? How many copies on this subject were broken.
              1. Cyril G ... 7 May 2020 10: 53 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, try it. I find this essentially impossible. They will continue to cosplay Vitka. Moreover, from indifferent space is already cleared. Who will deal with the problem of aircraft carriers today? There VGK was already tired of shuffling the commanders, and the result? "And you friends do not sit down" (p.) Above, I do not indicate in vain. The mini needs 3 Ships. Consolidated into one division. Whatever the case, we would not sway the year like in the 16th, but could immediately respond by deploying 2 ships. Do you seriously think that they will decide to build a series in the next 15 years? When we finally got corvette on progress, it began to be built in 6 years.
                As for the weather and your other calculations, I’ll say the following, we have all the possible Sharashkin offices such as the Central Research Institute and other topics that are famous for being able to justify that “Big and languid is better ......” (p.)
                1. timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 22: 02 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I find this essentially impossible. They will continue to cosplay Vitka. Moreover, from indifferent space is already cleared. Who will deal with the problem of aircraft carriers today? There VGK was already tired of shuffling the commanders, and the result?


                  Well, VGK will sooner or later change, but you don’t need to shuffle the commanders-in-chief, you need to debug the system.

                  Do you seriously think that they will decide to build a series in the next 15 years? When we got a corvette on progress, it finally began to be built in 6 years


                  Corvettes are built the way they are financed.
  • Doccor18 6 May 2020 10: 06 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Not only the construction, but also the operation of 100 ct. the atomic giant will be an order of magnitude higher
    than the construction of 25-30 ct.
    ship with gtu. Economy
    above all. If not
    another opportunity is better
    have 12 VTOL aircraft and 2 helicopters
    AWACS on the lung deck
    an aircraft carrier than to have nothing.
    1. agond 6 May 2020 10: 55 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Doccor18
      Not only the construction, but also the operation of 100 ct. the atomic giant will be an order of magnitude higher

      With this money, you can build a dozen unsinkable aircraft carriers on land, in Kamchatka, on the islands of the Arctic and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, but in general the problem is different, the problem is in sailors with big stars in uniform, give them a big ship (not because they are rocking on small vessels) they are just all ambitious administrators and want to command a large ship on a big voyage, and the century of large ships is leaving (not to mention the idiotic idea to build a nuclear submarine with 48 tons of displacement, which is 000 tons more than the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier . !!!) If the problem is not in ships, but in people you need to talk about it, for example, General Field Marshal von Manstein, commanding his headquarters, divided his subordinates (the same chiefs) into four categories
      1 most are fools and idlers
      2 capable workaholics - all work is supported on them
      3 fools workaholics, Manstein drove this category away, mainly on the front, well, he didn’t have the right to immediately send them to a concentration camp
      4 talented lazy people, Manstein considered them to be the most valuable employees who should be cherished in every way, but that they find simple answers to difficult questions.
      Now let's look at this classification from the perspective of ourselves.
      1. Doccor18 6 May 2020 11: 03 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        "With this money, you can build a dozen unsinkable aircraft carriers on land, in Kamchatka, on the islands of the Arctic and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk."

        Maybe. I do not have information about the cost of a full-fledged airfield in permafrost conditions.
        However, our country to this day
        behaves like a SuperPower, supporting some and punishing others for thousands of miles. from their
        borders. Not easy to project
        own power (for example: in Syria
        or Venezuela) from Kamchatka.
        1. Cyril G ... 7 May 2020 11: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Look what and where there are runways beyond the Arctic Circle .... I won’t say throughout the polar region, there were four concrete strips in Chukotka 3 km, one was Anadyr (without restrictions), metro station Schmdta was once considered as a jump airfield and now in terms of an increase in the length of the strip to 3 km, two BVPP with restrictions (for loading IL-76 for example) in Pevek and Bilibino. The rest is soil rolled to stone. Was about 15 years ago on the abandoned old runway of Providence, except for its very end, a stretch of about 30 meters eroded, the rest is still quite imagined! Only small pebbles to remove. 50 years old as abandoned.
    2. Usher 6 May 2020 11: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Doccor18
      Not only the construction, but also the operation of 100 ct. the atomic giant will be an order of magnitude higher
      than the construction of 25-30 ct.
      ship with gtu. Economy
      above all. If not
      another opportunity is better
      have 12 VTOL aircraft and 2 helicopters
      AWACS on the lung deck
      an aircraft carrier than to have nothing.

      Erroneous opinion. Why have many but useless and weak units if they are destroyed when meeting with their opponents? It is better to have fewer but strong ones, and not many weak ones. This applies only to the fleet !!! Where is the technical complexity the same for your UDC and for a full-fledged aircraft carrier? The difference is in a pair of glands, a catapult and an aerofinisher. All!
  • Engineer 6 May 2020 10: 31 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    The author is right when he says that in the construction of the aircraft carrier fleet (and the fleet in general) half measures are inappropriate and harmful
    Therefore, the rejection of aircraft carriers must be complete. No Kuzey, aircraft carriers with VTOL aircraft, insane landing ships of 20-40 thousand tons with their limited capabilities. None of this should be.
    We are not Britain and never will be.
    1. Kolka Semenov 6 May 2020 17: 00 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Very well said! I fully support!
  • 5-9
    5-9 6 May 2020 10: 41 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The British in 1982 passed the line, if the Argas had in their hands not 5 Exocetos, but 15 or 25, Krants to the mistress of the seas. Unexploded American bombs and broken German torpedoes saved Royal Navy ...

    I never get tired of recalling that a full-fledged aircraft carrier is a means of controlling global ocean communications, and not protecting Sakhalin or bombing the Papuans. All tasks except control are solved by much cheaper means .... And the task of control before the country in the next ... twenty years is not worth it.
    1. agond 6 May 2020 11: 01 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Engineer
      Therefore, the rejection of aircraft carriers must be complete. No Kuzey, aircraft carriers with VTOL aircraft, insane landing ships of 20-40 thousand tons with their limited capabilities. None of this should be.
      We are not Britain and never will be.

