Military Review

Defective aircraft carriers and attempts to replace them. UDC, Izumo and Queen Elizabeth

322
Defective aircraft carriers and attempts to replace them. UDC, Izumo and Queen Elizabeth

"Juan Carlos" with us, many consider an example to follow, but this is a bad example


As the last war, in which fleets were used with high intensity, recedes farther and farther into the past, more and more frankly strange solutions enter into the practice of the navies of various countries.

One such solution is the strange idea that universal landing ships are capable of replacing normal aircraft carriers in one form or another. Alas, for the authors of this idea, even an inferior light aircraft carrier surpasses UDC in the role of an attack carrier aviation as much as a normal aircraft carrier surpasses a light one. We will deal with this in more detail.

Non-aircraft carriers


Immediately start “from the end”. The universal landing ship is not an aircraft carrier. This is a landing ship. Yes, it has a through flight deck, it has the ability to fly airplanes with short or vertical take-off and vertical landing, but as an aircraft carrier, that is, a ship designed primarily to deploy aircraft and ensure their combat use, it is flawed.

There are many reasons, we will analyze the main ones.

The first is the speed factor. Aircraft carrier is an instrument of the struggle for supremacy at sea and in the air. His planes, depending on their performance characteristics, are capable of shooting down enemy planes or attacking his ships. Having achieved freedom of action, an aircraft carrier can ensure the use of an air group against targets on the shore. The latter, incidentally, is not as good for carrier-based aviation as for basic aircraft, but, firstly, there may be no choice, and secondly, they will not fight for long against the coast - exactly until the landing has captured normal airfields , and there it will be possible to pour the enemy to the fullest ...

But war is, as the Americans say, a two-way street. An adversary in war always has the right to vote, and it is impossible to exclude the possibility that an aircraft carrier will be attacked. The specifics of deck-based aviation battles against the base one is that it is impossible to lift an entire air group from an aircraft carrier at one time, so it can only be that a small group of aircraft from the decks will join the patrols in the air, then, after they have worked on the strike group and left the battle, the turn of the missile ships would come, and only at the exit from the attack would it be possible to trigger the enemy with the new aircraft raised from the deck — not to disrupt the attack, but to lose it in the aircraft and equipment. You can get away from this predestination only in advance by receiving information that the enemy is raising his aircraft to strike right now. It is possible, but very difficult, and therefore rare.

So, in such operations speed is of fundamental importance. In all fleets aircraft carriers in the world are either one of the fastest ships, or simply the fastest, and it's not just that. Preparing to repulse the blow described above, almost any American commander will try to "hide" an aircraft carrier - for example, using the well-known "windows" in the flights of enemy satellites to take the group under the cloud front, and then "expose" a supply tanker, hung with corner reflectors, a reflected signal similar to an aircraft carrier, both on satellites and on the radar of a reconnaissance aircraft allegedly "accidentally" passed to the order. The aircraft carrier itself, at maximum speed, leaves where the enemy will be looking for it with the least probability.

When the enemy breaks through, losing dozens of vehicles to the line of launching missiles at the main target, he can find out that this is a tanker, but it will be too late - the interceptor-decks and missiles from the guarding ships that arrived from nowhere will knowably chop him down.

Another similar situation is when it is necessary to withdraw the entire aircraft carrier group from under the attack, in its entirety. For example, enemy air reconnaissance was able to obtain information about where the aircraft carrier group is located. At the same time, about 500 km to airfields from which the enemy can raise large aviation forces to strike. It is logical to assume that the enemy needs time to:
- passing information on command chains, at headquarters at various levels, issuing an air strike order to an air force;
- preparation of the entire compound for the combat mission;
- rise, gathering in the air and flight to the goal.

How much does all this take? In various cases, when the "designation of strikes" against American carrier groups was actually carried out, this could take up to a day. Although in some magical ideal world where everything works like a clock and everyone is ready for everything, one could try to keep within 5-6 hours. But even five hours at a speed of 29 knots (any normal aircraft carrier could and can go this way with enough serious excitement) means moving away from the point where the ships were discovered at a distance of almost 270 kilometers, which is a lot, and even if the enemy is competent and conducts a complete follow-up reconnaissance of the target, all the same, the ships have a chance to leave. And in the real world, where 5-6 hours is more likely a fantasy, and even more so.

But you need speed. And a single aircraft carrier, performing its own way out of the airstrike, leaving in place a junction of rocket ships around which its interceptors will fight, and the ship group whose commander wants to escape from the raid with all the ships needs SPEED.

And here our UDC-instead of-aircraft carriers suddenly find themselves "so-so." Take, for example, the most “fashionable” modern UDC - Juan Carlos. The maximum speed is 21 knots. Over a five-hour time span, he will be able to travel 74 kilometers less than a ship sailing at a speed of 29 knots, and 89 km less than a ship sailing in a 30-knot course. And on a 6-hour time span, respectively, 83 and 100 km. For a day the difference will be 356 and 400 km.

This is already a large enough order of numbers to consider it the difference between life and death. And this is an unsolvable problem. The American UDC Uosp and America have almost the same speed limits - about 22 knots.

UDC must carry a landing. And the landing party needs cockpits, a supply of food and water, decks for military equipment, ammunition for at least two to three days of combat, operating rooms for seriously wounded evacuated by helicopters. The stern needs a docking chamber, it should have landing and landing equipment, hovercraft or some other. All this requires volumes inside the hull and superstructure.

And volumes require contours - they should be fuller than can be done for a high-speed combat ship. And this is an additional hydrodynamic resistance and lower speed. Moreover, as a rule, in the UDC there is no place even for a sufficiently powerful main power plant, at least in the world there are no examples of UDCs that have a power plant comparable to a power plant of the same size as an aircraft carrier, and which would have an excess of free volumes inside.

On aviation flights, all this also affects - you can evaluate, for example, the size of the “island” on “Wosp” and ask yourself the question: why is it so big?


UDC "Uosp" as a light aircraft carrier, 2017 on the deck the maximum number of its air group, but he is more than 40 000 tons!

But this is only the first problem generated by the need for volumes for the landing and everything that is connected with them. The second problem is that due to the same volumes it is impossible to place a large air group on the UDC. This may surprise someone, but nonetheless it is.

Let's take such an extreme example as UDC like "America". The displacement of this ship is more than 43000 tons, it is a large ship, the largest landing ship in the world. How many F-35B type aircraft is its hangar designed for? For 7 cars. Surprise, huh?


The placement of aircraft on UDC type "America", from the "Marine Corps Aviation Plan", already failed

When this ship was conceived, it was assumed that it could carry 22 aircraft. Tests of the head showed that no, it can not. That is, they are placed on it - 7 in the hangar and 15 on the deck. But to place special forces evacuating downed pilots, their Osprey convertiplanes (at least 4 units), search and rescue helicopters for lifting pilots ejected above the water (2 units) are nowhere to be found. Does not work. Space for rearrangement of aircraft is also not enough.

So, there is only one way out - to cut the composition of the air group, to reduce it. And according to the Marines reform plan (see article "Step into the unknown, or the future of the American Marines") and it will be done - by 2030 the typical F-35B squadron will be reduced to 10 vehicles.

At Wosp, the picture is even worse; there, due to the presence of an airborne deck for equipment, all the other rooms had to be compacted and the hangar was even smaller. And most importantly, there is less space for maintenance and repair of units removed from aircraft, which sharply limits the number of days during which the air group can be used with high intensity.

For interest, we compare the “America” hangar and the “most terrible hangar in the world” as some Britons put it — the Invincible hangar, which has TWO less displacement.


On the Harrier scheme. The F-35B has a wingspan of 2 meters higher and the same length. Much of a muchness

As you can see, the lack of the need to allocate volumes for the landing makes it possible on a small but aircraft carrier to have comparable capabilities for storing aircraft as a large, but UDC.

What does this lead to? But to what.

Since September 2018, the 211st Marine Corps fighter-assault squadron has performed combat missions and struck from the board of UDC Essex the Taliban (banned in Russia) in Afghanistan, and the militants of the ISIS terrorist group (banned in Russia) in Syria and Iraq. Used aircraft F-35B. Of interest is the statistics of strokes.

The aircraft performed more than 100 sorties, spent more than 1200 hours in the air, and all this for 50 days. That is 2 sorties per day. Taking into account the indicated hours - two on average six-hour departures.

For comparison: during the failed Kuznetsov’s campaign to the Syrian coast, he performed 7,7 sorties per day from the deck. And this was regarded in Russia as a failure and a political catastrophe.

Or another example: the French Charles de Gaulle, with a displacement even slightly less than that of America, calmly made stable 12 sorties per day during the war in Libya. And his air group has a much larger number than any UDC, includes as many as two AWACS aircraft. And for him 12 sorties is far from the limit.

Do not consider the Americans stupid - they created their UDC in the first, second, third and whatever you like as landing ships. And as such they have been used almost always. And I must admit - these are really good landing ships. And even the six AV-8B or F-35B, which usually serves to support amphibious operations, is quite out of place there. Let's call a spade a spade: this is the personal strike aircraft of the commander of a battalion group marching in the landing.

Any battalion commander may well appreciate the situation when he has six attached attack planes. The Americans, adjusted for their states and command chains, have roughly the same situation. And they only try to use their landing ships as ersatz aircraft carriers, and only for experimental purposes, and only in simple conditions. And since they have them, why not try it?

But for serious tasks, they have the Nimitse, with a 29-knot move, an air group larger than our air group in Syria, with six-meter-thick anti-torpedo protection for each side, with 3000 tons of the maximum mass of aircraft weapons on board. And it is they who will solve these serious problems.

For Americans, UDC will be included in the game either when dominance at sea and in the air is already won, or when it has not yet been disputed. America can afford it, it has enough ships and money. But countries that imitate it by stupidity, relying on the use of UDCs with short take-off and vertical landing aircraft instead of aircraft carriers, are doing stupidity, which in the course of a real war will be fatal.

An amphibious operation, if this is not planned by the Americans for extremely dangerous and high-speed attacks of the "littoral regiments of the Marine Corps" (which is still unknown what will end), requires the achievement of supremacy at sea and in the air. History He knows successful examples of operations that were carried out without them - for example, the capture of Narvik by the Germans. It’s just that these operations passed, as they say, on the verge, they would have been a little unlucky, and instead of a victory there would have been a loud defeat. Basically, both in our country and in the West, military science requires establishing dominance at sea and in the air before conducting an amphibious operation.

And then to land.

Countries that plan to use UDC instead of an aircraft carrier, in fact, plan to use an instrument to establish dominance at sea and in the air, which should be applied AFTER dominance at sea and in the air is achieved. Naturally, in a real war this will not end in anything good.

Using UDC as an aircraft carrier is a heresy. Unfortunately, there are many supporters among the “war-torn” journalists. And they create a dense informational background, pushing this disastrous idea into the minds of the population, and with it into the minds of politicians, and even some military men too.

But stupidity, repeated as many times as you like, is still just stupid.

However, the use of a landing ship as an aircraft carrier is not the only strange idea that is slowly becoming a common place in world naval affairs (for the time being). Recent decades have given another no less surprising idea - the construction of relatively rather large aircraft carriers, but with an inferior air group, consisting of vertical helicopters and helicopters.

And it is also worth a detailed analysis.

Big, expensive and worthless


Today in the world there is one "clean" example of this type of ship - CVF carriers of the Queen Elizabeth Royal Navy type. The ships turned out to be strange: on the one hand, a modern design, advanced self-defense systems, a convenient hangar, more or less worthy of the basic measurements (waterline dimensions), which make the ship quite universal ... and the cut-down capabilities of the air group.


Queen Elizabeth and ...


