Why does Italy need an aircraft carrier: about the completed modernization of the Cavour aircraft carrier


After the modernization, the Italian Navy aircraft carrier Cavour went to the open sea to conduct sea trials there.

Light aircraft carrier Cavour ("Cavour") is considered the flagship of the Italian military fleet. The week completed its modernization, which has been carried out since December 2018.

Previously, the AV-8B Harrier carrier-based attack aircraft were based on this warship, but by now they are already outdated. Now it was decided to replace them with F-35B aircraft, which are capable of shortened take-off and vertical landing. The Italian military purchased 30 such combat vehicles in addition to the F-35A with standard take-off and landing.

Now the aircraft carrier "Cavour" left the Taranto naval base to conduct sea trials. At the moment, the aircraft carrier team is preparing to move to the east coast of the United States. There she will have to work out the takeoff and landing of the new American F-35B fighters.


At the same time, Italy itself cannot answer the question of why the country needs an aircraft carrier in modern conditions and where it plans to use it. Indeed, in the Mediterranean Sea, the American naval squadron, which includes aircraft carriers, is quite “for allied defense,” experts say.

But the answer to the question, why does Italy need an aircraft carrier, comes from the United States. There are satisfied with the actions of an ally. After all, Italy not only actively invests in military spending, but also buys American fighters, thereby supporting the economy of the United States.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Walrus fang 8 May 2020 13: 08 New
    • 2
    • 10
    -8
    But the answer to the question, why does Italy need an aircraft carrier, comes from the United States. There are satisfied with the actions of an ally.

    You can send for slaughter, instead of your ..?
    1. Gray brother 8 May 2020 13: 16 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Walrus Fang
      You can send for slaughter, instead of your ..?

      All eight planes. This is not an aircraft carrier at all, but a landing ship rather, it is more imprisoned for helicopters.
      1. Undecim 8 May 2020 13: 27 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        This is not an aircraft carrier at all, but rather a landing ship
        And even without sooner. There is a quick transformation of hangars into holds for transporting up to 24 main battle tanks such as Ariete, or 50 Dardo IFV, or more than a hundred Iveco LMV. Plus up to 400 marines. The wing is replaced by the AgustaWestland UH-101A ASH, based on the flight deck. Plus aft ramp for loading and unloading.
      2. donavi49 8 May 2020 13: 29 New
        • 17
        • 0
        +17
        He is a versatile light aircraft carrier. The landing party can carry, but unload at the port or helicopters.

        They are building a mega UDC, one of the largest and coolest in the world wink . There is already a normal deck for equipment and a large dock camera.



        1. Gray brother 8 May 2020 13: 42 New
          • 1
          • 9
          -8
          Quote: donavi49
          He is a versatile light aircraft carrier.

          The hangar is designed to accommodate 12 helicopters, such as the EH-101, NH-90 or SH-3D, or eight Boeing AV-8B Harrier II Plus aircraft, or the promising Lockheed Martin F-35B. Also, Cavour can operate with heavy transport helicopters. A typical air group is 20-24 LAC, while some of the cars are based on the flight deck, which is the standard for all aircraft carriers.

          I’ll tell you frankly that for an aircraft carrier it’s somehow wretched, and in the landing transport mode there the hangar will be clogged with equipment at all, and there will be no place for planes at all. Yes, and the F-35 can hardly be constantly kept on deck.
          1. donavi49 8 May 2020 13: 47 New
            • 14
            • 0
            +14
            Well 22-28 cars is a normal Kuzi group wink .

            As a platform for projecting power on all sorts of Libya, it is just right in terms of size, cost and capabilities.

            It can also act as part of NATO forces, such as reinforcing the KMG or assault landing force.
            1. Gray brother 8 May 2020 13: 50 New
              • 2
              • 9
              -7
              Quote: donavi49
              Well 22-28 cars is a normal Kuzi group.

              So he is an aircraft carrier cruiser, does not pretend to be an aircraft carrier.
              1. donavi49 8 May 2020 13: 53 New
                • 7
                • 0
                +7
                So Cavour is half the size of Kuzi and Lisa wink . In fact, it is a lightweight universal aircraft carrier in the dimension of the average UDC. Trieste - the new Italian UDC more than this aircraft carrier came out, a whole frigate will fit in to deliver the displacement.
                1. Gray brother 8 May 2020 13: 59 New
                  • 3
                  • 4
                  -1
                  Quote: donavi49
                  So Cavour is half the size of Kuzi and Lisa

                  Let it come when it grows)))
                2. Boa kaa 8 May 2020 14: 54 New
                  • 8
                  • 2
                  +6
                  Quote: donavi49
                  So Cavour is half the size of Kuzi and Lisa

                  It depends on what angle to look at!
                  The Italians, for example, look at such an angle that you can figure out the hell: either Cavour is a giant, or Nimitz is a nonsense, not to mention Charles (in the background) laughing

                  So, right colleague Gray brother!
                  There and not such "projection" shoals go past)))
                  laughing
              2. Boa kaa 8 May 2020 14: 48 New
                • 13
                • 2
                +11
                Quote: Gray Brother
                So he is an aircraft carrier cruiser, does not pretend to be an aircraft carrier.

                In terms of armament, he’s not just a cruiser, he doesn’t pull a corvette! 2 x 76 mm AU, a pair of 25 mm short flight of stairs and 4 x 8 VPU under SAM Asp! -- all! And here is the air group like at atomic Charles! But not nuclear ...
                Actually, I liked it: small, but so toothy! And aviation can take as much as 6 "sea".