      I completely agree with you, and it would be nice to know in the face of those who impose all of this on us
      1. Engineer 6 May 2020 12: 14 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        There is a whole sect of witnesses of an aircraft carrier in Russia.
        That dance around Kuzi arrange. That drool on Manatee.
        And to take separately, quite intelligent people. But as it comes to the aircraft carriers, begins "hell, waste and sodomy." Nuclear conflict of low intensity, conventional prolonged conflict between superpowers., Cutting on ocean communications. And all this under the sauce of the aircraft carriers big good and different. All this is discussed with pathos and complex cabbage soup.
        This is just hypercompensation, gentlemen. Old Freud will confirm
      2. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 04 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        What place will the territory be cut off, what should happen? Is Kolyma normal? And then there all the same, everyone is only supplied by sea, via the NSR.
        Well, we will return Kaliningrad as a German. The Kuril Islands are completely Japanese.

        What only people are not ready to do in order to not have a fleet is amazingly simple.
        1. 5-9
          5-9 9 May 2020 07: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Once again, according to the syllables. Within the range of the base aviation, Tu22M + X32 no aircraft carrier is needed. And Granita loaves will be added.
          The destruction of the AUG in the USSR and even now the Russian Federation has no problems. The problem is how to discover AUG in the open spaces of the Atlantic ...... And so it itself will approach our shores (for some reason)
          1. timokhin-aa 10 May 2020 22: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Nonsense repeated twice does not become true, sorry.
    2. Avior 6 May 2020 11: 37 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      If they had no aircraft carriers near Harrier, and they were also going to be decommissioned in the very near future, they would have gone beyond, from the outside.
      I think they would not even try.
      1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 07 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        In the worst case scenario, they could have Eagles with thirty LAs, and a disfigured Hermes with Bacenirs. It would also be cheaper.

        You just had to not chase the chimeras.
        1. Avior 6 May 2020 20: 33 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          they didn’t just write them off.
          Operation also costs a lot of money.
          And the rest simply did not have time.
          Fortunately for myself.
          1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 34 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            The article even has some figures regarding the fact that the Britons really saved.
            1. Avior 6 May 2020 23: 19 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              I did not see them there.
              Well, for example, the maintenance of the Needle per year cost so much, Ark Royal so much this and so on. The real numbers.
              but in general, they planned to completely get rid of aircraft carriers, so there is nothing to compare.
              1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 23: 22 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, for example, the maintenance of the Needle per year cost so much,


                No more than six million pounds at the exchange rate of 1968. Won't it go like a landmark?
    3. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 03 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      And the task of controlling the country in the next ... twenty years is not worth it.


      Hello, Wang. And I thought you were dead. It’s good that you are alive and continue to predict the future.
      1. LeonidL 6 May 2020 21: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Vanga is an amateur admiral Mr. Timokhin with a Nelson complex.
        1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 23: 23 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          But mentally healthy.
          Envy.
          1. LeonidL 6 May 2020 23: 46 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Sasha! For the future - all mentally ill people always try to prove their health. This is a symptom. But I am not a doctor for you. Do not get excited!
            1. timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 20: 50 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              I have a driver’s license and a gun permit. But they won’t give you
              laughing
              1. LeonidL 8 May 2020 05: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Are you sure about that? Well, the flag is in your hand for blessed are those who believe. You have permission Sasha - no weapons. There are rights - the car is not likely normal. So most likely an old fordik or a used toyota korolka under the window of the apartment .... But I repeat, I don’t need a permit for a weapon, I have it as well as rights and cars. Sinful, I respect VOLVO, stands in a couple of guards. And the latest acquisition is GLOK-17 with a magazine for 17 rounds. However, you will not believe it. Here it is, and people should believe in your delusional opuses.
  • Sahalinets 6 May 2020 11: 07 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    I agree with the author that we need normal aircraft carriers with normal aircraft. The experience of European countries is not applicable here, because they play only a supporting role, and US carrier groups provide dominance over the sea. So it would be nice to have carriers like De Gaulle, only more. The Frenchman is still at the limit.
    But they are only needed not to protect communications. Well, who will we sell gas or nickel in case of war? To the enemy? If we mean China, then I just can’t imagine how we will protect the convoys passing off the coast of Japan. Not to mention that there will be no time for trade.
    We need aircraft carriers for another. Ensure the stability of surface forces providing SSBNs. Otherwise, they will be carried out of the air in an instant, and then they will begin a free hunt for our submarines.
    1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 07 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      We need aircraft carriers for another. Ensure the stability of surface forces providing SSBNs. Otherwise, they will be carried out of the air in an instant, and then they will begin a free hunt for our submarines.


      This is one of the tasks.
  • Doccor18 6 May 2020 11: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Usher
    Quote: Doccor18
    Not only the construction, but also the operation of 100 ct. the atomic giant will be an order of magnitude higher
    than the construction of 25-30 ct.
    ship with gtu. Economy
    above all. If not
    another opportunity is better
    have 12 VTOL aircraft and 2 helicopters
    AWACS on the lung deck
    an aircraft carrier than to have nothing.

    Erroneous opinion. Why have many but useless and weak units if they are destroyed when meeting with their opponents? It is better to have fewer but strong ones, and not many weak ones. This applies only to the fleet !!! Where is the technical complexity the same for your UDC and for a full-fledged aircraft carrier? The difference is in a pair of glands, a catapult and an aerofinisher. All!

    Yes, which many? One or two aircraft carriers - this is the maximum
    modern navy, okromya USA, but they have the Fed. The point is that either 25-30 ct., Or nothing. No one in their right mind will argue that an atomic airfield with 4 electromagnetic catapults
    and a hundred flying machines worse than
    "baby" with a dozen VTOL.
    1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 08 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      One or two aircraft carriers - this is the maximum
      modern navy, okromya USA, but they have the Fed. The point is that either 25-30 ct., Or nothing.