... "Admiral Kuznetsov." Both are approximately the same class, the length is similar, the hangar is almost the same and both are springboard. But there is a difference

Compare “Queen Elizabeth” with a pair of its closest mass-size counterparts. There are two of these in the world today.

The first is the long-written-down old man Midway. And the second one is, surprisingly, our “Kuznetsov” and his Soviet-Chinese “brother” “Varyag-Liaoning”, or, well, the fully Chinese representative of this family - “Shandong”.

No need to be surprised. The ships have a very close length, almost the same hangar, except for the Midway, they are all springboard. The British ship, with almost the same length and basic dimensions, has much wider sponsons carrying a deck and a two-tower “island”. The deck is also made very wide, for the sake of convenient location of aircraft on it.

I had to pay for everything already at this stage. Due to the need to carry a wide deck, the ship was given a significantly wider waterline (39 meters versus 34,44 for Midway and 33,41 for Kuznetsov). This slightly increased the hydrodynamic drag. Well, then the British saved on the GEM, and now the maximum speed that this ship can develop is 25 knots. It’s not UDC anymore, but in a real war with the enemy of at least the level of Algeria, such high-speed qualities may have a rather big price.

Nevertheless, we are interested in the principle itself: did the British do the right thing when they built the “vertical frame” carrier in such a building?

It is worth remembering immediately that such a ship architecture was not predetermined at first, the CVF version with an angular flight deck, catapults and finishers was fully discussed.

What could it be and what would be the power of this ship?

For an analogy, first take the Kuznetsov. If the British did like us, that is, a springboard carrier with a finisher, then like us, they would have the same aircraft capacity (hangars are about the same), and just like us, they could not use AWACS and would have to use by helicopters.

Then the differences begin. The third launch position at Kuznetsovo allows you to launch aircraft with a thrust ratio of 0,84 and even lower, according to some reports, up to 0,76 (thrust ratio of the Su-33 at maximum take-off weight). The latter value is very close to the thrust-weight ratio of the F-35C - an aircraft for horizontal take-off from the deck, and with normal take-off weight, that is, at least with full refueling and busy internal suspension components weapons, without underload.

And without a catapult.

And this, among other things, is more than 25% more fuel in comparison with the F-35B with better weight return (no fan). And, which was quite expected, almost 300 kilometers greater combat radius. Here it is, the cost of saving. How much this will bring advantages in percussion problems, for example, you can just not say.

The F-35B has shorter compartments for the internal suspension of weapons by 14 inches (36 centimeters) and substantially narrower. This will limit the possibilities for developing offensive offensive weapons; in the future, creating a rocket or bomb for the F-35C will be easier, and at times.


Weapon Compartments F-35C


Weapon compartments F-35B.

In fact, with a more or less serious combat mission, the F-35B will have to hang weapons on the external sling, and this is goodbye, stealth.

But that's not all.

War always means losses, and, besides this, there are periods in the life of the country when it is necessary to maintain combat readiness, but there is not enough money.

If the British happened to be in a similar situation (and they were in it more than once), and an aircraft carrier with air finishers would allow them to block losses or build up forces due to F / A-18. You need to understand: F-35 in any case is a very expensive aircraft with a very long and complicated inter-flight service. Even the US does not plan to abandon the proven Hornets completely, the F-35C will replace only part of the carrier-based aircraft.

And the Hornet is quite capable of taking off from the springboard, the Americans did all the necessary calculations to assess the ability to fly from the Vikramaditya, and there is no reason to believe that the Hornet will fail.

But he will not be able to sit back without a finisher.

And Britain also amputated this opportunity together with the finishers. And it may well be that she will pay for it, such luck as Falkland may not be.

But all this pales against the background of what the Queen Elizabeth’s capabilities would have been if the British had built it in a variant that they, in general, considered - in a variant of a catapult aircraft carrier.

The main strike force of an aircraft carrier is 36 F-35B aircraft. In fact, the ship, taking into account the possibility of storing aircraft on the deck, can lift up to 72 aircraft, of which, however, most will be helicopters.

Let's look at the Midway. This ship during the war in Vietnam carried up to 65 aircraft, and during the “Desert Storm” it turned out to be the champion in the number of sorties among all other aircraft carriers, bypassing even the nuclear Nimitse.

Can a British aircraft carrier do this? No. The F-35 has a huge duration of inter-flight service - up to 50 man-hours for every hour of flight. And if an airplane with horizontal take-off and landing, well-trained technicians sometimes could reduce this figure to 41 man-hours, then this number does not work with the vertical. To understand: a two-hour flight with such a laboriousness will require a hundred man-hours, which, when using the “average” size of personnel, for example, 4 people, means 25 hours of service. And the British can’t supplement these extremely complex machines with some simple “workhorse” like the same “Hornet”.

And if there were catapults? Firstly, the ship would be able to base AWACS aircraft, which increase the power of its air group by orders of magnitude even compared to AWACS helicopters. Secondly, it would be possible to use transport aircraft, as the Americans do. And do not think that this is something secondary, sometimes “delivery on board” can be critically important.

Which air group is stronger - for example, 24 F-35C and 3-4 E-2C Hokai or 36 F-35B with AWACS helicopters? This question does not require an answer from the word “in general”.

But the answer to another question is very interesting: what can British aircraft carriers and their air groups do without American support? Repeat the Falklands? Yes, they can, but today not Daggers with old bombs are the most popular combat aircraft in the third world.

Well, and secondly, the use of simpler aircraft, and mass sorties of an air group, and flights with high intensity would be available to British naval pilots.

But the British decided otherwise.

How much did the British save on this strange decision? About 1,5 billion pounds for each ship, despite the fact that they spent 6,2 billion for each. Well, if they just decided to get along with a combination of a springboard and finishers, then, apparently, the cost of ships would be less than a billion for each. Having saved this money, they turned the aircraft carrier into a defective toy.

This is not the only example.

Japanese and Indians


As you know, Japan is slowly but surely leading the creeping remilitarization. Today, this process can no longer be hidden, although you can still find individuals who are unable to use their eyes for their intended purpose. One of the areas of such modernization is the Japanese plans to convert one of its Izumo helicopter carriers into a light aircraft carrier, carrier of F-35B aircraft. I must say that, although the dimensions of Izumo are not particularly impressive, as a vertical carrier, it is much better than any UDC, and incomparably better than the same Invincibles. Its size is almost catching up with the Uosp-type UDC, the pitching parameters are about the same, the speed, as it should be for a warship, is 30 knots. According to some estimates, the ship will be able to carry up to 20 F-35B, however, all will not fit in the hangar.


Image of a possible conversion of Izumo into an aircraft carrier

Here, however, an important reservation must be made. The Japanese, as former rivals of the Americans in the Pacific War, are well aware of the importance of an aircraft carrier. The modern concept of the AUG as a small connection with the “core” in the form of an aircraft carrier and high-speed cruisers and destroyers was first proposed by Minor Genda before the Second World War. They do not need to explain the value of normal airplanes, or everything necessary for their flights - catapults and finishers. They themselves can explain to anyone.

But Japan at the time of the start of work on the ships had a lot of political restrictions on military development. They now, in general, are. As a result, they not only made a compromise ship, but also received it in an extremely compromise way - by building as a helicopter carrier.

However, a bad example is contagious. Does it make sense for other countries not burdened with Japanese historical and political "baggage" to repeat "Izumo"?

Surprisingly, we have a great reference for comparison, which closes this question.


Wikrant is an example of what literate people can get from the same set of subsystems as Izumo, plus aerofinisher

At the moment, India is completing the construction of its first self-produced aircraft carrier, Wickrant. This in itself is extremely instructive: if India could, then Russia could, too, if there was a desire.

We are now, however, interested in something else.

Wikrant is interesting in that its “filling” is somewhat similar to Izumo. So, for example, these ships use the same turbines in the main power plant - a classic of the western fleets of General Electric LM2500. The GEMs in both projects are twin-shaft.

If we ignore non-production factors, then, in fact, Izumo and Wikrant are how the two countries solved the same problem (building an aircraft carrier ship) using the same resources (world market of components and subsystems) and similar technical solutions.

And if you compare them, the results are, frankly, uneven.

Both sides used almost identical GEMs (the difference is probably in gearboxes). Both sides had to buy all the necessary electronic equipment, including everything necessary for managing the flights of a large air group. Both sides bought aircraft. Both sides bought minimal air defense equipment.

Both sides spent comparable money on ship hulls. Built ships are not very different in basic dimensions.

What's the output?

One side has at least 26 combat aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing. Now it’s the MiG-29K, but India, on whose market all the manufacturers of arms in the world sharpen their teeth except the Chinese, and which has more or less equal relations with most countries in the world, can choose. F / A-18 is guaranteed to be able to take off from the "Wikrant". Most likely, with an incomplete combat load will be able to F-35C. It’s not a fact that it will turn out, but it cannot be ruled out that the Rafal will also be able to break away from the deck using a springboard

Should Russia happen to develop a new MiG-29K variant, for example, with a more advanced radar and reduced landing speed for a comfortable and “soft” landing on an aerofinisher, it will also “fit in” without problems. As well as a hypothetical non-existent ship-based Su-57K. And if India, to make up for losses in the form of friendly assistance, is once handed over to the Su-33, then they will be able to fly from this ship.

And what about the other side? And there is only F-35B. Moreover, due to the smaller body, in a smaller amount.

The same story as with the British: they built a ship for almost the same money that a relatively normal aircraft carrier would cost, and only one type of aircraft can be based with limited capabilities (at least against the backdrop of the F-35C).

But all that was needed was to slightly increase the hull and design aerofinisher and a wide deck. And also - to slightly increase the length of the ship, gaining an advantage in seaworthiness. Hindus did just that, however, losing 2 knots of speed. This, of course, is bad, but on the other hand, it is apparently possible to provide a higher speed for the Wikrant class ship due to the contours.

And if "Vikrant" received a catapult with work from a waste heat boiler? Then the Hokai could well one day appear on board, albeit at the cost of reducing the number of military vehicles. But sometimes it’s worth it, especially if the air group on board is formed “for the task” and its composition is not a dogma.

We repeat: the Japanese understand everything perfectly, but there are political factors.

Let us briefly mention the last example - the Italian "Cavour". By and large, you can say about it about the same as about the Japanese Izumo: with this money and with these components you could get a much more interesting ship. But the Italians have the opportunity to carry on it Tanks and some infantry. True, tanks cannot be landed, but part of the infantry is possible. Why does an aircraft carrier need this? But that's how they got started.

Now the ship will receive its 15 F-35B (10 in the hangar) and will continue to serve with them. Not bad for 35000 tons of full displacement.

For all of this, it is important for us that no one in our country specifically guesses to take Juan Carlos, Izumo or Cavour as a model. With our finances and technological limitations, we need to go a completely different path.

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia commons, US Navy, USMC, Scott Dunham
Articles from this series:
Defective aircraft carriers and their strange planes. Falklands and Harriers.
Defective aircraft carriers and their price to society.
322 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. certero
    certero 18 May 2020 06: 11 New
    +6
    There is such a saying on clothes stretch legs. Russia simply does not need any such aircraft carriers right now. And if you look ahead, you need to build carriers of autonomous drones.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 18 May 2020 15: 00 New
      +2
      All the general staffs of the world at all times were (and still are) inherent in a certain inertia of thinking: before the start of World War II, there were desperate defenders and protégés of cavalry and UR-s ... The first declared "What density of fire? Look at this advancing horse shaft! !! ", the latter, on the contrary, pointed to the experience of the 2st World War -" Machine gun, dugout and barbed wire and no enemy will pass "... And in the Navy in general, His Majesty Battleship reigned !!! The real war then put everyone in their place and cavalry grunts and lovers of gigantomania ... Real hostilities showed - what is outdated and what is effective !!!