                And the performance characteristics are quite decent:
                Key Features of the Cavour Aircraft Carrier:
                Displacement, t: standard - 27 910, full - more than 35000;
                Length, m: 244; Width, m: 39; Draft, m: 8,7:
                Engines: 4 gas turbine engines LM2500;
                Power: 118 000 liters. with. (86,8 MW);
                Speed, knots: 30 (55,56 km / h);
                Cruising range, miles: 7000 at a speed of 16 knots;
                Crew, people: 528, including 203 - flight technical personnel of the air group (in addition to them, the headquarters of up to 145 people can be placed on the ship);
                Armament: 2 x 76 mm AU “Super Rapid”, 3 x 25 mm AU “OTO Melara”, 4 x 8 UVP “Silver” A43 (Aster-15 missile launcher);
                Aviation Group: 20-24 aircraft (AV-8B Harrier-2 and F-35B) and a helicopter (EN-101, NH-90 or SH-3D)

                The upper deck has a bow for 4 units. and feed for 8 units. parking lots for aircraft. The take-off landing platform (184 x 14,2 m) is equipped with a 12 ° ramp. Behind it are platforms for the simultaneous take-off of 6 EH-101 or 4 CH-47. Take-off and landing are possible with sea waves up to 6 points. Max. flight intensity - 60 dv / day.
                The hangar for aircraft is 134x21x7,2 m. There are 6 lifts for ascending to the flight deck: 2 for aircraft (g / n = 30 t), 2 for air defense (g / n = 15 t) and 2 service (g / n = 7 t).
                Cavour can also be used as a UDC. It has premises for 400 Marines and 60 units. armored vehicles unloaded on its own.
                Wheeled or tracked vehicles weighing up to 60 tons can be placed on the hangar deck. For its movement there is aft and side ramps max. g / p = 60 tons. The ship can carry 4 deca type LCVP.
                1. Gray brother 8 May 2020 14: 55 New
                  • 3
                  • 5
                  -2
                  Quote: BoA KAA
                  20-24 aircraft (AV-8B Harrier-2 and F-35B) and a helicopter (EN-101, NH-90 or SH-3D)

                  What beautiful beech and numbers.
                  "20-24" is a total aircraft units. And either 12 helicopters or 8 aircraft climb into the hangar. The rest is on deck.
                  Since it is very expensive to put the F-35 on the deck, they will be in the hangar, which means there will be a maximum of 8.
            2. Gray brother 8 May 2020 13: 53 New
              • 1
              • 4
              -3
              Quote: donavi49
              As a platform for projecting power on all sorts of Libya

              There and not such "projection" shoals go past)))
    2. Catfish 8 May 2020 17: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And who will send him to slaughter, do not tell? hi
    3. Civil 9 May 2020 09: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      There is money and can afford it.
      1. Walrus fang 9 May 2020 16: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Civil
        There is money and can afford it.

        But they are in NATO and this aircraft carrier will be the first to get hit and everything else .. Why should they do that? because if the massacre begins, ours will begin to extinguish NATO bases in Europe first and then even further ... soldier We won’t feel sorry, this time already ...
  2. knn54 8 May 2020 13: 23 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    The Yankees do not want to “pull” the F-35 program themselves. Alone, even for them, is expensive.
  3. rotmistr60 8 May 2020 13: 29 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    in Italy itself they cannot answer the question why the country needs an aircraft carrier
    To acquire American aircraft and support the American military-industrial complex.
  4. Demagogue 8 May 2020 13: 30 New
    • 11
    • 5
    +6
    A very serious ship. In combat operations can carry up to 20 f-35v. F-35 made such ships a real force. The Americans have 9 light aircraft carriers and are building more, apparently the number will increase to 15, the Japanese have built 2, and there will be more, the Italians are on the right track.
    1. Boa kaa 8 May 2020 14: 59 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: Demagogue
      Americans have 9 light aircraft carriers and are building more

      Colleague, you are a little mistaken. Amy have no AVU lungs.
      They have 12 heavy types of Nimitz and D. Ford of the order of 100-109 thousand tons and with an aircraft wing under 90 aircraft.
      And the fact that they are planning to use UDCs under AVL is that container ships can be converted for them, as the British did in 1982.
      1. Demagogue 8 May 2020 15: 07 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        A container ship is possible, but not necessary. It does not have a deck for normal take-off, a number of other restrictions. For example, the speed of Kavur is 30 knots, and the container ship and 16 will not give out. Plus the displacement will be less those pitching. The British planted spare cars on them. In 1982 there was no f-35, which has a vertical take-off radius of two times from Harrier. And carries more. It changes everything. UDC is now toothy. The Americans plan to actively use them precisely as light aircraft carriers. The Japanese are the same.
        1. strannik1985 8 May 2020 15: 56 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          A container ship is possible, but not necessary. It does not have a deck for normal take-off, a number of other restrictions.

          Anadyr has a total of 21 knots.
          The difference is that they have a ready VTOL, the development of which will take us more than 10 years and billions of rubles
          1. Avior 8 May 2020 16: 41 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            airplane cannot take off from Anadyr
            and helicopters are uncomfortable
            and the Finns stood by him.
            1. strannik1985 8 May 2020 16: 51 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              airplane cannot take off from Anadyr

              Nowhere can not, so it is not. Absolutely not.
              Well, what about convenient / not convenient - not the Russian Navy picky.
              1. Avior 8 May 2020 18: 18 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                and there was nothing to crap, still they wouldn’t take off
                Yak -38 sat down and took off with Augustino Net and Nikolai Cherkassy
                1. strannik1985 8 May 2020 19: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  and there was nothing to pick and choose

                  So the Harrier took off from the container ship, this does not mean the possibility of permanent basing.
                  1. Avior 8 May 2020 20: 07 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    I didn’t say that. Ours also did not begin to develop further
                    just from Anadyr, in principle, would not take off.
          2. Demagogue 8 May 2020 17: 13 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Anadyr military transport. We are talking about an ordinary civilian container ship. And Anadyr will not develop 21 knots. Maybe once upon delivery an empty smog.
            A car like f-35v we can do quickly. We have a backlog of yak-141. It was a gorgeous plane. Put composites, radar with afar, when finished, and there will be a thing. And you can roll out for 6 years. Just the head avik for 30 tons will be. And parallel to the 000th generation saw. Instead, we pump money into useless dregs like strategists.
            1. strannik1985 8 May 2020 17: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              We are talking about an ordinary civilian container ship.