      For example
      https://topwar.ru/167092-avianosec-dlja-rossii-bystree-chem-vy-ozhidaete.html
  • Undecim 6 May 2020 12: 05 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    One can safely choose the epigraph to the article: "If the theory is not confirmed by practice, so much the worse for practice."
    The author firmly decided to prove the inferiority of the "inferior" aircraft carriers, therefore, everything else is immaterial.
    However, for aircraft carriers, as well as for people, the formula of Kozma Prutkov is applicable: "Each person necessarily brings benefits, being used in its place."
    The author is stubbornly considering how poorly a light aircraft carrier will cope with a task for which it is not intended to perform initially. Of course it will prove!
    Well, the British were not going to use the Invincible class as full-fledged aircraft carriers! Absolutely !. They were built like PLO ships. And it’s not the fault of these aircraft carriers that politicians “cut off” the CVA-01 program and anti-submarine ships had to pretend to be attack aircraft carriers. And nothing surprising that they coped with this role badly. "Do not shoot the pianist, he plays as he can."
    And one more thing - regarding pitching. the author told us all about pitching, but forgot about the fact that there is still an Optical landing system.
    1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 21: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, the British were not going to use the Invincible class as full-fledged aircraft carriers! Absolutely !. They were built like PLO ships. And it’s not the fault of these aircraft carriers that politicians “cut off” the CVA-01 program and anti-submarine ships had to pretend to be attack aircraft carriers. And nothing surprising that they coped with this role badly. "Do not shoot the pianist, he plays as he can."


      The question is that this ridiculous situation was created artificially.
      1. Undecim 6 May 2020 21: 46 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        All such situations are of artificial origin.
  • BREAKTHROUGH READY 6 May 2020 12: 08 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    You can endlessly look at three things:
    how does the fire burn
    how water flows
    and how fantasies about aircraft carriers excite minds divorced from reality :)
    1. agond 6 May 2020 13: 21 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Sahalinets
      We need aircraft carriers for another. Ensure the stability of surface forces providing SSBNs. Otherwise, they will be carried out of the air in an instant, and then they will begin a free hunt for our submarines.

      Then you will have to provide stability for your AUG far from your native coast, SSBN stability should be based on other principles
      1 increase in the number of submarines by reducing their size
      2 an increase in stealth, due to a decrease in noise, a decrease in size (length less than 100 m and the rejection of a two-hull scheme in the form that is now available), an increase in the depth of immersion
      3 dispersal, due to the large autonomy and armament of a large long-range missile (due to the reduction in their numbers), the abandonment of the vertical launch from submarines of large missiles. and use for them launch from self-propelled containers.
      1. bk0010 6 May 2020 18: 34 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: agond
        1 increase in the number of submarines by reducing their size
        Two boats for 8 missiles are much more expensive than one for 16, we will not pull. Dimensions do not solve: the quietest - SiVulf has an underwater displacement of more than 9000 tons. Increasing depth also does not solve: there is a cunning hydrology, if you climb too deep, you will be heard far away. For dispersal it is necessary to quietly leave the bases, and we even have problems with this.
      2. Sahalinets 7 May 2020 00: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Then you will have to provide sustainability for your AUG far from your native coast

        Why is this away? Our SSBNs crawl just off their shores. Just providing continuous air cover from coastal airfields will not be enough for any air force. Aviation should already be in place, and not cut there for an hour ...
  • borys 6 May 2020 18: 11 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The era of aircraft carriers (whether large or small) ends.
    The tasks assigned to them can be solved by others.
    means, moreover, much cheaper. This is already in the West
    understand, just do not speak loudly. Need aircraft carriers admirals
    and shipbuilders, What would be the case.
    1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 20: 10 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      The tasks assigned to them can be solved by others.
      means, moreover, much cheaper.


      Well let's tell me what tasks are assigned to them. Since you know how to solve them by other means.
  • Sergey Sfiedu 6 May 2020 19: 59 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Why in the 70s-80s, all sea powers rushed to build anti-submarine cruisers (in modern times - light aircraft carriers) - well, it’s understandable why — Soviet submarines were considered the main threat to the “free world”, because everyone was fixated on anti-submarine forces. Why did the USSR then build practically useless anti-submarine cruisers for it - IMHO because of the incompetence of the military and political leadership. A type of aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression, and an anti-submarine cruiser will protect the country from SSBNs. Why is everyone today obsessed with UDC - not because UDC is almost an aircraft carrier, but because today the main threat to peace is Islamic extremism and natural disasters. UDCs are ideally suited to eliminate these threats, and the VTOL on their decks is nothing more than a decoration, albeit suitable for combating bearded hezbollahs, by the way, and in Russia, in the fight against Islamic extremism and in assisting countries affected by the elements, UDC (even without VTOL) would not be superfluous, although not a mandatory addition.
    1. Avior 6 May 2020 20: 37 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Why did the USSR then build practically useless anti-submarine cruisers for it - IMHO because of the incompetence of the military and political leadership. A type of aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression, and an anti-submarine cruiser will protect the country from SSBNs.

      therefore, the USSR, gaining experience on aircraft-carrying ships, stubbornly went to the "weapon of aggression", and even managed to lay it on a slipway, but to finish, alas ....

      1. agond 6 May 2020 22: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: agond
        Two boats for 8 missiles are much more expensive than one for 16, we will not pull. Dimensions do not solve: the quietest - SiVulf has an underwater displacement of more than 9000 tons. Increasing depth also does not solve: there is a cunning hydrology, if you climb too deep, you will be heard far away. For dispersal it is necessary to quietly leave the bases, and we even have problems with this.

        If we consider not dividing the price of submarines in rubles by the number of missiles, but dividing the displacement of submarines Borey 24000 tons by the total cast weight (16 missiles 16 x 1. 150 = 18.4 tons), we get 1 tons of submarine displacement per tonne of warheads, and now compare, suppose We took the project’s scheme 1300 as a basis and reduced its displacement to 941 tons, placed only one pop-up self-propelled container with one Sarmat missile (with its “torpedo” forward launch) between strong bodies, we get almost 5000 tons of warheads per 10 tons of displacement or 5000 tons of displacement of 500 ton of abandoned warheads, which is 1 times more effective than Borea, and accordingly the cost of abandonment should be less.
      2. EvilLion 7 May 2020 10: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In the USSR, they wanted an aircraft carrier for fighter cover in the ocean. There the air group is useless against the Papuans.
    2. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 21: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Why is everyone today obsessed with UDC - not because UDC is almost an aircraft carrier, but because today the main threat to peace is Islamic extremism and natural disasters. UDCs are ideally suited to eliminate these threats, and the VTOL on their decks is nothing more than a decoration, albeit suitable for combating bearded hezbollahs, by the way, and in Russia, in the fight against Islamic extremism and in assisting countries affected by the elements, UDC (even without VTOL) would not be superfluous, although not a mandatory addition.