      The same can be said about today ... I think that by the end of the 21st century the oceans will be plowed by American, Chinese, British, French, Russian, Indian aircraft carriers as part of the AUG ... But basically it will be to a certain extent ostentatious troops ... But how effective they are, how adequate they are to the moment, how tenacious in a modern missile war — can only be shown by a military clash of approximately equal forces and nothing more ... Everything else is dancing with tambourines before the great war, and everyone dances as he likes ...
    2. timokhin-aa
      18 May 2020 20: 52 New
      0
      And where can we get autonomous drones?
      1. certero
        certero 18 May 2020 23: 18 New
        0
        There is a new aircraft carrier. For unmanned aircraft, the future of the first who will adopt it will be ahead of everyone
        1. timokhin-aa
          19 May 2020 14: 14 New
          +1
          You do not understand the fact that an UAV the size of a MiG-29 will require the same aircraft carrier to base?
          1. certero
            certero 19 May 2020 20: 50 New
            -1
            Of course not. Wireless aircraft will be much easier.
            1. timokhin-aa
              19 May 2020 22: 15 New
              +2
              Look at the size of the "hunter". Physics cannot be fooled, if you need to drag two UR-VVs and a couple of bombs of 500 kg each, and even with a thrust-to-weight ratio no worse than that of a fighter and at approximately the same range, then the airplane will turn out to be not small.

              And not easy. And on his flights from the deck there will be the same restrictions on pitching as for an ordinary airplane of the same aerodynamic design, with a live pilot.

              Which means an aircraft carrier.
              1. Newone
                Newone 20 May 2020 00: 33 New
                0
                No Timokhin. UAV is not limited to the pilot in acceleration. Rocket boosters and the takeoff (not landing) deck can already be abandoned.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  20 May 2020 10: 56 New
                  +2
                  Well, in the world of pink ponies, yes, you can refuse.
                  In real life, the start-ups have a lot of costs in terms of preparation for take-off, safety, plus money, and the ship for providing landings still needs to be made large, so isn’t it easier to make a 100-meter acceleration section?
                  Well and most importantly - a computer program can already win the air battle, but the machine can not deceive a person and will not be able for a very long time.
                  So, before replacing the living military with artificial intelligence, we are as in China in an uncomfortable position.
                  1. Newone
                    Newone 20 May 2020 15: 17 New
                    +1
                    There is no Timokhin there any special costs, except for the design of the aircraft itself. Gunpowder accelerators are simple and reliable.
                    Launch cost - yes it will increase, but not significantly.

                    but the machine can’t deceive a person, and for a very long time it will not be able to.

                    This is a moot point. You are right that the management of a combat operation must be carried out by a person, but this person may not be present on board the aircraft.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      20 May 2020 15: 39 New
                      +1
                      I have no doubt that the powder boosters are simple and reliable, I mean that their use even from the airfield has a lot of difficulties, everything will be even more complicated on the ship, at least in terms of cooling the launch deck, plus they must be suspended before each departure, to protect the deck command respiratory organs, they must be stored, etc.

                      And the ship still needs a big one according to the rolling conditions.

                      You are right that the management of a combat operation must be carried out by a person, but this person may not be present on board the aircraft.


                      Your problem is that you do not imagine the subject of discussion in detail, but think with ready-made dies, hanging out like cards in a deck.
                  2. Newone
                    Newone 20 May 2020 15: 23 New
                    -1
                    And one of the most important points. The lifting speed of the air group. The lifting speed of the air group is not enough now, which you yourself admitted in the article. Personally, I see two solutions: VTOL and LA on accelerators.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      20 May 2020 15: 43 New
                      +1
                      On accelerators will be even longer.
                      On a normal AB, you need to refuel the plane and suspend the weapon.
                      On your ship, you will additionally need to hang accelerators - preflight preparation longer.
                      1. Newone
                        Newone 20 May 2020 15: 47 New
                        -1
                        It never occurred to you that accelerators can be set in advance, are they safe enough?
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        22 May 2020 13: 06 New
                        +1
                        They are as safe as any powder rocket. This means that the suspension in the hangar is immediately excluded, similarly to the suspension of weapons.
                        So that is impossible.
                2. Newone
                  Newone 20 May 2020 15: 34 New
                  0
                  You can agree that the size of the ship is ultimately determined by the number of serviced aircraft and the ship, which has dimensions for servicing and landing a large number of aircraft, will already have dimensions sufficient to accommodate the take-off deck as well. Accordingly, it is rather silly to refuse to expand the capabilities of the ship according to the nomenclature adopted by the aircraft.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    20 May 2020 15: 44 New
                    +1
                    Well, or simply - part of the manned aircraft on an aircraft carrier is easy to replace with unmanned, that's all.
                    Even on Kuznetsovo.
                    1. Newone
                      Newone 20 May 2020 15: 53 New
                      0
                      Yes, of course you can
                      I already wrote in the comments above that the dimensions of the ship are determined by the size of the air group. The composition of the air group can be unmanned.
  2. Phoenix
    Phoenix 23 May 2020 15: 47 New
    0
    Not needed? Look now at Libya, it can be dangerous to deploy aircraft there, but they are forced to because there is nothing to work from the sea. Syria was needed to register in the middle-earth. When there is a floating airfield, you can project power to the entire region without fear that the Bosphorus will be closed.
    1. max702
      max702 26 May 2020 23: 46 New
      0
      Complete nonsense! We will not be able to work from the sea for the same reason as from the ground ... namely, a direct conflict with a NATO country, and if it is just from the ground that you can at least somehow launch the "Unmarked" planes (which is possible and we observe) flights from an aircraft carrier directly say who and what .. This is the whole problem, and not the complexity of organizing a safe airfield somewhere in Libya .. And I do not close the Bosphorus for this reason, no one wants a full-fledged conflict with a sharp increase in rates .. all types pretend .. But when the Armed Forces of one country directly declare this, and the participation of AUG is nowhere more direct, then there will be a "loss of face" by the government with a corresponding escalation of the conflict .. Applications like we have nothing to do with using AUG. By the way, it is for this reason that naval battles have not been observed since the Second World War between serious opponents at sea, and the tactics of bulk is practiced, so that in case of something like an accident it was not the use of weapons ...
  3. Captain Nemo
    Captain Nemo 25 July 2020 21: 51 New
    0
    Russia consists of Great Russia, Little Russia, White Russia. Your statement refers to the Russian Federation.
  • mark1
    mark1 18 May 2020 06: 18 New
    +9
    All discussions about aircraft carriers, about the intergalactic attack cruiser, for the next 10-15 (I hope) years, all this has (alas) scholastic significance for our country. and only ... But UDC-practical
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 18 May 2020 11: 53 New
      +4
      Quote: mark1
      But UDC is practical

      And what is the practicality of UDC? Where are we going to land? What are we planning to cover and support the landing?
      1. NEOZ
        NEOZ 18 May 2020 15: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: Kalmar
        And what is the practicality of UDC?

        I suspect that UDC can (where it is), but Avik can no longer ...
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 18 May 2020 20: 25 New
          +1
          Quote: NEOZ
          UDC can (there is where), but Avik can no longer ..

          It is more correct to say AVU yet, but we will be able soon. The star has already launched the first 114 Kt tanker. Well, another 10 pieces will lower, and then?
          And then the MO will come up, because there will be experience in large-capacity sectional construction, relevant competencies will be acquired, and the project will be in time. Again, the airplane decked out. And it would be nice with the reverse sweep of the wing, as it was thought at one time ... but it did not work out ... And now it can also be riveted using stealth technology.
          AHA.
          1. NEOZ
            NEOZ 19 May 2020 14: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Again, the airplane decked out. And it would be nice with the reverse sweep of the wing, as it was thought at one time ..

            I think the MiG29K is the maximum that we can count on.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 19 May 2020 21: 40 New
              0
              Quote: NEOZ
              MiG29K is the maximum that we can count on.

              Maybe the MiG-35K will be better?
      2. +5
        +5 18 May 2020 15: 45 New
        -5
        We "have" 2 UDCs ... though they fly under the Egyptian flag ... but in a situation where it really will be necessary to actually land somewhere, I think that the issue will be resolved ... :))) Well, they didn't take them for themselves right thing ....
        1. timokhin-aa
          18 May 2020 20: 53 New
          +4
          I knew that everything was simple with you, but so ...
      3. Phoenix
        Phoenix 23 May 2020 15: 49 New
        -1
        UDC is an excellent transport, now to Syria and Libya. BDK take three times less cargo, although they can dump it directly on an unequipped shore ... UDC is needed, the aircraft carrier too
      4. IC
        IC 26 May 2020 08: 39 New
        0
        That's right. No one will give an intelligible answer to this question. In addition to local wars with the Papuans. But it will be solid at parades and exercises. Really, just a demonstration of the flag.
      5. max702
        max702 26 May 2020 23: 50 New
        0
        Quote: Kalmar
        Quote: mark1
        But UDC is practical

        And what is the practicality of UDC? Where are we going to land? What are we planning to cover and support the landing?

        UDC will carry and supply troops, sometimes it’s the headquarters of a group and it’s possible to drive some kind of terrorists or pirates .. Everything .. But the AUG is not at all clear why there are no practical goals here .. Kuznetsov’s trip to Syria perfectly confirmed that ..
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 27 May 2020 08: 40 New
          -1
          Quote: max702
          UDC will carry and supply troops

          Conventional transport vessels can do just as well with this. We are not going to land somewhere.

          Quote: max702
          sometimes be the headquarters of the group

          Which one? And what prevents such a headquarters from being set up in any other large NK?

          Quote: max702
          maybe some terrorists or pirates are driven

          Well, I don’t know, to build a UDC (a rather expensive toy) only in order to drive terrorists (which ones? Where?) Or pirates (again, where?) ... It’s like that. There Malaysians quite successfully deal with this with the help of modified bulk carriers: cheap, practical.
          1. max702
            max702 27 May 2020 13: 26 New
            0
            Here the question is in the sense of the fleet as such .. The task of a warship today is to hold out for some time in case of conflict to inform the headquarters who ran into a ship or a group of ships under its protection and to counteract some kind of chantrap .. The current warship for all there the insurgents have an extremely difficult goal and it follows that if the actions of the attackers are successful and suppose the frigate was drowned, then there is a serious power behind them .. Today it is not more than a dozen states, but in fact no more than five and 90% of them will be NATO countries . Which of these is the conclusion? And such that the state will be presented with claims up to nuclear arguments that anyone has to reckon with. Therefore, for some complex and delicate situations, UDCs can come up with them so simply you won’t drown them and you won’t capture them .. Besides that, UDCs are more mobile and combat ready from transport ships. and large sizes, unlike the BDK, give greater autonomy and the ability to transport serious volumes of military purposes .. Again, the large UDC sizes make it possible to organize the comfortable work of headquarters, a hospital, military contingent .. Militarians, oddly enough, also love comfort .. That's for these purposes and I will be made UDC ..
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 27 May 2020 14: 04 New
              0
              This is all, in general, true, but:

              Quote: max702
              UDC is more mobile and combat ready, unlike transport ships

              The mobility of UDC and transport vessels does not differ significantly. Readiness is a matter of organization. Well, the sizes can be such that any UDC will envy.

              UDC is not just a ship, it is landing ship i.e. designed primarily for landing. This skill distinguishes it from helicopter carriers and ordinary transporters. And this skill in the current realities of the Russian Navy does not have intelligible value.
              1. max702
                max702 29 May 2020 10: 50 New
                0
                Quote: Kalmar
                The mobility of UDC and transport vessels does not differ significantly. Readiness is a matter of organization. Well, the sizes can be such that any UDC will envy.