              Which can be used for overseas landing.
              And Anadyr will not develop 21 knots.

              Personal opinion.
              We have a backlog of yak-141.

              30 years ago, the materials and equipment of which have not been produced for a long time, we look at the duration of work on the Su-57 and MiG-35. Not to mention that the tasks are different.
              1. Avior 8 May 2020 18: 20 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                it is the Su-57 and Mig-35- it is a reserve.
                Engine, avionics and other elements.
                Sin to let go.
            2. Victor67 9 May 2020 15: 46 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              God, what kind of nonsense are you talking about ??? What type of machine will you make F-35, who will do, which design bureau, which plant, from which: from sawdust in your brain ??? What funds? We have been doing 57 years of Soviet work on Soviet developments and have not yet done so, we moved the 2nd stage again to the right to 25 years !!! What radar with AFAR, where is it, who will do it, when, at what cost ??? What avik for 30000 tons will be in six years ??? Is there a project ??? Is there a shipyard on which it will be built in 6 years ??? Which head ??? Do you mean a series of such aviks? 30000 tons ??? Why and to whom are they needed ??? Why, damn it, in your head ??? What nonsense are you smashing here ??? Are you sick on the head ???
  5. Charik 8 May 2020 13: 33 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    But it’s not easier to drive planes home and train at home than to drive Avik there from there and then pick up the airplane after all
    1. Liam 8 May 2020 13: 40 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Charik
      But it’s not easier to drive planes home and train at home than to drive Avik there from there and then pick up the airplane after all

      F-35 for themselves and for Holland - are built in Italy at the factory in Cameri
      1. Charik 8 May 2020 23: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Especially in fig, in America, a ship can be driven if everything is at home, learning to land, it’s easier to call instructors, some kind of blockheads of minuses
    2. Boa kaa 8 May 2020 15: 25 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      Quote: Charik
      But it’s not easier to drive planes home and train at home than to drive Avik there from there and still then take the samole

      The British also drove both of their aircraft carriers to the shores of the New World to receive their ship carrier complex at work.
      And F-35 across the ocean under its own power with refueling in the air, or from European assembly plants to AVU will move. But they should be taken by a well-tested ship, and not by a can with a gop team.
      Therefore, they train at am, while there are no aircraft of their own.
  6. Yuri Mikhailovsky 8 May 2020 13: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    What would fight ..
  7. VicktorVR 8 May 2020 13: 40 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    Maybe Italy understands that in the near future the United States will begin to abandon allies (in the literal and figurative sense)?
    Moreover, for completely objective and pragmatic reasons - "the pan of the ataman has a dumb gold reserve", nothing personal, pure business.
    And you will have to deal with your problems yourself. Available forces and means.
  8. Free wind 8 May 2020 13: 54 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    I don’t know why, in the First World War they opposed the Germans with the Austrians, got snot. In World War II, they spoke for the Germans with the Austrians, got snot. After the Second World War, there seems to be only the commissar Catania fought against the mafia. Nowhere pasta seems not particularly lit. The mafia certainly blooms and smells there, maybe the mafia Avik built it, then the carabinieri will have a little taut.
  9. Maks1995 8 May 2020 13: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Whose question is it? The answer is clear, the stump comes from the USA, but the question, the question, where is it from?
    The article is unsigned ...

    The comments also gave their answer, quite positive ... But who are those idiotic, IMHO, asking questions ???

  10. Pvi1206 8 May 2020 14: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    An army without modern technology is only suitable for parades ...
  11. BREAKTHROUGH READY 8 May 2020 15: 09 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    At the same time, Italy itself cannot answer the question of why the country needs an aircraft carrier in modern conditions and where it plans to use it. Indeed, in the Mediterranean Sea the American naval squadron, which includes aircraft carriers, is quite enough
    That is, it would be better if they handed out money to pensioners, because besides Russia, the USA and China, it is simply not supposed to have an army for anyone by status, especially any pasta.
    1. Victor67 9 May 2020 20: 41 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      You would, dear, before you write nonsense, you would study the composition of the Italian Navy))) And you would think that our Black Sea Fleet could oppose them to FREMMs, UDC, PL and others, including combat swimmers with their excellent history of working in Crimea after the Second World War. It seems to me that these pasta will unwind the entire Black Sea Fleet in 10 minutes, and there will be nowhere for reinforcements to enter the Mediterranean ... And this is without NATO, purely pasta!
      1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 9 May 2020 20: 52 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Only one “club” is enough to send the Apennine Peninsula to the bottom like Atlantis.
        What the hell ships ...
        1. Victor67 9 May 2020 21: 37 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          That is, thanks to the strategic nuclear forces remaining from the Union, we are still sitting, but there is no fleet (((From the word ...
  12. Avior 8 May 2020 15: 29 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Formally, he is an aircraft carrier, but in fact it is UDC.
    But the question is wrong.
    Why Italy TWO aircraft carriers?