      And who is fixated on UDC today? Italy, Spain, Australia and Turkey.
      The last two will use them only with helicopters.
      Plus, the countries that build them as purely landing, France is the same, the Mistrals can not bear the SCVP.
      And the aircraft carriers:

      Build - USA, China, India.
      just built a series: UK
      Planning for the foreseeable future: France.
      Planning in the boundless future: Russia.
      At the same time, those who plan to have them in the ranks, albeit one at a time.

      A separate line is Japan, but there are political reasons, without it they would have already cut the catapult and the finishers. And they would not have built Izumo at all.

      The “fashion” of UDC with SKVVP is in many ways just cosplay of the Americans, but among the Americans, their vertical line is part of a very smart, complex and thoughtful system, unlike other cosplayers.
      1. Avior 6 May 2020 22: 48 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And who today is fixated on UDC of various types?
        Italy, Spain, Australia, USA, France, China, Turkey, Egypt, South Korea, Japan, England, Brazil. Some of 2 or more.
        Who has combat-ready aircraft carriers with horizontal take-off aircraft?
        USA, France,
        Who has combat-ready aircraft carriers with VTOL?
        England, Italy
        smile
        1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 23: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Italy, Spain, Australia, USA, France, China, Turkey, Egypt, South Korea, Japan, England, Brazil. Some of 2 or more.


          Of these, only the USA, Spain and Italy are going to use airplanes from decks, and only the USA is meaningful.

          Who has combat-ready aircraft carriers with horizontal take-off aircraft?


          Somehow you famously wrote off India and China.
          Yes, and the Russian Federation has the opportunity to bring the fighting efficiency of Kuznetsov to the desired level.
          Religious beliefs such as "you can’t fight from the springboard" are not considered.
          1. Liam 6 May 2020 23: 07 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Somehow you famously wrote off India and China.

            About combat-capable aircraft carriers in China is a matter of faith and not reality
            1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 23: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Why?
              1. Liam 7 May 2020 00: 50 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                For the same reasons why the issue of faith is the existence of a Chinese nuclear submarine fleet).
                1. timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 20: 41 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  You turn the situation upside down and replace concepts. Against the background, for example, of Thailand or Brazil, the Chinese nuclear submarine fleet does not just exist, but represents a serious force.
                  While ensuring the combat stability of the Chinese SSBNs by forces other than the submarine fleet, they may well LIKE and there is no reason to believe that at least some of their missiles will not reach their targets.
                  So the question of faith is the nonexistence of all of the above.
                  "The Chinese have submarines, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that they can do anything."
                  And the same goes for aircraft carriers.
          2. Avior 6 May 2020 23: 09 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Religious beliefs such as "you can’t fight from the springboard" are not considered.

            As much as possible.
            The British at the Falklands proved. smile
            Of these, only the USA, Spain and Italy are going to use aircraft from decks

            not collected, but used. England from the deck, by the way.
            Many others are going if they are ready to sell such an aircraft and the UDC parameters allow- either in the near future, like the Japanese, or in the distant allow for use, like Australia - they left the springboard.
            But there are actually no VTOL aircraft yet. They still have to release and release ...
            1. timokhin-aa 6 May 2020 23: 14 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Do not mix aircraft carriers and UDC, I ask again. England does not have UDC.
              England does not go in cycles in UDC.
              England has a quite large and never easy class of Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers. UDC they do not build.
              So the United States, Japan and Spain, meaningfully only the United States, in which this is part of their doctrine of landing operations

              like Australia - a springboard left.


              And airplanes cannot fly from them - by the completeness of the delivery of these ships to Australia. take an interest.
              1. Avior 7 May 2020 05: 13 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Trampoline left, then left the opportunity for revision
                And as for England, strictly speaking, they are building the UDC, even if they are then sold, like the Brazil Ocean.
                Large built, UDC sold.
                They actually build UDC and for specific tasks

                For example, he took part in the landing in Iraq. Although formally not UDC and for special purposes.
                And about not stirring, so look at the aircraft carrier Cavour. It’s hard not to mix.
                For what money is enough, they build it.
                Well, plus there are specific tasks.
                And keep in mind, F-35 for free sale, except for ready-made orders, is not there yet, so it makes no sense to build or buy. Yes, and not everyone will sell, for example, the Turks were deceived in expectations.
                You need to wait until the first plans are fulfilled.
                1. timokhin-aa 7 May 2020 20: 46 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Australian UDCs are deprived of the opportunity to take in aviation, and there has recently been a scandal over this. There is not much springboard, there, in addition to the springboard, there are nuances of the sea, from the near and far drive to the heat-resistant deck and the lifting capacity of the lifts. The REV set is different for helicopters and airplanes or only helicopters.
                  And for different REVs, cable routes, different power limits for the transmitted electric power, different power of diesel generators, different air conditioners for cooling the electronics, etc.

                  The ship in the photo is a universal transport, if it was in the Navy, it could be set off as a docking ship, but not by UDC.
                  1. Avior 7 May 2020 20: 50 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    they left the possibility of modernization, otherwise there would be no springboard
                  2. Avior 8 May 2020 00: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Helicopters and Harriers flew from it, was used for various purposes.
                    1. timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 14: 26 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      So what do you think, where did I get the information that these ships are unsuitable for basing aircraft? Figured it out myself? No.

                      But defense officials conceded to a Senate estimates committee late last year that the jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars.

                      Defense sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the proposal was "still in the white paper mix" up until some weeks ago.

                      But one source close to the white paper was emphatic on Tuesday that "it will now not make the cut".

                      "There were just too many technical difficulties involved in modifying a ship which takes helicopters to take fighter jets and it is also very expensive," the source said. "You can safely say it has been dropped."


                      https://www.armscom.net/news/pms_floating_fighter_jet_plan_quietly_sunk_by_defence

                      And change the REV, and rebuild the hangar, and rearrange the deck.
                      1. Avior 8 May 2020 15: 14 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0

                        In 1987, the English Navy handed over the Argus training aircraft carrier (HMS Argus), converted from the Italian-built Kotender Besant container ship in 1981. With the onset of the Falkland conflict, this container ship was temporarily chartered by the British Ministry of Defense, the ship made two flights to the South Atlantic and delivered nine Chinook helicopters and four Harrier vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL) to the war zone. ....