                Then in the Syrian express, the BDK has been working for 7-8 years for wear ... Even the transport ships will not appear in any way (those rusty pelvis that they bought did not remember)
                UDC is, first of all, a UNIVERSAL ships, and then an amphibious assault ship .. You can fill it with everything you need at any time and send it anywhere .. Neither the BDK nor the transport ship have this opportunity! Therefore, in these ships it makes sense .. They didn’t sell us and Mistral due to their possible participation in the Syrian express, and not because of a threat to the 404th .. And if the enemy believes that we do not need these ships (and they, unlike from fantasies about the ACG were in the metal and mastered by the crews) and did everything for their absence from us, then we need to take the necessary ships!
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 29 May 2020 12: 14 New
                  0
                  Quote: max702
                  Then in the Syrian Express, the BDK has been working for 7-8 years for wear ... Even transport ships will not appear

                  What can I say, logistics is not our strongest feature, apparently.

                  Quote: max702
                  UDC is, first of all, a UNIVERSAL ships, and only then an amphibious assault ship. You can score it with everything you need at any time and send it anywhere

                  It seems so, only its only function, which for us may be relevant in the foreseeable future, is transport. Even for Syria, he would be an ordinary truck, which any container ship would replace without problems.

                  Management of some expeditionary groups, hospital functions - this is certainly interesting, but we simply do not have the resources and needs for operations where it would be truly relevant.

                  Quote: max702
                  And if the enemy believes that we don’t need these ships (and unlike fantasies about the ACG, they were in the metal and mastered by the crews) and did everything for their absence from us, then we need to take the necessary ships!

                  I am deeply convinced that we must focus on our doctrine, resources and real goals, and not on the opinion of the enemy.
                  1. max702
                    max702 29 May 2020 20: 22 New
                    0
                    Well, the military, too, need toys because of the job and so on .. And the UDC, in addition to this component, can also bring at least some benefit .. Let the ship be not expensive .. This is not AUG with all those involved, we will not go broke, you look and come in handy .. 4 "Mistral "it would cost us $ 2bn, that's ugh .. We just donated the 404th 2.9bn just like that and didn't notice it .. Here they will build at home, so the money will go to the Russian economy, which is not so bad ..
                    1. Kalmar
                      Kalmar 29 May 2020 23: 53 New
                      0
                      Quote: max702
                      The ship is not expensive, let it be .. This is not AUG with all those involved, we will not go broke, you see, it will come in handy .. 4 "Mistral" would cost us $ 2 billion, that's ugh

                      Lard 2 dollars were "ugh" when oil was expensive and sanctions had not yet begun. Now they have announced 2 UDCs for 100 billion rubles: the language somehow does not dare to call these boats inexpensive. Heels of corvettes for this money could be concocted and shawarma for change.
                      1. max702
                        max702 30 May 2020 11: 43 New
                        0
                        And now it’s full of money, I gave you an example 404, but for the corvettes you’ll forgive me but they will bring only expenses and shoot rockets to barmales somewhere maximum .. But UDC will transport a lot of useful things with the help of which our country will get certain advantages wherever anyway ..! 00 billion for two UDCs, at present 1.3 bln \ dollars is certainly more expensive than Mistral, but inflation is in dollars too, so everything is at the same prices, and I will repeat all this with us, and this is the development of competencies and money to the economy .. as for me, if at least something is being done in our country, it’s good and it doesn’t matter if it’s a bridge there or another summer residence in the Moscow region .. There really is money for absolutely everything, for example, in 2019 our country spent 50 billion on foreign tourism .. Yes, tourists exported and spent 50 billion \ dollars outside the country .. And this is 5 AUG .. And this is for the year .. In 2019, 100 did not smell of oil .. Well, if there are such amounts for entertainment, what It’s incorrect to speak about a lack of money.
                      2. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 30 May 2020 11: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: max702
                        sorry about the corvettes, you’ll forgive but they will bring only expenses and rockets to the barmaley at most somewhere .. But the UDC will transport a lot of useful things with the help of which our country will get certain advantages anywhere

                        Once again: in a non-combat environment, UDC is not needed for transportation; it will be perfectly replaced by a large transport ship. Which can at the same time be driven by commercial contracts, so that not only costs are brought. In a combat situation, UDC without the cover of at least corvettes is a suicide bomber. Where and what exactly are you going to carry - in general, a separate issue.

                        And the corvettes will find work: at least the same anti-submarine defense in the BMZ, in order to give our SSBNs at least some chance to fulfill their task if something happens (otherwise, the SSBNs are wasted money).

                        Quote: max702
                        There really is money for absolutely everything

                        Are we still talking about Russia? The one whose "budgets are cracked" to financially support the population during the crisis? The fact that in principle there is money in the country, I do not argue, but "absolutely for everything" it is definitely not enough. The same Boomerangs and T-14s were not purchased precisely because they were expensive. And to pump "Peter the Great" on the model of "Nakhimov" (and there, it seems, the order of prices is the same - about 100 billion). In principle, the fleet does not get as much as it would like, so you need to think very carefully about what to spend.
                      3. max702
                        max702 31 May 2020 20: 20 New
                        0
                        Regarding the SSBN, I agree to take the money down the drain and no cover will save them only if they pull from the pier and no more .. And about Russia, everything is simple, in our country the IMF manages the MONEY, and the authorities of our country have no money for that. Thanks to the saints of the 90m and the EBN of the constitution .. It seems that there is progress in this matter .. As far as we know, boomerangs and T-14s are "raw" and no one wants to repeat the epic of the T-64 name. And they don't burn too much, to be honest. slowly, and then the constitution will be updated, and new economic laws will be adopted here and then and it will be clear that there is money for everything ..
                      4. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 1 June 2020 08: 38 New
                        0
                        Quote: max702
                        According to the SSBN, money is wasted and no cover will save them

                        Why, the normal fleet will cover. But certainly not UDC))

                        Quote: max702
                        and then they will update the constitution, and economic laws will be adopted here and then it’s clear that there is denyuzhka for everything ..

                        "The capital automatically goes to Vasyuki." Like, all the distortions in the Russian economy are caused exclusively by incorrect laws (and what were the correct ones not adopted?) And a crooked constitution (and what are they planning to correct on this topic?). Funny))
                      5. max702
                        max702 2 June 2020 00: 10 New
                        0
                        Why fence a "normal" fleet to cover SSBNs? Everything and everyone ultimately comes down to denyuzhku .. Here is the stated goal of covering SSBNs, that is, to ensure the possibility of launching ICBMs from these boats, well, let's estimate how much it will cost to start one ICBM with all these costs .. Let's include the cost of developing SSBNs, missiles, development a full-fledged AUG (because without an aircraft carrier, you can protect FIG), add the cost of an air wing with AWACS, drones and other things, include training crews for all this splendor and, of course, take into account the cost of producing this amount of iron, but don't forget about the ground infrastructure for all these toys, and estimate the content this in the right form and condition .. And what time will one ICBM launch? How many billion dollars? 10-15? And the most interesting thing is that there will never be a start .. That is, the money was thrown away, it is not clear what for? Immediately I hear screams that this type is a guarantee of our safety! Okay .. But couldn’t other instruments provide these guarantees? Are there any other ways and tools? It turns out there is! And his name is Strategic Missile Forces ... With all due respect to the naval missiles, silo missiles cover them like a bull sheep, as well as operational readiness and combat stability ... Our country is not called Singapore or Monaco and not Liechtenstein, but Russia, destroy silos scattered on 1 \ 7 sushi of the globe just like this is simply impossible .. In case of a massive impact, it is the silos that will shoot back within 3-5 minutes, bringing the partners light and warmth .. And this heat will be enough for everyone and everything .. And there are also Poplars and Yarsy, they are also a spark will add .. So the question is why do we need a fleet to cover SSBNs if we have no other tasks for it? Money nowhere to go? UDC against this background is a slight whim.
                        About Vasyukov .. And your suggestions? Are we now in a colony condition financially, and 20 years ago we also reminded the colonial army of the military, too, or didn’t you think anything has changed in this direction? So in monetary and financial relations, it’s the turn to put things in order, not everything is done right away. Everything is working ..
  • Per se.
    Per se. 18 May 2020 07: 02 New
    11
    Defective aircraft carriers and attempts to replace them.
    With the same success one can speak of defective "cruisers" when criticizing the construction of destroyers, or assert that helicopters are "underplanes". Initially not the correct formulation of the topic. Firstly, not "aircraft carriers", but UDC and other aircraft-carrying ships, which, for example, in the same Japan are called "destroyers". Secondly, not "replace" but add.

    Alexander, figuratively speaking, will prove, in his entire series of articles, that "Bentley" is cooler than "Lada Kalina". Only ships of the "Nimitz" class, these are aircraft carriers, everything else is empty and worthless. It should be noted right away that "defective aircraft carriers" were actively used by the same United States in World War II. Shown is the escort aircraft carrier Bogue.
    Initially, such aircraft carriers were converted from merchant ships, then, they were initially built on their basis. In the early summer of 1942, the owner of a shipyard in Vancouver, Kaiser, suggested that the American government deploy at his enterprise a mass production of escort aircraft carriers, up to 100 such ships a year. This interested President Roosevelt, and an order was issued for 50 of these ships (the Casablanca project).
    The fleet must also have its own mobilization reserve, its own support. In the Soviet Union, it was planned to use civilian ships for helicopter carriers ("Captain Smirnov").

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, all four Ro-Roers went to Ukraine and were sold to Global Container Lines and Marianna Shipbuilding Ltd. In 2001-2002, three of them ended up at a scrap metal dump in India, only "Vladimir Vaslyaev" joined the ranks of the US Navy. In the States, the ship was radically modernized, the ship's hull was disassembled and lengthened by inserting an additional section. In general, what was withdrawn was destroyed, everything that could strengthen, supplement our fleet, especially the aircraft carrier. For the same reason, it was suggested through the venal mass media that aircraft carriers were unnecessary for "land Russia". Now Alexander, apparently, went from the opposite in his "ideological sabotage", according to the principle, we do not want a "goat", but we cannot "a cow".

    Understand, Alexander, Russia cannot build its own "Nimitz" now, but we can gain experience by creating the same UDCs that are needed by any fleet, the same USA, which have enough nuclear aircraft carriers. Your extremes, a very dubious "blessing" for our fleet, both in categorical terms with regard to aircraft-carrying ships and VTOL aircraft, without which aircraft-carrying ships cannot do. I am in favor of a strong Russian fleet, in which I really want to believe there will be large nuclear aircraft carriers. Yes, we can't build more aircraft carriers than the United States, we can't even build more frigates, but we must have a full-fledged, balanced fleet capable of performing ALL missions at sea, and this is impossible without carrier-based aircraft and aircraft-carrying ships. As for the rest, on the topic "they have more", here, as in the USSR, each commander of our ship must make it clear to any provocation - "All the might of the Soviet Union is behind me!"
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 May 2020 11: 09 New
      11
      Quote: Per se.
      It should be noted right away that "defective aircraft carriers" were actively used by the same United States in World War II. Shown is the escort aircraft carrier Bogue.

      Only nobody put these aircraft carriers in the first line. They were not used at all in the main forces of the fleet. "Jeeps" either guarded the convoys or supported the landing on the coast until it captured the coastal airfields.
      Moreover, in the zone of possible presence of the enemy's fleet, the AVEs acted exclusively in the presence of cover from the side of the "big brothers" who were engaged in this fleet. Once the "brothers" yawned - and only the courage and heroism of the pilots and crews of the escort destroyers (as well as an error in identifying from the enemy) saved the "tuffy" from extermination.
      Without the presence of full-fledged aircraft carriers, escort aircraft do not make sense. It’s just money and forces thrown to the wind - for without escort, escorted ABs cannot carry out their tasks. The same small AB countries of NATO are built on the basis of work under the guise of Big Brother with his ACG.
      Quote: Per se.
      In the Soviet Union, it was planned to use civilian ships for helicopter carriers ("Captain Smirnov").