    UDC Trieste
    1. Liam 8 May 2020 15: 54 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Actually, there is also Garibaldi.
      And how many should there be? 2 is the union minimum. One on the base is one under the pairs. Questions are more likely to those who have less than two
      1. Avior 8 May 2020 16: 44 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Questions are even more likely to those who have less than one.
        1. Liam 8 May 2020 18: 29 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          For those who have less than one, there are no questions. They are mainly busy talking about unripe grapes and the unreasonability of aircraft carriers / udk)
  13. voyaka uh 8 May 2020 16: 06 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Now Timokhin will tell you what a wretched, worthless ship it is. laughing
    And it will swing on the waves, and there are no human lifts.
    1. Golovnyak 8 May 2020 16: 12 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Now Timokhin will tell you what a wretched, worthless ship it is. laughing
      And it will swing on the waves, and there are no human lifts.

      And why doesn’t Israel buy an aircraft carrier? After all, do you have money? Such a principe will be on duty off the coast of Iran, Syria, etc. and the flag of Israel will develop ..)))))
      What and whom are you afraid of? wink
      1. voyaka uh 8 May 2020 19: 05 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The time will come - we will buy it. Just such a light aircraft carrier.
        1. Liam 8 May 2020 19: 08 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Then many difficulties with refueling / jump airfields / airspace of third countries will disappear in case of, for example, a strike on Bushehr.
          1. PSih2097 8 May 2020 22: 57 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Liam
            Then many difficulties with refueling / jump airfields / airspace of third countries will disappear in case of, for example, a strike on Bushehr.

            there will remain problems (difficulties) with RTOs and DEPL / PLA carriers of anti-ship missiles, and aviation will not go anywhere with the same X-35s ...
        2. Victor67 9 May 2020 20: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          To hell with you, you’ll wind it all up from the ground))) It's easier to buy a couple of tankers and a couple of AWACS (if not already), and you can be on duty on any coast, even in India))) What can the Jews explain, think and you can count!
  14. Sahalinets 8 May 2020 16: 16 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Well, what are his real tasks?
    1. Minor showdown with the Arabs.
    2. Performing private tasks under the guise of American AUG.
    For these purposes, quite.
  15. Demagogue 8 May 2020 17: 34 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: strannik1985
    We are talking about an ordinary civilian container ship.

    Which can be used for overseas landing.
    And Anadyr will not develop 21 knots.

    Personal opinion.
    We have a backlog of yak-141.

    30 years ago, the materials and equipment of which have not been produced for a long time, we look at the duration of work on the Su-57 and MiG-35. Not to mention that the tasks are different.


    Yak-141 from the point of view of the glider and the system of vertical take-off and landing was gorgeous. It is not for nothing that the Americans bought the SvPP technology from the Yakovlevites. Harrier was much worse. Put composites, cut ep, and there will be a great modern airplane. The Su-57 has a number of problems, including congenital ones. There are no afar and an engine for it, which is less critical. And to Yak in 6 years should already be. At least to the level of Raphael it can be brought to EPR and radar. The fleet will finally have eyes behind the horizon. And so he is blind with us.

    Anadyr for over-horizon landing is possible, of course, but we have more pressing problems that I wrote about above.
    1. strannik1985 8 May 2020 17: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yak-141 from the point of view of the glider and the system of vertical take-off and landing was gorgeous.

      The key one was, everything will have to be started anew, and the VTOL aircraft have no less problems than the Su-57 and MiG-35.

      Anadyr for over-horizon landing is possible, of course, but we have more pressing problems that I wrote about above.

      This, of course, is great weight, but there’s not enough money for everyone.
      1. Demagogue 8 May 2020 18: 09 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Of course not enough. Therefore, having a fishing rod / light aircraft carrier in one bottle is beneficial.

        And to finish the yak is much easier than the su-57. This is a 4th generation airplane and other requirements. For example, a marine aircraft does not need built-in weapons bays. His chip is low-altitude breakouts. So everything is real.
        1. strannik1985 8 May 2020 19: 00 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Of course not enough.

          Anadyr is not a UDC, but an auxiliary fleet ship. Build anyway.
          And to finish the yak is much easier than the su-57.

          It’s not easier, at least there will be difficulties with the engine (s), plus laying the characteristics of the 4th generation level in a promising fighter (i.e. it will fly in 10 years, operate 40-50 years) is somewhat strange, don’t you?
          1. Demagogue 8 May 2020 19: 13 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            I do not find. The French plan to exploit Rafal for a long time. If there is no money and opportunities to have the 5th generation, then what is not? Build aircraft carriers, train pilots on yaks, and in 25 years the 5th generation will be.
            1. strannik1985 8 May 2020 19: 47 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The French plan to exploit Rafal for a long time.

              And in vain, the first prototype Rafal M flew on December 12, 1991, Rafal M modification F1 standard was adopted in 2000, reached b / g in 2004, in 2006 modification F2 was adopted.
              1. Demagogue 8 May 2020 19: 56 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Until 2040 they want to exploit it nonetheless. You can have ten prototypes of the 5th generation, and you can have 100 4th planes in service in 10 years with 4 light aircraft carriers. I am for the second option.
                1. strannik1985 8 May 2020 20: 57 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Until 2040

                  Which modification? The radar with the AFE RBE-2 acquired another F2, F3 is now supplied, in January last year they signed a contract for the development of F4.
                  To stand still you need to run wink
                  1. Demagogue 8 May 2020 21: 15 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Well, in 2030 our yak with afar turns out to withstand rafal with afar. What is shocking you? The F-35 will be operational until 2070, if we make an analog of the F-35 by 2040, then we won’t be late. The lack of carrier-based aviation essentially deprives our fleet of any chance offshore. Ships are blind beyond 40 km. This is critical. There would have been harriers for the benefit.
                    1. strannik1985 8 May 2020 21: 58 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well, in 2030 our yak with afar turns out to withstand rafal with afar.