                        Displacement of 28 tons, length 480 m, width 175 m, draft 30,5 m, crew 8,1 people (401 - aviation group), speed 137 knots, cruising range 19 miles. Armament: four 20-mm anti-aircraft installations, up to 000 aircraft and helicopters. Usually, six Sea King helicopters are based on it, but it is possible to use a training aircraft carrier as a light attack aircraft carrier. In this case, it can accommodate up to 30 VTOL "Harrier".
                        However, there is no experience of using this quality - in 1991, during the war in the Persian Gulf, Argus served as a hospital and repair vessel, and during operations in Bosnia acted as a landing helicopter carrier ship.

                        http://factmil.com/publ/strana/velikobritanija/avianoscy_postrojki_velikobritanii_i_francii_2017/9-1-0-1219
                        after the creation of aircraft carriers to the British it is irrelevant
                      2. timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 20: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This boat was in my Satay about landing ships by reference. Even with a photo from Falkland.
                        You can’t fight this.
                        You can raise 1-2 aircraft for a training flight.
                        Well, remember that the F-35 destroys decks that easily withstand the Harrier.
      2. Liam 6 May 2020 23: 05 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        Who has combat-ready aircraft carriers with VTOL?
        England, Italy

        England
        1. Avior 7 May 2020 05: 14 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          And England too
  • Konstantin Pekhlivanov 6 May 2020 22: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Wisely and sensibly. For a long time I would like to read about the British aircraft carriers, I did not know much about that.
  • Vladimir1155 7 May 2020 09: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Alexander Timokhin committed rights regarding inferiority of udk, and mini-aircraft carriers, and their vulnerability in the sense of weather. Pro udk should also note the weakness of the main weapons, which Timokhin does not mention .... however, this whole story also showed that the aircraft carrier should have tasks .... and Russia does not have them for the aircraft carrier, in general, which does not mean that Kuzyu needs to be cut for metal, but there is definitely no need for a new AB, and this is simply financially impossible, which Timokhin objectively proves using the example of Britain, ..... you can consider selling Kuzi to India or China as an option, or a long repair (nowhere by the way) and cancellation by age ..... but most likely perpetual repair, sucks and cancellation without any sales to please fans of AB. We need submarine minesweepers, coastal equipment of all kinds, the frigate should be the largest NK. .
  • Selevc 7 May 2020 10: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    An interesting article, but in many ways naive and that's why ...
    Studying the history of the Navy of the world powers of the 20th century, sooner or later I come to one global conclusion. - The entire 20th century is a long way to develop and strengthen the American Navy and a similar long way to the degradation of the British fleet ... It is enough to compare the condition of the British and American Navy at the beginning of the century and at its end to make sure of this ...

    Russia will NEVER be able to create full-fledged AUGs - the reason is simple there is no resource base, there is no time, and most importantly there is no experience in the development of this kind of military formations ... We need experience - military experience as well, because any exercises are some kind of window dressing ... In order to create full-fledged AUGs, one must go a certain way — analogous to the American one, and as they say fill their cones ... Russia therefore does not go the way !!! And in Russia, an aircraft carrier, like 50 years ago, is nothing more than an exotic - an expensive military toy !!!

    That is, of course, Russia can technically build one or more aircraft carriers, but it will again be expensive wonders and no more ... But to create the entire infrastructure to maintain the AUG - a supply system, ports, repair docks, a fueling system, a network of bases abroad ... This task is simply titanic and hardly beyond the power of modern Russia.
    By the way, the operation and "combat use" of Kuzi very clearly confirms all of the above ...
    1. Selevc 7 May 2020 10: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Using the experience of the Falkland War as the experience of using light aircraft carriers is not correct ... Since it was a war in which the Britons fought poorly and the Argentines were even worse ...
      The British fleet (despite some failures) - fulfilled its main task, covered the landing on the islands ...
      The Argentine Air Force, despite the heroism of individual pilots, did not fulfill their main combat mission - they did not cause serious damage to the British Airborne Forces and the Navy ...

      Everything else is tales and fairy tales - in other words, lies around the war on both sides ... Like "Bombs did not explode", "Radar forgot to turn on" ... As they say - something always hurts a bad dancer ...

      And I don’t think Argentina started a war so rashly - just when was the last time Argentina fought seriously? The Argentines had little real combat experience compared to the Britons ... There was only the experience of exercises (probably annual) and I’m sure that everything went smoothly on them ...
  • EvilLion 7 May 2020 10: 42 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    What kind of nonsense about the NSR, Kaliningrad and so on ?? Carriers, in principle, will not be suitable for the NSR, and this line from the point of view of aviation is actually a coastal one. In the case of Britain, trade routes go into it, while Russia uses trade mainly for export, and in case of any conflicts, exports will simply be stopped. Moreover, even before the actual start of hostilities.

    Sakhalin? There is a narrow strait to the mainland, and the island itself is a huge unsinkable aircraft carrier. In the case of Kaliningrad, no one will ask any Baltic states, the tanks will go from St. Petersburg to Kaliningrad by the shortest route. If the author forgot, so Germany and WWII, and WWII began simply by going through BeNiLux. And she did not care. Who is Belgium and who is Estonia? The very same Baltic for the aircraft carrier has become cramped in WWI.

    And if Britain fought with the remnants of WWII’s legacy against the partisans, then we have the entire operation in Syria built around the base on the shore, because 1-2 regiments of aircraft on an aircraft carrier and several thousand people that can be deployed will not win any serious war, while the MiG-29K regiment on Kuznetsovo is minus the MiG-29SMT or MiG-35 regiment in the Air Force.

    For some reason, no one flies to Mars, realizing that flying only there in 500 days is a gamble that will not give anything. But the gulf about aircraft carriers, which only in order to be at least in theory a force must be built pieces 4, continue indefinitely. At the same time, we have no understanding of why the fleet at all. In the Syrian express, heaps of transports and frigates with destroyers are needed, aviation there in case of war, when any restrictions are dropped, covers almost everything from the ground.

    Actually, the British drank their fleet precisely because the colonies fell off, and ships were no longer needed. What did Britain win at the Falklands? Only war. And she defended the territory on which hundreds of two British citizens live, to whom this Britain had not fallen for about 100 years. In the same way, it won only the war in WWII, knowing what it was, but not getting anything from it. The army should serve some economic goals, and not vice versa, we are not playing strategy, where the scenario ends when the last faction is eliminated.