      With boots from the General Staff, this was planned. smile
      The Navy rejected these "alterations" due to their lack of even minimal protection and survivability. And the helicopter carriers, designed according to naval standards, climbed only into the corps of project 1143.
      Quote: Per se.
      Russia cannot build its own "Nimitz" now, but we can gain experience by creating the same UDCs that are needed by any fleet, the same USA, which have enough nuclear aircraft carriers.

      The problem is that the United States began to build the UDC already after none of the AVs appeared. Today, without UDC, it’s possible to use it well, except against some Somalia.
      And most importantly, the UDC with its scanty air group does not solve the main task of the fleet - to strengthen the air defense of naval groups covering the positional areas of the SSBN.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 18 May 2020 12: 04 New
        +9
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And most importantly, the UDC with its scanty air group does not solve the main task of the fleet - to strengthen the air defense of naval groups covering the positional areas of the SSBN.
        "All at once" will not work. Yes, the States began to build UDC already having heavy aircraft carriers, and so what? From what we gained experience in construction, from "Moscow" and "Leningrad" (project 1123). How did the Chinese gain experience, from the completion of our "Riga" (aka "Varyag", aka "Liaoning").

        "Halzan", you say, "boots" from the General Staff planned? If some did not "bend their fingers" so that on the basis of a civilian ship a "shvets, a reaper and a igrets" would turn out, it could well have been a variant of a landing helicopter carrier. Finally, maybe it would be better if instead of an aircraft-carrying cruiser (project 1143), they built the so-called "Ivan Tarava" (project 11780), but already from the project 1143.4 (initially "Kharkov", then "Baku", then "Admiral Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov ") and it was necessary to build full-fledged aircraft carriers, up to the atomic 1143.7" Ulyanovsk "(which was supposed to include AWACS, Sukhoi, and VTOL aircraft of the Yak-141 type).

        After the collapse of the great country, we had at least two aircraft carriers - "Gorshkov" and "Kuznetsov", which would be quite suitable for what Alexander Timokhin so persistently advertises. Ideally, they could finish building the Varyag, so what were the traitors and fools to do? Our "buy and sell" initially gave "Gorshkov" in addition to the MiG-29K deal, that is, in fact, for nothing. Only after bargaining "for validol" to pay extra in the alteration.


        Now what is the dispute, I'm talking about, like, we don't want a "goat", but we can't "a cow" ... "Nothing" will cover the area of ​​SSBN deployment, and the fleet grouping, even with such as "Conti di Cavour" , be similar with us, it can already. Only, behind them should be "All the might of the Soviet Union", and not bad boys, renegades from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, who can only puff up their cheeks to raise the rating, but in fact, being henpecked of their new "Washington Regional Committee". It is unlikely that those who store their junk in other people's banks and foreign currency need a strong fleet, which is one of the main instruments of an independent policy in defending national interests.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 18 May 2020 13: 33 New
          -2
          On the sale of India, an aircraft carrier, which itself would definitely not be useful, then they made good money. For the Yak-141 it is necessary as for the guns of Kurchevsky.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 May 2020 14: 37 New
          +3
          Quote: Per se.
          "Halzan", you say, "boots" from the General Staff planned? If some did not "bend their fingers" so that on the basis of a civilian ship a "shvets, a reaper and a igrets" would turn out, it could well have been a variant of a landing helicopter carrier.

          So this universalization again came from the General Staff. Initially, they wanted a clean anti-submarine helicopter carrier of the second line. Then they decided that such single-tasking was too bold, and hung the tasks of an amphibious helicopter carrier on the Halzan. And the fleet only demanded that the resulting amphibious assault ship comply with the standards for amphibious ships. smile
          Quote: Per se.
          Finally, maybe it would be better if instead of an aircraft-carrying cruiser (project 1143), they built the so-called "Ivan Tarava" (project 11780), but already from the project 1143.4 (initially "Kharkov", then "Baku", then "Admiral Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov ") and it was necessary to build full-fledged aircraft carriers, up to the atomic 1143.7" Ulyanovsk "(which was supposed to include AWACS, Sukhoi, and VTOL aircraft of the Yak-141 type).

          The 1143 series was started by construction, as it were, a little earlier than the beginning of the design of "Ivan Tarava". smile
          And about the plans "starting with" Baku "to build full-fledged AV" - so the Navy had nothing against. But even a timid attempt to put a catapult on the first version of Project 1143.5 ended with a shout from the General Staff - to remove everything, to redesign the ship under the SKVVP.
          The Navy generally wanted to build full-fledged ABs, starting with 1143.1. But 1160 and 1153 were killed at the design stage.
          In addition, for the General Staff, the UDC was a way to leave the Navy without an AB - because there was only one "Building berth 0" in the country, and the UDC refused to climb into the "Building berth 1". smile
          1. timokhin-aa
            18 May 2020 20: 57 New
            0
            But even a timid attempt to put a catapult on the first version of project 1143.5 ended with a shout from the General Staff - to remove everything, redesign the ship under the air defense system.


            It seems that Ustinov ordered the catapult to be removed, and not the General Staff.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 19 May 2020 10: 00 New
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              It seems that Ustinov ordered the catapult to be removed, and not the General Staff.

              Yes you are right. With 11435 Ustinov removed the catapult.
              GS in the face of Amelko curtailed work on catapults generally.
              Among the aircraft based on the ship, it was proposed to provide, in addition to the Yak-41 SK / GDP, Su-27K, MiG-29K and RLD aircraft with their take-off from a springboard with two take-off tracks. The issue of a catapult for this ship was removed. Moreover, the General Staff raised the question of the cessation of all work on the creation and development of catapults.

              After the Nitka’s repeated visits by various commissions of the Ministry of Defense, with the participation of N. N. Amelko, the catapult intended for flight tests of aircraft and training pilots to ejection take-off was excluded from the equipment of this complex and only the technological (called the booster device) required for testing, calibration and verification of aerofinishers. Work on the creation of catapult take-off aircraft, begun in 1972, was curtailed.
              © A.B. Morin
              1. timokhin-aa
                19 May 2020 14: 34 New
                +2
                Well, Amelko was a well-known rogue, when I found out that they would call him a frigate, I was simply incredibly surprised.
                That would be someone to send into oblivion.
        3. IC
          IC 26 May 2020 08: 51 New
          0
          I agree, the USSR was gradually approaching the creation of AB. He knew the leaders of the Black Sea plant, who put this into practice. Given the experience of building smaller ships in Russia, the repetition of such a program is implemented in 15-20 years and a lot of money will be spent. By this time, most likely, these ships will lose relevance.
      2. Avior
        Avior 18 May 2020 13: 17 New
        -7
        The same small AB countries of NATO are built on the basis of work under the guise of Big Brother with his ACG.

        Yes, as if on the Falklands aircraft carriers "Big Brother" were not observed.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 May 2020 14: 03 New
          +9
          Quote: Avior
          Yes, as if on the Falklands aircraft carriers "Big Brother" were not observed.

          On the Falklands, on the other hand, there were Argentines who, having captured the island with an airfield, continued to fly from the mainland to the limit of range. It is unlikely that such a lafa will happen again.
        2. NEOZ
          NEOZ 18 May 2020 15: 35 New
          +3
          Quote: Avior
          Yes, as if on the Falklands aircraft carriers "Big Brother" were not observed.

          The support in the form of an American military base on Ascension Island in the central Atlantic Ocean, provided by British aviation for basing, turned out to be sufficient.
          As well as providing intelligence to Britam from the US satellite constellation.
          PS
          I think that if the defeat of Britain loomed on the horizon, the Yankees would have turned on fully.
          1. Avior
            Avior 18 May 2020 16: 06 New
            -2
            but it's about aircraft carriers.
            and they were definitely not there
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2020 17: 03 New
              +8
              Quote: Avior
              but it's about aircraft carriers.
              and they were definitely not there

              Therefore, the British and raked in full from the Argentines out of the blue. A purely police operation (in the presence of a full-fledged AB) turned into a complex operation that the British pulled out on the verge of a foul
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 18 May 2020 18: 38 New
                -5
                "Therefore, the British and shook the full program from the Argentines" ////
                ---
                And the Argentines capitulated laughing
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2020 20: 29 New
                  +5
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  And the Argentines capitulated

                  What is not clear to you in the second part of my comment?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  A purely police operation (in the presence of a full-fledged AB) turned into a complex operation that the British pulled out on the verge of a foul

                  Name at least one operation of the post-war US Navy, which would be accompanied by such losses that the British suffered at the Falklands
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 18 May 2020 20: 41 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Name at least one operation of the post-war US Navy, which would be accompanied by such losses that the British suffered at the Falklands

                    Vietnam
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2020 20: 43 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Liam
                      Vietnam

                      Oh, how many wonderful discoveries we have ... And how many US ships lost in that war?
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 18 May 2020 20: 46 New
                        0
                        And how many planes?)
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        18 May 2020 20: 59 New
                        +1
                        The issue is the ability to protect NK from air strikes. The Argentines would not even come close to the American formation, or even to the KUG protected by Kuzey.
                        And with the British they managed to slip under the Harriers and sank 4 ships in the strait with such methods.
                        Well, Sheffield is still
                      3. Liam
                        Liam 18 May 2020 21: 52 New
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        nor even to the protected "Kuzey" KUG Argentines would not even come close.

                        I won’t even ask on the basis of what facts you make such a categorical conclusion. All the experience of the Russian / Soviet KUG and the unfortunate Kuzi in repelling air attacks comes down to a masterpiece: .. In the course of repelling a conditional attack, a conditional target is conditionally shot down ...
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        18 May 2020 22: 52 New
                        +1
                        I will not even ask on the basis of what facts you make such a categorical conclusion.


                        Mat. Modeling of this war in GOSNIIAS in the early 90's.
                        The Americans, by the way, NEVER also reflected a massive raid on their aircraft carriers after WWII, by the way.
                      5. Liam
                        Liam 18 May 2020 23: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Mat. Modeling of this war in GOSNIIAS in the early 90's.

                        What am I talking about? .. this is .... In the course of repelling a conditional attack, a conditional target is conditionally shot down ...
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Americans, by the way, NEVER also reflected a massive raid on their aircraft carriers after WWII

                        That's it. Therefore, your statement that they would have lost the args without loss is nothing more than your fantasies, issued as truth)
                        The fact that the Harriers missed some attacks depended on the absence of AWACS, and not on the type of aircraft, and even more so the aircraft carrier. And the F-35 in a sense, itself AWACS in many ways.
                        PySy. Are you sure that a higher speed of an ejection aircraft carrier is needed in order to "skimp? Or is it due to the peculiarities of" horizontal "takeoffs and landings of its aircraft? And for" vertical "/ springboards it is not so important
                      6. timokhin-aa
                        19 May 2020 14: 20 New
                        +2
                        Are you sure that a higher speed of a catapult aircraft carrier is needed in order to "skewer?"


                        Yes, for sure, because the Americans have done this trick more than once with our intelligence.
                      7. Liam
                        Liam 20 May 2020 00: 44 New
                        +1
                        )))
                        Imaginary logical connection
                        A logical trick in which an imaginary, desired logical connection is presented as true (non sequitur).