                      No, at the beginning of 2007 the experimental Zhuk-AE was installed on the demonstration MiG-35, and in 2010 mass production was launched. Mig-35 status to remind? Mig-29 with Zhuk-AE looks even more promising.
                    2. Victor67 9 May 2020 21: 05 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      And what should our fleet do away from the coast? To project power on the Papuans, so that later they can sell something on credit and forgive this debt? Maybe it’s better to do something at home: arrange medicine there, or start paying doctors, you can finally make your own car (TV, mobile phone, washing machine, microwave oven, everywhere else) at last without import glands and start selling it all over the world as it was under the Union. To compete with America and NATO with aviks and airplanes is a rotten thing, since the ancestors of the strategic nuclear forces left us their own, otherwise they would now be in the service of the gentlemen or in the forest would sit with an accordion ...
        2. Liam 8 May 2020 19: 05 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Demagogue
          And to finish a yak is much easier

          Let me remind you that there are about a dozen countries capable of flying into space. There are about a dozen nuclear weapons. And they could easily be built with a dozen.
          But only two countries were able to build truly flying VTOL aircraft
        3. Liam 8 May 2020 23: 57 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Demagogue
          For example, a marine aircraft does not need built-in weapons bays

          And so everyone who can only builds or buys the F-35S and F-35 V
    2. Avior 8 May 2020 18: 22 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      It is not for nothing that the Americans bought the SvPP technology from the Yakovlevites.

      with this you got excited.
      Another technology, the engine is one, not three.
      Even helicopters cannot take off from Anadyr, but the Yak38 took off from civilian cargo ships
      1. Demagogue 8 May 2020 18: 32 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        This is where is your 3 engine? Just the main advantage of the yak-141 over the harrier and the yak-38 was the presence of one engine with the ability to rotate 95 degrees. Like the f-35. Two engines in the center of the fuselage for vertical take-off only.
        1. Avior 8 May 2020 18: 48 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          unfortunately 3, like the Yak-38. Harrier and F-35 have one.
          With one we tried the Yak-41, but failed
          On June 26, 1974, a directive was issued by the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which officially gave rise to the development of a new VTOL and set a deadline for presenting the finished draft. At an early stage, the use of a single power plant with one PMD with a thrust of 15 kgs was implied. The first full-size model of the aircraft was assembled. But already in the course of work on it, it became clear that a car with such an arrangement would be almost impossible to stabilize in vertical flight modes. The State Commission, having familiarized itself with the layout, came to the same conclusions. Therefore, it was decided to switch to a combined power plant, the experience of creating and operating which was already obtained on the Yak-000.


          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA-141#Силовая_установка
          1. Demagogue 8 May 2020 18: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The engine is one there and there. For vertical take-off, the Yak-141 additionally has two small engines in the center of the fuselage, and the f-35 has a fan there. That’s the whole difference. The layout of the aircraft is identical. Actually, the yak had a contract with the Americans on the transfer of technology.
            1. Avior 8 May 2020 19: 25 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              this is the very difference because of which Harrier is still flying, and the Yak-38 was soon abandoned.
              1 + = 2 3 smile
              They have different take-off technologies.
              The scheme "additionally two small engines in the center of the fuselage", as on the Yak-141, was on the French Mirage.

              VTOL "Mirage" III V, only there were 8 elevators, not 2.
              The first prototype took off in 1962.
              After the tests, they also refused.
            2. Carnifexx 9 May 2020 12: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              There are opinions that the F35B STOVL is almost the Yak-141, they say they bought it, rested it, etc. In reality, the only thing they have in common is a rotary nozzle. They really bought the LM documentation, but for sure they did it based on the motives or followed the documentation 100% hard.
              1. Demagogue 9 May 2020 12: 45 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0



                For clarity. Absolutely identical layout.
                1. Carnifexx 10 May 2020 11: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Absolutely identical layout
                  But the Yak has two RD-41 jet engines behind the pilot's back, and the 35th has a fan driven by the engine. Yak has jet rudders at the ends of the tail beams. At the 35th, the side wheels are visible just in the photo, above the upper landing gear. In short, the differences are more than enough not to consider the F-35B a Soviet development.
                  1. Demagogue 10 May 2020 12: 14 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I haven’t written anywhere that the f-35v is a Soviet development. But the Soviet layout, brought to perfection by the Americans. Looking at the Yak-141, even today it looks modern. At the idea level, he is really cool. There were problems with the implementation. But this is already a lag in technology as well. Whether there are two engines there or a fan as a whole does not matter, the locations of the nozzles of the valve and the engines are one. It's just that the Americans are getting better. I am sure that Lockheed won the tender for f-35 due to this layout. Competitors have offered much weaker options for SVVP.
      2. Victor67 9 May 2020 21: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why would he even take off at a radius of 200 km? This is much less than the range of any RCC in the probable.
  16. Bshkaus 8 May 2020 17: 39 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Why Italy aircraft carrier ship

    I recognize by the title of the article and its content the author of regular "feuilleton".
    It would be better if the author posed other questions:
    And why Russia Admiral Kuznetsov, if there is nuclear weapons?
    But what if Italy does not share slippers with NATO tomorrow, then what will it protect itself from the same NATO?
    But what if the guards gunboat of the Black Sea Fleet under the command of a couch admiral drowns the entire AUG of the USA in the Mediterranean Sea, with which then will NATO bring satisfaction?
    And who exactly in Italy declared
    At the same time, Italy itself cannot answer the question of why the country needs an aircraft carrier in modern conditions
    , I would like the names, appearances and passwords of traitors.
    Yes, I, as an average statistical consumer, do not give a damn about agitation whether Italy needs this aircraft carrier or not. I'm interested in something else:
    Why didn't the author compare the military capabilities of Kavur with Admiral Kuznitsov, Charles Degol, Liaoning, or at least Vikramaditya?
    And what is the combat potential of the decked F-35, what weapons?
    In essence, there are many questions ...
    Yes, do not be offended, but the truth is, I understand that you need to raise patriotism, make fun of all theirs, to doubt their achievements, but it looks very "clumsy."
    When we at the institute were forced to analyze articles and compose our own, for it would not be that they stuck a deuce, they would have kicked us out of the second year (((.
  17. Demagogue 8 May 2020 19: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Avior
    this is the very difference because of which Harrier is still flying, and the Yak-38 was soon abandoned.
    1 + = 2 3 smile
    They have different take-off technologies.
    The scheme "additionally two small engines in the center of the fuselage", as on the Yak-141, was on the French Mirage.