    As for the preservation of the flight school from the deck, the USSR created it in a few years, it will not lay down any aircraft carriers of the Russian Federation in the next 20 years, which means the current pilots will either resign or grow bellies and stars on shoulder straps, reseeding from the cockpit to cabinets . And everyone who wants to serve normally should flee to the Air Force, there are prospects, and new equipment, and less dreary. I do not see any problems in the case of bookmark aircraft carriers to recruit pilots and prepare them during the construction of ships. Here, more likely, either pilots will not be enough even for the Air Force, because people would rather go to a civilian rather than serve in Kamchatka behind a fence, or there will be no understanding of how the aircraft carrier group works in general. Well, he is still gone, which is what the Syrian failure of Kuzi showed. At the organizational level, we have nothing to lose, we are already at zero. And just flying from the deck can not do here, just this is the easiest in creating aircraft carrier forces.
    1. Selevc 7 May 2020 11: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      What did Britain win at the Falklands? Only war.
      No, don’t tell me .... The British lion showed its teeth to the whole world ... The British empire was falling apart throughout the 40-60s of the 20th century, and it seemed to the Argentinean top that a decrepit lion could easily tear a piece of overseas territories ... But not here that was ... The Britons showed to the whole world that they can recapture their colonies no matter how far they are from the mother country ...
      Simply put, the Falkland War is the end of the collapse of the British Empire !!!
      To win a local conflict with a large state on the other side of the planet, having limited resources and in a short time all this says something ...
      1. Cyril G ... 7 May 2020 11: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        They were very lucky in that war, even in geography
        1. Selevc 7 May 2020 12: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The thing is that it can be lucky once, well, two - but not ten or fifteen ... The English fleet has won victories over a larger enemy more than once (a striking example of Trafalgar) precisely thanks to the great experience of the British in naval battles ...
          And the main difference between Britons and Argentines (they have perfected it for centuries) is organization, supply
          and waging war on the periphery ... Well, of course, Anglo-Saxon perseverance is what the peoples of South America are so lacking ...
        2. Zementbomber 8 May 2020 03: 34 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, so did the args - there were "luck episodes" then. Of course - the Argentines would "win" that war if they would not have committed those AshShibok, whom they had committed. But - then already - and if the UK in this case would also act without AshShibok ??
      2. EvilLion 7 May 2020 12: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Oh, everyone was right scared. Something they already rebelled, and it did not care. And the end of the collapse, well, maybe, because everything has broken up, the process is over. Although Gibraltar is still there, and so on the little things.
        1. Selevc 7 May 2020 12: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Although Gibraltar is still there, and so on the little things.
          And they don’t need much - to organize a network of bases around the world, they don’t need to capture entire countries .. For the Navy to base, there are enough small island territories - this is left for Britain ... A whole series of island quasi-states - subjects of the British Crown are scattered all over the world .. In fact, it’s just a parking lot for basing the Navy and Navy, well, just in case ...
          1. EvilLion 7 May 2020 12: 51 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The base is needed to control the territory, and not for the sake of the fact of its existence.
            1. Selevc 7 May 2020 13: 15 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Transfer the British Navy or the Air Force to any of their islands and you will automatically gain control over the surrounding territory ... That's all - the casket just opens ...
    2. Selevc 7 May 2020 11: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      But the gulf about aircraft carriers, which only in order to be at least in theory a force must be built pieces 4, continue indefinitely. At the same time, we have no understanding of why the fleet at all

      The thing is that if you allow the scenario of a global conflict, then Russia does not need aircraft carriers since it will have to adhere to a defensive strategy and the Navy especially .. And if we assume that Russia will "punish Honduras" on the other side of the planet, then it’s easier to find an allied airfield of a million times cheaper ... And if "protecting Syria" again, the aircraft carrier does not scare the bandits who have settled in the mountains or in the cities ... Or you have to iron mountains or the jungle - the experience of Afghanistan and Vietnam is obvious ...

      And to create and then maintain AUG so that someday you can fight with someone away from your borders - isn’t it too fat and destructive for your economy? Russia has the longest land border in the world ... Fans of aircraft carriers and you are protected from land as it should? Or again, three retired border guards with one berdanka and a dog?
      1. Selevc 7 May 2020 13: 33 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Why do we need these old stories of a foreign country? Everything is very simple: there are a lot of parallels between what happened in Britain then and what is happening in Russia now.