                        An aircraft carrier needs a higher speed for the incoming flow on the plane of an aircraft taking off and landing. For this, it always turns against the wind)
                      8. timokhin-aa
                        20 May 2020 11: 07 New
                        +1
                        Only the headwind permitted for takeoffs is in principle within 0-30 knots, and normal for takeoff is 10.
                        29 knots of speed is excessive for the WingOverDeck effect.
                        You do not want to explain this?
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 May 2020 17: 02 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Liam
                    That the Harriers missed some attacks

                    How many years have you worked in agitprop? :))) Sea Harriers managed to prevent 20% of attacks, and 19,8% of the total number of aircraft participating in them did not reach British ships. For the “bombing alley”, this figure is even more modest - out of 26 attacks, 22 (84,6%) were successful, of the 85 aircraft participating in the attacks, 72 (84,7%) broke through to the ships.
                    To formulate this, in every respect, a disastrous result as "missed some attacks" - it must be able to :)))
                    Quote: Liam
                    depended on the lack of AWACS

                    Which is not on the VTOL carrier and cannot be. Only ersatz in the form of helicopters, about which, like the Harriers, one could only say "better than nothing."
                    Quote: Liam
                    Therefore, your statement that they would have lost the args without loss is nothing more than your fantasies, issued as truth)

                    These are not fantasies, but facts based, among other things, on the experience of the Falkland conflict and on the numerous "games" of the USSR naval aviation with the US Air Force. If we take the Falklands - until the args finally collapsed the AWACS planes (WWII times), they calmly opened the location of the British order and launched their anti-ship missile carriers on the British ships to attack. The British discovered this already during the attack. And in the USSR, they knew from their own experience that it is very difficult to go unnoticed to the AUG, although not impossible.
                  3. Liam
                    Liam 20 May 2020 01: 08 New
                    0
                    You have an amazing gift ...or with an upstart ... or break into the open. door ..)
                    I don’t need to prove that Nimitz is better than Hermes, and Superhorn with AWAC is better than Harrier without it. Although I understand that such a meaningless exercise captivates such a great thinker.
                    It's a little different. Only the USA can afford Nimitz with all its bells and whistles, but in the world there are still many countries that may need air cover away from their home bases. And the only option that has been tested by time and practice is UDC with VTOL. Yes, it works worse than Nimitz, but it works. And the British proved it brilliantly. The Argentines lacked such an aircraft prevented the use of runways on the islands and were forced to fly from the mainland, which ultimately led to defeat. And the British completed the task and won the war, albeit with losses.
                    So the result is extremely simple and obvious for any sane person: there are the USA that play in their own league in terms of AV.I have a dozen other countries that use the only working alternative in the form of UDC with Harriers / F-35V.
                    Well, there are also Russia, China and India, which are unable to build / buy a normal aircraft carrier, no VTOL aircraft and, in desperation, are trying to cross a hedgehog in the form of useless Kuzi and his Sino / Indian counterparts
                  4. timokhin-aa
                    20 May 2020 11: 08 New
                    0
                    There are the USA that play in their own league in terms of AB.I have a dozen other countries that use the only working alternative in the form of UDC with Harriers / F-35V.


                    But what about France?
                  5. Liam
                    Liam 20 May 2020 11: 15 New
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    But what about France?

                    Remove the American catapult from Sh de G and get the French version of Queen Elizabeth). Without planes capable of taking off under its own power. So, only the United States
                  6. timokhin-aa
                    20 May 2020 11: 59 New
                    0
                    Why remove the catapult?
                    You do not wag here.
                    The same catapult and the British could stand with the same finishers, no one would forbid.
                    Without aircraft capable of taking off under its own power.

                    Are you sure that Rafal cannot be lifted from a springboard? I am sure of the opposite.
                    Thrust-arm look at him.
                  7. Liam
                    Liam 20 May 2020 13: 50 New
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Why remove the catapult?

                    Because the catapults there are American. The French did not master it either. So, the only country capable of building a catapult aircraft carrier is the United States.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Can't rafal be lifted from a springboard?

                    You can raise it. Only half-empty. And without an AWAC, it is natural. And in this case, the UDC with VTOL give 100 points handicap to such a nuisance in all respects, from cost to efficiency
                  8. timokhin-aa
                    20 May 2020 14: 00 New
                    +1
                    From our electromagnetic catapults, trolleys flew only on the road many years ago
                    Steam was collected in 1990.
                    All this had to be improved, but the fundamental issues were resolved, it was necessary to refine it.
                    The Chinese have their planes with ground catapults already starting.
                    Friendly US countries can build with American catapults.
                    So by.

                    You can raise it. Only half-empty. And without an AWAC, it is natural. And in this case, the UDC with VTOL give 100 points for such handicap

                    Prove it.
                    While this affirmation gives medicine.
                    UDC may have 10-12 aircraft.
                    on an aircraft carrier of the same displacement - 24-26
                    specifically on a hypothetical springboard Charles without E-2 there would be 28 Rafaley.
                    And on the real UDC America, the maximum air group, which at least somehow manages and can fly out to a combat mission in its entirety, is 10 aircraft.
                    Theoretically, France could buy an f-35C. On Charles there will be less of them than Rafaley but not much, without the E-2 about 24 cars.

                    Please prove to me that 10 F-35B is stronger than 24 F-35C.
                  9. Liam
                    Liam 20 May 2020 16: 04 New
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Theoretically, France could buy an f-35C. On Charles there will be less of them than Rafaley but not much, without the E-2 about 24 cars.

                    Please prove to me that 10 F-35B is stronger than 24 F-35C

                    They say that mathematics (and logic) is an exact science)
                    In money, 1 Ш de Г with 24 Ф-35 С (which at best is 6 months at sea and 6 at the wall) = 3 UDC with 10 Ф-35В each of which 2 is constantly at sea
                  10. timokhin-aa
                    22 May 2020 13: 10 New
                    0
                    But you write
                    And in this case, UDC with VTOL give 100 points handicap to such a nedoavianosets


                    In addition, I repeat, an aircraft carrier with a gas turbine costs at most one third more than the same in size UDC with a gas turbine.

                    Two gas turbine 40000 tons of which one is constantly at sea (and sometimes both) against 3 UDCs of which two (sometimes three) are at sea

                    That is, 24-48 planes are better against 20-30 worse planes.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 May 2020 16: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Liam
        I don’t need to prove that Nimitz is better than Hermes, and Superhorn with AWAC is better than Harrier without it. Although I understand that such a meaningless exercise captivates such a great thinker.

        I didn’t prove it to you. I have pointed out a couple of your statements that I consider erroneous.
        Quote: Liam
        It's a little different. Only the USA can afford Nimitz with all its bells and whistles, but in the world there are still many countries that may need air cover away from their home bases. And the only time-tested and practical option is UDC with VTOL

        UDC with VTOL is neither the only nor time-tested option. Moreover, I can’t immediately recall at all when the UDC carried out such a cover.
        Quote: Liam
        And the British proved it brilliantly

        In fact, Invincible and Hermes are exactly aircraft carriers, they have nothing to do with the UDC. And that means a lot. The aircraft carrier is nevertheless "sharpened" for the use of its own air group, this is its main function. UDC - no. And I highly doubt, for example, that the UDC would be able to provide the number of VTOL sorties that were provided by the British AB.
        Quote: Liam
        Well, there is Russia, China and India

        Both France and England ...
        Quote: Liam
        who are unable to build / buy a normal aircraft carrier, no VTOL aircraft and out of desperation try to cross already with a hedgehog in the form of a useless Kuzi

        :))) Kuznetsov as a carrier of aviation covers like a bull a sheep of any UDC :)))
      4. 3danimal
        3danimal 20 May 2020 23: 35 New
        0
        NOT if it is a "pre-aircraft carrier" America or Hyuug with the F-35V on board. The VTOL aircraft have the best range in the class, and the Su-33 will be limited in fuel / weapon loading during a springboard start.
      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2020 06: 52 New
        +1
        Quote: 3danimal
        NOT if it is a "pre-aircraft carrier" America or Hyuug with the F-35V on board.

        And in this case too
        Quote: 3danimal
        VTOL data has the best range in the class

        That's exactly what is in the classroom. Flight range Su-33 - 3000 km, F-35B - less than 1700 km
        Quote: 3danimal
        and the Su-33 will be limited in fuel / weapon loading during a springboard launch.

        Su-33 is limited only at launch from two bow positions, and from the third position it takes off in full combat. The same America EMNIP has one take-off position for aircraft.
      6. 3danimal
        3danimal 21 May 2020 10: 50 New
        0
        That is, taking off from a shortened strip on the afterburner, it can be loaded with weapons and fuel to the maximum and spend at a minimum on take-off?
        It turns out the Americans, once they build ejection aircraft carriers?
      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2020 14: 12 New
        +1
        Maybe if it takes off from the 3rd position. In fact, this can be done from the first two, there was such an experience, but such "numbers" are available only for top-class pilots, the best testers. In general, combat pilots are prohibited from doing this, they are only from the third.
        As for the Americans - please do not forget that the springboard take-off is available only for the 4th generation multifunctional fighter aircraft with high thrust ratio, well, for Harriers too. Attack aircraft and anti-submarine aircraft that had previously served on US Aviation and the AWACS aircraft that are currently serving from the springboard cannot take off. In addition, with the help of several catapults you can fly planes into the air faster than from one springboard
      8. 3danimal
        3danimal 21 May 2020 19: 42 New
        0
        Question: to create Mega-traction, do not you need to burn extra fuel?
        And then why are such sloths pilots of the air force that take off with a take-off run of 700-1000 meters?
        Further, on the open spaces of Wiki on the Su-33 .:
        "Empty weight: 19600 kg
        Curb weight: 20440 kg (2 × P-27E + 2 × P-73)
        Normal take-off weight:
        partial refueling: 26000 kg
        with a full dressing: 29940 kg
        Maximum take-off weight: 33000 kg
        Weight Fuel: 9400 kg
        main refueling option: 5350 kg "
        Pay attention to how low the load is when fully refueling.
        At 33000 kg in emergency traction (12800x2 kgf) thrust-to-weight ratio = 0,77.
      9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2020 20: 53 New
        0
        Quote: 3danimal
        Question: to create Mega-traction, do not you need to burn extra fuel?

        It is necessary. Only this is not a mega-thrust, but the usual afterburner which, when taking off, turns on for a very short time. Which, by the way, is not comparable with what the F-35V needs for a vertical landing. And yes, he also needs to take off after a short run in the afterburner
        Quote: 3danimal
        And then why are such sloths pilots of the air force that take off with a take-off run of 700-1000 meters?

        Because taking off from the catapult, from the springboard, in fact, is pretty bad for your health. And here and there, a person from a quarry experiences severe overload. In addition, on the ground airfields, I did not see something either springboards or catapults ....
        Quote: 3danimal
        Pay attention to how low the load is when fully refueling.

        Why would he need a big one? "Gentleman's set" of fighters - 2 medium and 2-4 short-range missiles. The same R-27s are more than 350 kg EMNIP and have never weighed. But the fuel ... Yes :))) This is really important.
      10. 3danimal
        3danimal 21 May 2020 21: 59 New
        0
        Ok, the heavy carrier-based fighter still has superiority in range (takes more fuel). But 35B is a new generation of avionics, radar with AFAR. And the range is comparable to the F-18, which is very good. And a much less specialized ship significantly enhances combat capabilities.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 May 2020 16: 54 New
    0
    Okay, ueli :))) I incorrectly formulated - it meant the loss in the ships
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 18 May 2020 20: 52 New
    +2
    The Anglo-Argentine war cannot be called a police operation. The war of two states and two regular armies. With aviation, navy and ground forces. With the same success, I can call the Russo-Japanese war a failed police operation in Russia in the Far East.
    ----
    "which the British pulled on the brink of a foul" ///
    ---
    The Argentine garrison capitulated. The capital of the Falklands was taken over. All these expressions "on the verge of a foul" are gross manipulation.
    The Second World War was also extended on the verge of a foul.
    But Berlin was captured by the Soviet army. Germany capitulated.
    And no one cares what happened before that "on the verge of a foul in 1941-42"
  • Avior
    Avior 18 May 2020 13: 18 New
    -1
    The same small AB countries of NATO are built on the basis of work under the guise of Big Brother with his ACG.