    VTOL "Mirage" III V, only there were 8 elevators, not 2.
    The first prototype took off in 1962.
    After the tests, they also refused.


    Wrong. If you remove the fan from the f-35 and put it on the yak-141, then the latter will also fly, as with two auxiliary engines. The problem with the Yak-38 and the Harrier was the short range and payload. On the Yak-141 they managed to turn the jet of the main engine down and thereby increase these parameters. And the Yak-38 experimental aircraft, which took off only on auxiliary engines.
    1. Avior 8 May 2020 23: 47 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Technologically, there is so much difference between one engine and three that I had to develop a fully automatic catapult
      The Yak-38 had exactly the same layout as the Yak -141, and it was not an experimental, but a production aircraft. Only from an unsuccessful circuit was it operated for a short time, although accident rate was noticeably reduced over time.
      But the gases from the jet stream from the lifting engines, especially with vertical landing, can not be got anywhere.

      Concerning
      . If you remove the fan from the f-35 and put it on the yak-141, then the latter will also fly, as with two auxiliary engines.

      Everything is so simple that they could not do this, although the Yak-38 was conceived as a single-engine one.
      But neither on it, nor on Yak-141 nothing came of it.
      Now it would be easier to do it - the time is different, the electronics are much better and there is a ready-made proven working scheme f-35
      1. Demagogue 9 May 2020 06: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        These are all the details. It was precisely the ability to take off not only with the help of the fan / fans / auxiliary engines, but to add a rotary jet of the main engine to them, which was a technological breakthrough for the FIS. This is what increased the range and load. And we were the first to realize this on the Yak-141, and the Americans repeated on the f-35. Replacing auxiliary engines with fans is only technologically more profitable, it does not fundamentally affect take-off parameters.
        1. Avior 9 May 2020 07: 39 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          The first Rolls-Royce invented it in the 60s, although the Germans did not finish the plane, but they tested the engine. Just such, with a deflectable nozzle.
          The Americans had a project, the conveyor can be 200, one in one Yak-141, they also refused it.
          The jet stream was also deflected by Harrier, albeit in a different way.
          The key solution that combines the F-35 and the Harrier — using a jet of air to lift the front end — no one else did, although they tried.
          About the fact that additional lifting engines is an unsuccessful decision, Yakovlev understood from the very beginning, but it did not work on one engine.
          1. Demagogue 9 May 2020 07: 59 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The key solution that combines the F-35 and the Harrier — using a jet of air to lift the front end — no one else did, although they tried.


            Wrong again. What is the difference, where does the air stream come from, from the fan or auxiliary engine? It’s like using a clutch on a car, not a torque converter. The car is the same, only the part is different. The location of the fan f-35 and auxiliary engines yak-141 is identical. The circuit is identical. Because Lockheed concluded an agreement with Yakovlev and borrowed the scheme. Understanding the principle itself is not enough, we need more practical experience.
            And the harrier here is generally nothing. Takeoff only on fans does not allow to achieve long range and load. Do not lift a large mass on them. Plus landing problems, the plane must be centered in the wind. Nonsense in the end.
            1. Avior 9 May 2020 08: 07 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              From the lifting engine comes not air, but a jet stream.
              The f-35 and yak-141 circuits are completely different, the fan is tied to the f-35 engine.
              The Yak-141 is a completed Model 200 project, which the Americans abandoned.
              Harrier-- does not take off not only on fans, the rear on a jet stream, the front on compressed air. Just like f-35 with all the difference
              1. Demagogue 9 May 2020 08: 33 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And how does the jet stream differ from the air from the fan, except for temperature and composition? Well, a slightly different mixture of gases with a different temperature and that's it. The principle is one.

                If you are not satisfied with my opinion, here is the opinion of Americans from http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0042.shtml

                On the contrary, Lockheed Martin has opted for an augmented fan arrangement in its competing X-35. Inspired by the Russian Yak-141, the X-35 utilizes two separate engines. The primary powerplant is a jet engine that provides the thrust for forward flight. In hover, this engine not only drives a separate lift fan located near the center of the aircraft, but the single nozzle on the main engine also rotates downward to provide aditional lift. As with the Harrier and X-32, the X-35 is also equipped with two small roll control nozzles in the wingtips. Although this option requires two engines and the lift fan is nothing but dead weight when in forward flight, this arrangement allows much greater flexibility in the overall layout of the aircraft. Both the Yak-141 and X-35 (shown below) more closely resemble traditional aircraft layouts since the designer is better able to tailor the aircraft for forward flight, high-speed flight, and other requirements beyond hover.
                1. Avior 9 May 2020 09: 40 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  I know this passage.
                  It says that I’m writing, no one has copied Yak-141.
                  The Americans saw the Yak-141, got acquainted with its scheme, but did it differently.
                  A jet of hot gases entering the air intake drastically reduces engine power or makes it unstable. With the flow of air this does not happen.
                  Both the Yak-38 and the Yak141 struggled with this, but the mere fact of the presence of a jet stream near the air intake is a danger of gas ingress. In this case, when landing, the plane will fail due to a decrease in power in the last meters to the ground. A similar problem with vertical take-off, but less pronounced.
                  The decision with additional engines was a forced one, the Yakovlevna were well aware of the problems of the multi-engine circuit, and in both cases they tried to make a single-engine circuit, but on the Yak-38 there was no suitable engine for power, and on the Yak 41 they could not stabilize the single-engine plane in horizontal mode, I cited above.
                  1. Demagogue 9 May 2020 09: 52 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I wrote to you that the fan is more technological. But the conversation is not about that. You kind of read this fragment, but you didn’t draw any conclusions. On points what is the difference between harrier and yak-141 / f-35:

                    1) Yak-141 - this is the first SVVP fighter, and not a pregnant hippo as a harrier. He has a normal glider for a fighter, not stupid blow-ups and sticking nozzles in all directions. It flies much further, one and a half times faster, takes more weapons. It can conduct a maneuverable air battle. All this thanks to separate power plants. No sticking nozzles from ONE engine.
                    2) Two power plants allow you to lift a large mass. Again, the range is increasing.
                    3) A more stable landing than the Harriers. It can be used from the deck in a strong pitching.

                    Take-off and landing is far from everything. For some reason, you cycle at the temperature of the jets, but you don’t notice the elephant in the room.
                    1. Avior 9 May 2020 15: 55 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      For VTOL, these are the most important things; without them, there is nothing to talk about VTOL.
                      The first real supersonic fighter is the Mirage, the photo I gave above.
                      Harrier is a ground attack aircraft.
                      The single-engine landing is much more stable due to the tight synchronization of flow in the front and rear of the machine
                      The use of different engines does not allow for tight synchronization of speed, which can lead to problems in roll and pitch up to tipping over, which forced an automatic catapult to be put on the Yak-38, leading to oddities like throwing a pilot out of a car
                      The ingress of hot products into the turbine leads to interruptions in the engine, which is very dangerous at low altitudes.
                      Therefore, only a single-engine harrier scheme really took root
                      1. Demagogue 9 May 2020 16: 13 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        What does the Yak-38? What is another single-engine harrier scheme ?? With 4 nozzles in all directions ?? I posted a photo for another comrade and I repeat to you. If this does not help you, then nothing will help.

              2. The comment was deleted.
  18. Demagogue 8 May 2020 22: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    Well, in 2030 our yak with afar turns out to withstand rafal with afar.

    No, at the beginning of 2007 the experimental Zhuk-AE was installed on the demonstration MiG-35, and in 2010 mass production was launched. Mig-35 status to remind? Mig-29 with Zhuk-AE looks even more promising.


    Why are you talking about this? The beetle is not afar. The latest news on Afar was there 2 years ago: https://rg.ru/2018/11/28/mig-35-poluchit-radar-s-aktivnoj-fazirovannoj-antennoj-reshetkoj.html

    And silence. And what will the moment give us? Build a 12-year-old Kuzi upgrade for 8 yards? When you can build 10 udk for this money.
    1. strannik1985 9 May 2020 10: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Why are you talking about this?

      Options M, A, AE (export) - with an active PAR. The equipment is complicated, especially on a new plane. And not the fact that it will fit on the Yak-141 (it’s several tons lighter).
      And what will the moment give us?

      The fact that he and "Kuznetsov" is, i.e. develop anyway.
      When you can build 10 udk for this money.

      Someday in the bright tomorrow, if funding is normal.
      1. Demagogue 9 May 2020 11: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        If we had radars with afar, then they would be put on the Su-35 the same already. This is a huge advantage against the same Pfar. But unfortunately what is not, is not. I didn’t just give you an interview. The informed grandmothers at the porches have long been saying that with the development of afar we have trouble. Mig-35 in the Indian tender was to be completed with Indian afar. Hindus are completing a compact version for Tejas. In the future, and an option for heavy fighters. With the help of Israel.

        Kuznetsov is useless. With its dimensions, it provides a minimum number of departures. Here svvp can be placed on it a lot. But we cannot service such a large ship. That 30 tons would be much easier. The Mistrals and I were very close to us, they riveted sections of the buildings quickly and we have a project. It must be done. If you do not build, then there will be no experience. The Japanese went to Izumo for 000 years, there were several versions before him.

        We have money for fishing. It costs by the way inexpensively, if not sawing, then for the price of Gorshkov's thing. We rivet self-propelled barges in packs, not realizing that without carrier-based aviation they are of no use.
        1. strannik1985 9 May 2020 15: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          If we had radars with afar

          At the time of placing the Su-35S in the series, there wasn’t; according to it, only the second contract was actually completed.
          Kuznetsov is useless.

          Useless non-existent UDC with non-existent aircraft. If you don’t work with the equipment, in time not to service and upgrade any ship or plane will be useless.
          We have money for fishing.

          Approximately 25 thousand tons of military aviation, 20 helicopters. How much you can put non-existent VTOL aircraft and whether they can fly from there is a mystery covered in darkness.
          1. Demagogue 9 May 2020 16: 09 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well here for afar here:
            https://oborona.ru/includes/periodics/authors/2019/0828/124127434/detail.shtml

            The responsible comrade tells us how good it is without him. When you have to lie like that, everything is as if clear. I believe that he is when they announce his presence on a machine standing in service.

            In terms of the number of fighter aircraft on udk / light aircraft carriers, the British still decided on the Falklands - 20 pcs. Part stands on deck. Plus, you can keep a few spares on the supply vessel. Need a group of two for a combat operation. Two decks.