        I want to point out to the author of the article several other historical analogies:
        1) Everyone knows about the Great French Revolution, but few people pay attention to the fact that these events took place against the backdrop of a sharp Anglo-French confrontation ... The whole history of the 18th century is the history of the rivalry between England and France. And even fewer people know that before the revolution, France built a huge fleet of battleships (for more than 100 units) for a decisive naval battle with Britain ... The famine in France happened largely because of this and not because of the greed of the court ... The king and queen were involved in a series of dirty intrigues at court, then executed after the revolution, and in Louis 16th put up a fool ...
        2) Everyone knows that before the 1st World Tsarist Russia built a fleet of battleships. As a result, the imperial family was also involved in dirty intrigues (Rasputin), which led to a fall in the prestige of the imperial family in Russia, revolution and chaos in the country ...
        There are analogs - and they are very similar to the successful actions of the enemy special services in order to stop the construction of the Navy of a rival country - a potential enemy ..
        Modern Russia, of course, can build AUGs, but only plywood or paper ones — and who will build a real aircraft carrier ??? But will not this end with another revolution in Russia? All world powers will consider the construction of an aircraft carrier in Russia a direct challenge to themselves !!!
        1. agond 7 May 2020 18: 21 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          The vulnerability of aircraft carriers increases every year, if you remove a high-explosive warhead from an Onyx-type rocket and stick 10-15 pieces of uranium rods on the outside, then of course you can destroy it by destroying the fragmentation charge of an air defense missile, and then what? RCC will decay into fragments, among which 10 pieces of uranium rods flying at the same speed almost along the same path to the target, and the target is large and hits will be likely
        2. Kwas 3 June 2020 15: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Your historical parallels are a little incorrect. Russia, of course, built a fleet of battleships, but let's admit that our completed 6 pieces (in the construction of another 5) could not be a threat to British> 40 similar ships, and at that time Britain was looking at Germany. And about France-England, something is not right. Can I name it? Of course, the Englishwoman is crap, but do you really think that the construction of 1-2 aircraft carriers will push them sharply, and so they will regret us ...
  • bk0010 7 May 2020 20: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Per se.
    for its time, the Yak-141 was an achievement that was far ahead of time, surpassing its competitors. Therefore, I cited it as an example, it was already a flying, almost ready plane, on which several world records were set. If you revive the vertical, you still have to start from the work of Yakovlev Design Bureau, from the main developments on the Yak-141.
    Yes, he was better than competitors, yes, many records were set on him. But it was still better not to put him in the troops: the main thing in the vertical is not supersonic. And it’s also not worth reviving the vertical chart based on operating time on the Yak-141: we get the same thing. A good vertical should have absolute controllability during vertical take-off and landing and when switching to horizontal mode, it should be reliable (amers have crashed a third of their Harriers), with a good resource, it should be able to take off and tucked up vertically and with weapons at the same time and even in fine weather (and not as usual), it should have a good radar and means of using guided weapons systems, well, modest maintenance costs, so that it would not work like the amers in Iraq (there, until the end of the war, the number of vertical fly sorties the marine corps was several times smaller than planned, then they burst into flames, but it was too late). A sign of a good vertical can be the absence of dedicated take-off engines (the F-35B fan is no better, by the way: it’s large, heavy, requires maintenance and does not help to improve handling).
    1. Cyril G ... 7 May 2020 22: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, what should be in your VTOL?
      1. bk0010 7 May 2020 22: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        Well, what should be in your VTOL?
        Accordingly, it is reliable, controlled in all modes, capable of raising so much fuel and weapons during vertical take-off that it will solve all the tasks assigned to it, capable of using high-precision weapons both on the ground and in the air, with a refueling system in the air (or even a third of the fuel leaves these vertical features), as automated as possible for take-off and landing, the presence of supersonic sound is uncritical (there is no fuel for it, but if it is possible to fly in normally it will come in handy).
    2. Avior 8 May 2020 00: 15 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      It also helps.
      There the adjustable clutch stands, controls the pitch.
      And the lifting device of the aircraft 20-30 tons should be small and light?
      1. bk0010 8 May 2020 09: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Avior
        And the lifting device of the aircraft 20-30 tons should be small and light?
        Yes it should. But this is not there - this is one of the main problems of vertical bars (the whole flight is carried by a heavy device that is used only a few minutes).
        Quote: Avior
        There the adjustable clutch stands, controls the pitch.
        Doesn’t decide: the vertical plane in the fleet needs to board a moving swinging ship, plus the influence of the wind. Air wings do not flow around, near-zero speed - the usual controllability is absent. We need complete and accurate handling, able to fend off gusts of wind and provide a soft landing, and not flopping, since the chance to return with weapons is great, especially in peacetime.
  • Zementbomber 8 May 2020 03: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    As the Falklands showed, light aircraft carriers, especially in the British case, with short take-off and vertical landing aircraft, have extremely limited applicability, and in the case of the Falklands their “success” is not at all a consequence of their tactical and technical characteristics, or the qualities based on them airplanes.

    Mlyn ... negative Firstly - success in the Falkland War - the “Sea Harriero” in the air battles was the most that neither is natural. The two-digit number of victories with zero combat of their own - say, no? bully
    Secondly - to a large extent this success is explained precisely by the performance characteristics of the "Hounds". Including that har-koi - koy since the late 1980s - will be called "super-maneuverability."
    Teach materiel, YOKLMN !!
    Well and yes - UDC should be able to carry ISH ViKViPi. ABC is it. As well as the fact that UDC is necessary for you. "Yes, not one." And not even four.
    1. timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 14: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There were no air battles with super-maneuverability; these were tales of captain Dotsenko and nothing more. And you are so big, but you believe in fairy tales.
      Well, it's funny.
  • Zementbomber 8 May 2020 03: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    VERTICAL AND KEEL PUMP IS NEUTRALIZED ONLY BY SHIP SIZE BY WATERLINE AND DRAIN. And no other way.

    Nonsense. Complete. From ignorance of the basics. The swinging range is determined primarily by stability. This is known since the end of the XIX century. minimum. bully
    1. timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 14: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You have some kind of chaos in your head.
      Not amplitude, but amplitude.
      And not stability, this stability is characterized by the period and frequency of different types of rolling with different excitement.
      1. Zementbomber 10 May 2020 21: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Reread, plz, “An Essay on the Development of the Theory of a Ship” of the fleet of the general, full member of the St. Petersburg Imperial Academy of Sciences and the USSR Academy of Sciences Aleksey Nikolayevich Krylov - and then, if you wish, we will continue the discussion, - OK?
        1. timokhin-aa 10 May 2020 22: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I use terms that are quite common in shipbuilding - amplitude, period, pitching frequency, etc.
  • Zementbomber 8 May 2020 03: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    But they went the other way and lost their combat power, and, apparently, forever, and overpayed for this loss a lot of money.

    Forever? Exactly? These products are:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
    - greet (with a laugh) You! bully
    1. timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 14: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      With a defective air group.
      1. Zementbomber 10 May 2020 21: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And what is expressed by the "inferiority" of their air groups - let me ask? smile For the F-35B is more than significantly superior in tactical capabilities to the MiG-29K (second) / KUB. wink
        1. timokhin-aa 10 May 2020 22: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          That they could have an F-35C. But his F-35B never surpasses.
          1. Zementbomber 11 May 2020 00: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            А why "even better but much more expensive" when you can "for a lower price and quite enough" ??
            1. timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 10: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Where did you get that "enough"? It would be enough for an enemy attacking them to have ANY more or less modern AWACS aircraft in order to reduce all the advantages of the F-35 to zero, but the Britons cannot lift a heavy aircraft from their ships.
              Or they could have Hokai.