    Yes, as if on the Falklands aircraft carriers "Big Brother" were not observed.
  • Niko
    Niko 20 May 2020 11: 10 New
    0
    And who says that it is necessary to be in the "first line"? Each task is solved with the help of suitable ships and aircraft, helicopters (in this case) there is no question - many tasks are easier and better solved by large aircraft carriers and strong aircraft, but not All. And there are tasks and situations when 2-3 small ships are better suited than one huge one. The same situation - the end of the 19th century - the beginning of the 20th "why do we need cruisers of the 2nd rank? (They're undercruisers, cans, undersized) we'll build battleships! And how the same admirals changed their minds after Port Arthur and Novik
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 May 2020 11: 38 New
    0
    And the Red Army used PTRs, right up to 300 units per division in 1942, without any noticeable effect on the number of German tanks.

    To achieve a different quality, a certain threshold quantity must be reached.
    1. Usher
      Usher 18 May 2020 12: 35 New
      -5
      Well, imperceptible, yeah. Another German and dreamer of wet Teutonic orders?
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 May 2020 12: 43 New
        0
        And where does the quality of German tanks? If the Germans had a T-34, they would not have taken bullets with a breakdown of 20-25 mm in any way. They, strictly speaking, even against the T-70 would be of little use, since they could only do extra in the tank. ventilation without damage to indoor equipment. Even a 45 mm cannon was a much more effective tool than a PTR.
        1. Usher
          Usher 18 May 2020 12: 46 New
          -3
          Quote: EvilLion
          And where does the quality of German tanks? If the Germans had a T-34, they would not have taken bullets with a breakdown of 20-25 mm in any way. They, strictly speaking, even against the T-70 would be of little use, since they could only do extra in the tank. ventilation without damage to indoor equipment. Even a 45 mm cannon was a much more effective tool than a PTR.

          This is offtopic. And a 45mm gun is much heavier and more expensive than an ATGM. You have given some kind of left-handed example. ATGM does not replace anti-tank artillery. And it is an anti-tank weapon of the appropriate level.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 18 May 2020 13: 03 New
            0
            Not anti-tank systems, but anti-tank systems, and not at all offtopic, but a good example, when the multiplicity of weapons with near-zero efficiency gives a near-zero result. At the same time, 300 PTRs, this is 600 people for their service, minus the powerful battalion from the division, and often the commanders, not seeing any benefit from the armored personnel, preferred to just give them a rifle, or a PP.

            No, it is possible to use an effective anti-tank missile system, under a successful combination of circumstances, you can also "stop (not burn) a tiger with a bottle of gasoline. But only by making an ambush, so that their crews are on the sidelines and open fire only when enemy tanks substitute the side, which in practice means crossing the defensive line. Maybe 1-2 tanks will be stopped. Obviously, there is no need to allocate hundreds of crews for this task. And this is no different from the notorious paknest from 6-7 ZiS-3, which began to beat the Germans in the sides.
            1. +5
              +5 18 May 2020 15: 57 New
              0
              Nuuuu ... in addition to the tanks, the Germans still had quit carriages, in the 42nd, by the way, they had the right to exist PTR ... then, of course, is called into question. Before the war, they abandoned them, and you know about RPGs and crab with cancer in 41-42 ... you know from RPGs in combined arms combat, it’s neither cold nor hot, but in every compartment.
            2. Usher
              Usher 18 May 2020 16: 01 New
              0
              A typical mistake. Tanks don't fight in a spherical vacuum. I'm tired of you with a childish look. Have you re-read the books? Served though? In addition to tanks on the battlefield of World War II, and even now there are many targets. You ignore my words and speculate your hypothesis. PTR, this is one of the elements of the VET. Not a base, but only one of the elements, the same as a mine or a grenade or an attack aircraft. Clear? In short, I will explain more simply, the PTR is a "faustpatron" at its technical level. Or like RPG-18 or RPG-7. At the beginning of WWII, there was no other similar mobile weapon against technology (not only against tanks). Finish idle chatter and offtopic. Here we are talking about UDC.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 18 May 2020 16: 45 New
                +1
                Well, read how the defeat of these goals at the armor-piercers was. The answer is no way. Rarely was there such an opportunity. PTR is an attempt to replace precisely with a mass of rubbish 45 mm guns, and it is possible that it would be more profitable just not to make them.
                1. Usher
                  Usher 19 May 2020 17: 03 New
                  0
                  You apparently do not hear me or do not want to hear me? You can just google it
                  In wooded and swampy areas, where the enemy cannot use heavy tanks in all areas, but is more forced to use medium, light tanks and armored personnel carriers with machine gunners, PTRs played a big role, especially where artillery maneuver is difficult. With high efficiency, MFRs were used in settlements.

                  “PTR guns proved to be successful only in the fight against armored personnel carriers (of the total number of armored personnel carriers destroyed, up to 30% belong to fire from the PTR)."

                  “The experience of the combat use of the anti-tank systems confirms that the guns should be completely removed from the armament of the rifle regiments, leaving one platoon armed with 6-9 anti-tank rifles in the rifle battalions to strengthen Simonov’s assault groups, to fire at bunkers, bunkers, open firing points and for struggle in populated areas, since Simonov’s PTR is self-loading and it can be better used for suddenly appearing targets (armored vehicles, armored personnel carriers or trucks). ”

                  Effective fire on armored personnel carriers and light tanks could be conducted from a distance of 150-200 meters. During the war, PTRs were used to combat armored vehicles with armor thicknesses up to 45 mm and unarmored vehicles at distances up to 500 m; for firing at bunkers embrasures, machine gun points, low-flying aircraft.

                  or do you think that everywhere the Tigers fought with the Panthers? Of course the gun is better, but will you drag the gun to the roof? On a rock or in a swamp, not to mention shooting.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 20 May 2020 23: 37 New
      0
      The PTR was useless against the later versions of the T-3 and all T-4s.
  • 911sx
    911sx 18 May 2020 16: 30 New
    -1
    Dear Alexander does not say that UDC is bad. A command center (during an amphibious operation) with dock cameras, helicopters and armored vehicles on board is undoubtedly a good and good ship. A helicopter carrier, too. However, these are not aircraft carriers in the generally accepted concept (helicopters and Osprey are also aircraft). And Russia needs precisely an aircraft carrier (and preferably 4-6 units) for tasks that everyone understands. And the deployment of an SSBN is a strategic and at the same time routine work. Russia’s nimitz has not yet been built, but a ship with 40-60 thousand tons of cargo and cargo vehicles and horizontal take-off and landing aircraft is quite capable. In a critical situation, such a (not quite standard ship) can hold out against Nimitz for an hour and a half, and maybe more, this may well be enough to deploy an SSBN. And to solve other problems (of which there are many) such a ship is more than necessary. The point is that VTOL on such a ship is inappropriate. We went through this in the 70s. Do not step on the same rake. This is definitely money thrown away, and what is critical, time. The Americans are pushing their F-35B into the fleets of the world for the sake of profit and technological dependence of the buyers of this aircraft, perhaps a good one, but not a competitor to aircraft with horizontal take-off and landing. There would be extra money, perhaps such a plane and it would make sense to have a Russian helicopter carrier to strengthen helicopters during the landing operation. However, the Yankees will not sell it to us. And to develop your own, to lose time and money. At the same time, the VTOL aircraft carrier is not needed at all. The AWACS airplane is what we need, an ejection launch, for him. Any work on VTOL is considered sabotage. And excuse the talk about their need too.
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 18 May 2020 18: 12 New
      0
      "And Russia needs an aircraft carrier (or better 4-6 units) for tasks that are clear to everyone. " - Is this a joke? Where to build? Where to base? Yes, for these projects, you first need to build onshore infrastructure, shipyards, ... right up to training for crews. That these aircraft carriers will stand on barrels and wind up the resource? So it was already. And the escort, supply ships, bases in remote areas? Tell the crews "according to Sobolev" to live on board? So remember that one of the reasons for the Kronstadt tragedy was precisely the fact that the crews spent two years of the war locked under armor. officer families, too, nowadays do not need a Spartan way of life ... The country simply cannot afford such expenses. And in general, the time of aircraft carriers expires as the time of dreadnoughts and battleships, heavy artillery cruisers, etc.
      I must note that, in principle, the article is satisfactory in terms of submitting a compilation of material from foreign sources, without attacks on the leadership of the Russian Federation, without any kind of militaristic lying ideas, without attempts to impose one's own and only one's own vision of the problem. The author is clearly moving in the right direction. It should, of course, be borne in mind that the author expresses his personal opinion, the opinion of a person "who has a heart for the Navy", although without experience of service and naval education. It is desirable for VO editorial staff, as is customary in serious publications, to supplement publications with a postscript below - that this is the author's personal opinion. Otherwise, the editorial board may also be held liable for rash statements.
  • pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 18 May 2020 07: 05 New
    +5
    Russia's problem is the lack of a carrier-based aircraft. However, why a deck aircraft, if the deck itself is not?
    It is incorrect to compare Kuznetsov with clean aircraft carriers. This is a "three in one" ship, not a UDC, but a UNK - a universal surface ship. Kuznetsov could not provide the number of sorties in Syria at the level of the "best world analogues" not because of the defectiveness of the air group and technical capabilities, but in view of the banal logistics, or rather in its complete absence. Kuznetsov carries neither ammunition nor the fuel necessary for intensive strikes, the supply was not organized. In justification, it will be said that it was built not for routine raids on the coast, but for the air defense of the formation, which implies a much smaller number of sorties and less use of ammunition.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 18 May 2020 15: 14 New
      0
      Kuznetsov could not provide the number of sorties in Syria at the level of the "best world analogues" not because of the flawed air group and technical capabilities, but in view of the banal logistics, or rather in its complete absence. Kuznetsov does not carry either ammunition or fuel necessary for intensive strikes, the supply was not organized.

      That's right - most fans of aircraft carriers do not want to understand the simple fact "Effectively using AUG is like playing football in the Major League - you need to go through all the steps to become a champion and nothing else" .. And otherwise only Potemkin villages are obtained, but only afloat. .. And what is China or India building an aircraft carrier or a large trough, as they say - with a pitchfork on the water it is written ...
    2. timokhin-aa
      18 May 2020 21: 04 New
      +3
      Russia's problem is the lack of a carrier-based aircraft.


      In the series

      Neither ammunition nor fuel necessary for intensive strikes Kuznetsov carries, the supply was not organized.


      Well, the fuel delivery needs to be arranged, it's not the Vostochny spaceport.
      And the ASP cellar was redone there before going to Syria.
      1. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 19 May 2020 08: 15 New
        -1
        Remaking a land plane?
        Nimitz can carry up to 2700 tons of ammunition, and Kuznetsov? 200-300 tons? De Gaulle - 550 tons.
        1. timokhin-aa
          19 May 2020 14: 33 New
          0
          Remaking a land plane?


          F-18 as a child was also going to be a land plane,

          and Kuznetsov?


          Tons of 300-400 should carry. In any case, this is solvable.

          If you extrapolate 154 departures from the deck to strike during the war in Syria, then when loading 1000 kg per takeoff, it turns out that bombs were dropped under 154 tons plus UR explosives on almost all aircraft. A minimum of 200 tons is, rather more.