            Kuznetsov can be upgraded, for the cost of a couple of udk, but here the problem is different, he is not enough. Part of the time it is under repair and we have two TVDs, where an aircraft carrier may be needed, and he is alone.
            1. strannik1985 9 May 2020 17: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, for afar you

              Explain your position, "no and not necessary", "no and the next 20-30 years will not be needed"?
              By the number of fighter aircraft / light aircraft carriers

              A strange example - there is no BVB, a minimum of anti-ship missiles, a bunch of successful bombing and non-exploding bombs. Do you seriously think that everyone is so lucky?
              Kuznetsov can be upgraded

              It is not possible, but necessary, that the UDCs that plan to build even 20 together of XNUMX hypothetical VTOL aircraft will not be dragged away, not to mention AWACS, MSS, PLO and the expeditionary component.
              1. Demagogue 9 May 2020 17: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                "No and no need" afar - this is the position of Demin, chief designer of the Su-35 from an interview to which I gave a link. For me it’s necessary the day before yesterday.

                In the application of aviation, airborne military aviation with airborne forces, the main thing is the intelligence function. We have many ships with calibers, they need target designation beyond the radio horizon. Air defense systems also need tsu. Our missile ships in conjunction with a light aircraft carrier receive an order of magnitude more chances in battle. Without it, in fact, there is no chance even. It’s not even necessary that these aircraft themselves inflict blows on enemy ships. Plus the interception of aircraft and missiles of the enemy and air defense. A rough example: even if one of our aircraft breaks through and detects an enemy ship, this is enough to launch cr from our ships at a distance.

                Together udk drag 40 SVVP. The Japanese for two Izumo-class bought 40 f-35 cars. A unit stands on deck during the battle. Plus, several helicopters plos on each udk - a serious increase in plows. Everywhere there are some pluses.
                1. strannik1985 9 May 2020 18: 27 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  For me it’s necessary the day before yesterday.

                  Returning to our question - the chances of a quick implementation of AFAR in VTOL, which so far, even in the sketch, are not vanishingly small.
                  By application

                  What experience are you referring to now? The British, after 1982, attended to the helicopter AWACS.
                  Together udk drag 40 SVVP.

                  Where, a couple of days from the coast?
                  1. Demagogue 9 May 2020 19: 06 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    AFAR will be in a few years. There was information that the Indians gave us elements of radar from afar to study us. Either Israeli, or their own creativity based on them. And it seems like after this the process has begun.

                    A drill helicopter can help in defensive operations, but there are no remote targets in reconnaissance. And for a helicopter, all the same in modern realities is needed afar, and not a rotating canoe. The British had a defective harrier only. Here, it’s more likely that you can count on SVVP aircraft with afar for drills. The Japanese are planning this. Our drill drills are outdated. But if anything, the drone’s helicopters will also fit in capacity. Just take less rescue and plo.

                    The diagram below shows that on the deck of Izumo you can store + 7 cars without damage to takeoffs and landings. Plus a couple on duty. Already 9. This is a very thoughtful aircraft carrier. The Japanese went to him for a long time. And you can drag them anywhere. The British at the Falklands also dragged.

                    1. strannik1985 10 May 2020 07: 35 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      AFAR will be in a few years

                      Just that you gave examples of the opposite, and in our case we are talking about an airplane, which is not even in the sketch.
                      Helicopter Drill Can Help

                      In order to be able to ensure constant duty in the air, that is, from 4 AWACS helicopters, he needs a cover - 2 fighters (conditionally), to intercept the duty units on decks or in the air, and also, in the “fleet against the coast” scenario, paratroopers need support from the air. Do not recall what the British carried helicopters and VTOL aircraft - attack aircraft?
                      The diagram below shows

                      This is not "Izumo", but a picture with a proposal for modernization from the Americans, you are building too far-reaching conclusions.
                      1. Demagogue 10 May 2020 08: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        On Afar, I gave you examples that there is none NOW. Brick guns cannot be infinitely cleaned.

                        It was not by chance that I wrote about the need for aug from two light aircraft carriers. Two decks are needed. Perfectly. But the British deduced this axiom due to the fact that they had defective harriers, which had a scanty radius and load during vertical take-off, and the f-35 and yak-141 in this case had a radius twice that. Here you have Japanese schemes, since American ones do not like. They only strengthen my position.


                        14 aircraft on deck and 7 helicopters. Plus a hangar. Vertical take-off with f-35v. The Americans thought they let f-35s. But no. So everything is decided even when aug with one light aircraft carrier. There is such a nuance that the enemy’s aircraft that will attack our aug, away from the aircraft carrier or the coast, as well as the Argentines, will no longer have the fuel to fight with our fighters. That is, fighters covering up the aug. Attacking is always harder. That is, even 4th generation fighters will be a force in defense. Even defective harriers helped resist the British.
                      2. Demagogue 10 May 2020 09: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Amendment, helicopters and aircraft in the hangar are shown in blue.
  19. Angry 9 May 2020 07: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, without VTOL, our fleet may not be developed. He will not leave the BMZ (air defense zone of the IA BB). Therefore, we have two ways in the development of the fleet. The first is to build corvettes and not get out of BMZ. The second is to build VTOL aircraft, put them on helicopter carriers and go out to formations in the Ocean .. As someone said that "A fleet without wings is a Drowned man!" None of the air defense systems will save him, but the GDP air defense fighter planes will save him. This discovery was made by the British, having built the Avinsible AV lungs first by 5 Harriers, then increased them to 8, and each provided two crews, and thus could provide round-the-clock patrolling by a pair of Harriers. What should be done to us.
  20. Angry 10 May 2020 12: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And if we build one? Mig-29K will be able to take off in the version of an air defense fighter? What if the Yak-130?