              The sufficiency of such an air group, which they will have on the "Queens" must still be proved.
              1. Zementbomber 11 May 2020 12: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                It will be enough for an enemy attacking them to have ANY more or less modern AWACS aircraft in order to reduce all the advantages of the F-35 to zero

                Ahhh ... You, too, from the "witness sect" are actually "good radar-visibility" stealth "... laughing
  • Zementbomber 8 May 2020 03: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, "only two hundred useless citizens" - delivered. The author is google "Falkland population" (over 2 thousand people, by the way - we all sometimes jerk off laughing ) and the "natural resources of the Falklands" (incl. the "same" oil in their SEZ) !! bully
    1. timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 14: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Did I write something about just two hundred useless citizens? No, I didn’t write, it’s probably in your head that’s what they said in your head, please check.
  • grumbler 10 May 2020 17: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Thanks for the interesting article.
    Apparently, the author is right in the sense that in the case of equipping an average aircraft carrier with manned aircraft, VTOL aircraft - we have many problems. But everything changes significantly if, instead of full-fledged heavy AWACS aircraft, a-SEC is equipped UAV drlo. imho is a very promising area, because It is important for airborne warning systems, aircraft, search aircraft to stay in the air for a long time, regardless of weather conditions. An UAV is better suited for this than a manned aircraft - remote operator shifts work in comfortable conditions and are regularly replaced. The UAV geometry does not depend on the need to allocate habitable space for the crew - it can be designed much better adapted to withstand sea squalls (and this is not such a fantasy, you can create aircraft that will soar like albatrosses most of the time. There are Doppler radars and "Cambrian intelligence) "for finding the right airflows and planning for them for weeks).

    The vertical vibrations of the deck can be partially compensated, for example:
    - Creation of an automated control systemwhich at the take-off / landing stage will continuously monitor the movement of the deck and the aircraft and automatically synchronize the movement of the aircraft with the oscillations of the deck.
    - Apply "active deck" - install on it an array of controlled air nozzles that will create a dynamic wave-like “pillow” above the deck, which will pick up the aircraft and help during take-off.
    - Use for takeoff / landing aircraft mooring "UAV tugs", by analogy with the way tugs moor tankers and container ships."

    Yes, it's all a fantasy, but aircraft carriers themselves, carrier-based aircraft and their systems are the last word in technology. But, if we are discussing the prospect, then the widest application of UAVs in naval aviation will be "everyday life." UAVs will take on the AWACS, PLO, search operations. It is more effective, cheaper safer.
    Therefore, when designing media, this must be taken into account.
    1. grumbler 11 May 2020 10: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Thus we get the system:
      Medium "carrier". Not even a highly specialized aircraft carrier is required, but it can be a modular “universal forwarding ship”.
      A set of tools facilitating takeoff and landing operations (ACS "carrier-LA", "active deck", "UAV-tugs").
      Air group, consisting of manned strike VTOL and UAVs. And UAV reconnaissance and target designation (AWACS, PLO) and electronic warfare.
      Changes in UAV operators can be distributed and can be located on strike ships, control aircraft, and on the ground (modern distributed game teams demonstrate very high “teamwork”, coordination of actions, without even meeting in person).

      This will influence the concept of medium “air carriers”: an air group can be distributed among several carriers. In the mixed version (manned aviation + UAVs), or only UAVs (ARD based and "jump"), their human teams will be minimal (in the long run completely uninhabited?).

      It will also have a significant impact on the design of the manned aircraft themselves. In the case of using "UAV-tugs" for takeoff and landing operations from manned aircraft, the excessive energy of vertical take-off / landing will be removed and transferred to the "tugs" and "active deck".

      T.O. it is no longer necessary to design an aircraft carrier, planes and landing take-off systems, but single aircraft carrier-takeoff / landing systems-LA.

      I note that such systems will be useful not only for the military, but also for search and rescue operations at sea, the fight against illegal fishing and environmental monitoring.
  • con_nick 17 May 2020 12: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Eh ... In the article there is a lot of rubbish, archaic and simply simply dull idolatry before the great and mighty US Navy ... Which, of course, is great and mighty, but not without its shortcomings, its traditions, which, as you know, are for the good , and to the detriment. But nevertheless, there are many correct conclusions) So, for me, what needs to be done is to really restore our only aircraft carrier, and to carry out a deep modernization, with the replacement of turbines, the demolition of why aerofinishers and a corner deck, etc. In short, take all the best from de Gaulle and Lizka. And urgently saw your KVVP. For the future lies with them. Why? The author talks a lot and colorfully about seaworthiness, pitching, reproaches readers for not knowing mathematics, but he himself does not give convincing arguments except for verbiage))) In fact, this is the case:
    "... These estimates, in particular, indicate that when performing continuous strike operations with aircraft carriers with a displacement of 90 thousand tons, the air group of the KVVP aircraft exceeds the air group of conventional ejection and springboard aircraft by 33% and 69%, respectively. the same actions with aircraft carriers with a displacement of 45 thousand tons superiority
    KVVP aircraft group reaches 2 and 4 times, respectively. The efficiency of the KVVP aircraft group operating from an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 45 thousand tons becomes equal to the efficiency of an ejection aircraft group operating from an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 90 thousand tons. This is due to the influence of the size of the flight deck on the efficiency of deck operations and the ability to accommodate the required number of aircraft.
    According to estimates, due to the increased efficiency of deck operations, an air group of 20 strike aircraft KVVP, based on the ANC with a displacement of 18,5 thousand tons, makes more sorties over the same time than 58 attack aircraft of an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 82 thousand tons.
    Taking into account the influence of seaworthiness indicators, especially with a wave of more than 5 points, the superiority of the KVVP aircraft group operating from aircraft carriers with a displacement of 30-60 thousand tons is even greater. According to estimates, the use of KVVP naval aircraft in operations with aircraft carriers and ANCs with a displacement of more than 18,5 thousand tons in the North Atlantic with a wave of 6 points ensures the combat effectiveness of the air group for 66-72% of the time and the overall combat effectiveness of the air group
    with excitement up to 6 points inclusive within 88-92% of the time.
    Conventional ship planes achieve this level of combat effectiveness only with operations from aircraft carriers with a displacement of more than 82 thousand tons. "

    With regards to AWACS aircraft - everything is also solved there)
  • Cyril G ... 11 June 2020 19: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Semenov Kolka
    Any large ship of the Navy, under the conditions of the complete domination of the enemy at sea, simply turns into a target that will inevitably be sunk, so if the fleet needs ships, it should be frigates 22350, which are the balance between firepower, powerful air defense and a relatively small displacement. Everything else is from the evil one.


    So.
  • iouris 23 June 2020 11: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The signature reads: “Ark Royal” after the most recent modification. ”Read“ modernization. ”