          But this can be solved even at Kuza itself.
  • Demagogue
    Demagogue 18 May 2020 07: 41 New
    +6
    Alexander in the article again almost does not touch on the financial issue. Wikrant Indian is already 3 billion dollars and hens continues to click. Up to 4 billion will be rolled up. This is for a moment six mistrals. Six light aircraft carriers with 90 VTOL aircraft that can be easily serviced, or one heavy, always in line for repairs. The choice is obvious. Any carrier-based aircraft will enhance the strike capabilities of our fleet. Even if the intelligence function will primarily carry. Izumo, by the way, has a chic layout after the upgrade. You can compare before and after. The aircraft in the hangar are shown in blue. It’s fashionable to put a couple more on the deck.
    1. Usher
      Usher 18 May 2020 12: 39 New
      0
      It seems to you that on the forehead, that on the forehead. Have you read the article? If so, then why are you asking stupid questions and suggestions? Wikrant can take normal deck aircraft, which in their performance characteristics are much better than aircraft with VTOL aircraft. And Izumo only VTOL aircraft and helicopters. Got it? We do not have VTOL and are not expected.
      1. Niko
        Niko 18 May 2020 13: 45 New
        +1
        And what are we going to do with ONE monster of 100 thousand tons and "the right planes? Put it in the Black Sea? Or to the Baltic, or to the north? And when it squeezes, send to the Pacific Ocean to repeat the tsushima? While several small aircraft carrying ships quite capable of solving specific problems in real life
        1. Usher
          Usher 19 May 2020 17: 06 New
          -1
          And who tells you about a monster of 100 thousand tons? Why do you come up with on the go?
          1. Niko
            Niko 19 May 2020 17: 11 New
            0
            Good: half-monster s 50 thousand tons will be left: one
            1. Usher
              Usher 19 May 2020 17: 13 New
              0
              Quote: Niko
              Good: half-monster s 50 thousand tons will be left: one

              why did you decide that the UDC of 40-50 thousand tons will become massive? I think it’s not even easier to build it.
              1. Niko
                Niko 19 May 2020 17: 27 New
                -1
                I'm not talking about udk (this is generally a problem in this series of articles: everything is piled up, and even more so in the comments.) I'm quite obvious about other "non-aircraft carriers" with "non-aircraft" (although I do not like the categorical nature of the author) that if we will suddenly appear! A "real" avik with the right aircraft and had a chance to quarrel with the Japanese aircraft carriers (even in today's number, not tomorrow's), with the support of today's number of destroyers and p. self-defense forces ... I don't think we would have such a positive attitude as an author on paper
        2. timokhin-aa
          20 May 2020 14: 02 New
          0
          While several small aircraft-carrying ships are quite capable of solving specific problems in real life


          What will you do with them in a situation where they cannot raise planes?
          1. Niko
            Niko 20 May 2020 16: 52 New
            -1
            Mr. author, it seems we have already decided that the AISS are at least as good as, and in most cases, superior to the capabilities of average aircraft carriers for takeoffs during rolling + they have no restrictions in the direction of movement relative to the wind even in relatively calm weather
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 May 2020 13: 13 New
              +1
              So conventional planes from an aircraft carrier always start against the wind. Did you not know? On the pitching we watch the wheels hit the swinging deck in any video. Do you think there are no restrictions on this parameter? A pillars to break through the wings?
          2. Niko
            Niko 20 May 2020 17: 00 New
            -1
            And what do you propose to do, for example, in the case when the Japanese anti-submarine formations begin to fish out our submarines from 4 spaced-apart areas, and each of the undersides will have a 35x flight on board in addition to the helicopters? And will our only "monster" have to raise the aircraft to the range limit in 3-4 different places and there they will predictably wait for much more advanced, albeit small, 5th generation aircraft? Let it be just for timely aiming at ours, although for an attack I think against 29x they have good chances
            1. Niko
              Niko 20 May 2020 17: 07 New
              0
              In addition, Japan, just in case, still has excellent pl and in sufficient quantities to have extremely good chances of meeting a single, albeit a monster.
            2. Newone
              Newone 20 May 2020 17: 18 New
              0
              I think to carefully observe how the Japanese spend their motor resources on the search for our submarines where they are not. In wartime, heat one at a time.
              1. Niko
                Niko 20 May 2020 18: 27 New
                0
                I also love irony, but then the question arises from advertising: if the result is the same, why pay more? (That is, why then build a large aircraft carrier and bases, and train the crew and pilots, create equipment?) If we can’t use it anyway?
                1. Newone
                  Newone 20 May 2020 19: 20 New
                  0
                  The result is far from the same. If we have an aircraft carrier, we will have our anti-submarine aviation over the deployment area of ​​our submarines, which will prevent the Japanese submarines from working. In the absence, the Japanese can use their anti-submarine aircraft against our boats in addition to their beautiful boats.
                  1. Niko
                    Niko 20 May 2020 22: 09 New
                    0
                    It was with this mythical scenario that I started: how can ONE aircraft carrier in TWO oceans prevent several anti-submarine groups from working each of which has an aircraft carrier that also has not the next, but an order of magnitude better generation aircraft?
                    1. Newone
                      Newone 20 May 2020 22: 21 New
                      0
                      You started with a scenario with Japanese aircraft carriers, as it were, not two oceans.
                      And why do we have ONE aircraft carrier?
                      We already have one, and you can build a thief.
                      About
                      much better generation
                      ... Do you think that building an aircraft carrier we won't build an airplane for someone else, and we won't even modernize it? And this is not taking into account the fact that in addition to stealth (which is completely compensated for by OLS and Volna), the F-35B has no advantages, only disadvantages.
                      1. Niko
                        Niko 20 May 2020 23: 06 New
                        0
                        All such scenarios imply that we are building, modernizing, creating, learning ..... (10-20 years?), Oh, and even looking for money. And everyone else is sitting and waiting .... funny. if we run slower and start later we need to look for other options
                      2. Niko
                        Niko 20 May 2020 23: 08 New
                        0
                        Oh yes, at least some escort is needed ..... another 20 years
                      3. Newone
                        Newone 20 May 2020 23: 13 New
                        +1
                        WE build, modernize, create, teach
                        Do you want everything to appear on the plate with a blue border at once?
                        We HAVE a good start on the creation of aircraft carriers. There is even a decent medium aircraft carrier. There is a 5th generation aircraft. So "we run slower and start later" is a false statement.
                      4. Niko
                        Niko 20 May 2020 23: 49 New
                        -1
                        Look at the numbers of US aircraft carriers (only heavy, they don’t consider any small thing) this is in terms of experience and that with us it is comparable with their experience. Think of their allies, and simply of no one's friends like China or India. For those years that we will need to create a capable aircraft carrier capable of withstanding ONE brand or Ford, submarines will already learn to fly. No one will wait for us. No one bothers to build MI for two obviously the best and the larger for each of ours is a dead end. We need a reasonable concept and sound decisions. And I completely agree that not to lose something small and not very successful but OUR experience, because unfortunately, our long-suffering kuzya has every chance not to go to sea ever, but we can’t wait for the construction of a new one, although on old projects or a little: experience is transferred at workplaces and not in pension memoirs
                      5. Newone
                        Newone 20 May 2020 23: 58 New
                        +1
                        There were more Nimitts when Kuznetsov was put into operation. Only right after its appearance, the Americans pushed the border between the control zones of our and their fleets FROM our borders. And they began to work out attack plans with refueling in the air.
                        The aircraft carrier in our case is not just a means of air defense KUG. This is a VERY significant expansion of the coastal fighter aviation flight zone. Not for nothing that the first upgrade for the SU-33 was a tank for refueling another aircraft in the air.
                        The aircraft carrier actually increases the range of coast-based fighters, which makes it possible to organize much more effective MRA / YES attack schemes.
                      6. Newone
                        Newone 20 May 2020 23: 59 New
                        0
                        And the concentration of Nimitsev against Kuznetsov is ALREADY a factor in preparing for the outbreak of war, allowing to begin countermeasures right up to the strike at the appointed time.
                      7. Niko
                        Niko 21 May 2020 08: 08 New
                        0
                        And we always come to this — everything is not bad with us, we are well done (and if there is a need, we have nuclear weapons), why then spending on everything else? If the answer to any serious situation is a nuclear apocalypse? I’m only for the development of the carrier fleet, but let’s honestly: we don’t have it, from the word in general, the experience of construction and operation is almost lost, after 5 years of unlimited repair of the kuzi, we compete and (which is not so scary in itself) we will lose pathetic even not the remnants, but the rudiments of trained people who are able to work from the ship. And the worst thing is to lose the very possibility of relatively quick creation of aircraft carriers and aircraft for them
                      8. Newone
                        Newone 21 May 2020 13: 15 New
                        0
                        I don’t know how you come to such conclusions there.
                        we don’t have it, from the word at all
                        This is a false statement. Kuznetsov, thank God they did not drown.
                        lose the very possibility of a relatively quick creation of aircraft carriers and aircraft for them
                        How you contrived to come to such conclusions, I do not understand. The country is building shipyards for full-fledged ocean vessels. "Thread" has returned to train aviation crews. Nuclear power plants have been developed, like the power plant of aircraft carriers. The school of aircraft creation has not gone anywhere and is developing.
                      9. Niko
                        Niko 21 May 2020 18: 12 New
                        0
                        The country cannot build a dock for a single "aircraft carrier" which, as you put it, "thank God, they did not drown" God is really thankful, but the dock must be built by the "shipyard" and judging by your opinion, huge and numerous trained pilots (on computer simulators) who know people wrote half a year ago about 8 EIGHT pilots. Unfortunately, the fate of the great karaboi of the times of the USSR who got up for serious repairs is almost always the same. Needles.
                      10. Newone
                        Newone 21 May 2020 18: 25 New
                        0
                        The USSR did not build a dock for Kuznetsov either, but Kuznetsov himself could have built it.
                        and "shipyards" and judging by your opinion are huge and numerous trained pilots (on computer simulators) knowledgeable people wrote half a year ago about 8 EIGHT pilots.

                        How do you link the really big shipyards under construction and the 8 pilots?
                        there are shipyards, there is a pilot training center. It's a bit early to shout "Raska ffssee".
                        Needles.
                        Nakhimov has already been allowed, yeah ...
                      11. Niko
                        Niko 21 May 2020 20: 24 New
                        0
                        "Raska ffssee" ?????? Also a decent and constructive answer
                      12. Niko
                        Niko 21 May 2020 21: 06 New
                        +1
                        In general, I am surprised once again, there are two people who unite a bunch of things and common thoughts, the future of the country and the role of the fleet in it, the role of aircraft carriers in this fleet, both agree that we should try to save what else can be and add, if possible, it. d. etc. (despite the fact that a huge number of people generally consider both the fleet as a whole and its carrier component unnecessary at all) and what do these two people do? They pass to a squabble with each other, cling to words, and look for ways to show that the opponent (despite the fact that they agree on the main points) People !!!!! What became of us ??????
  • timokhin-aa
    22 May 2020 13: 11 New
    0
    In this case, there is a basic strike aircraft.
  • timokhin-aa
    22 May 2020 13: 21 New
    0
    War is not wall to wall.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 18 May 2020 12: 51 New
    +1
    The German Tiger cost as much as 6! T-34 at comparable prices. Was the Tiger better than the T-34? I am not a fan of German technology, but the living conditions, armor protection, armor penetration of the guns, and the aiming range of a German cat were better. But ... T-34-ok surrendered to the front 30 times more than the German Tiger factories.
    Why am I doing this. It is better to have 6 UDK-format aircraft carriers with the same money, with the possibility of basing and using VTOL aircraft on them, than 1 medium-sized aircraft carrier. Yes, a nuclear carrier of 100 ct. better than an aircraft carrying ship of 25-30 ct.
    But, our country in 15 years will be able to master the construction
    4-6 25-30 ct. UDC, and the construction of 1-2 full-fledged aircraft carriers hardly.
    1. Usher
      Usher 18 May 2020 15: 47 New
      0
      tanks and ships are different things. Absolutely! Your opinion is wrong. In a navy, having an under-armed ship is a mistake. All due to the fact that there are fewer ships, and even more capital ones. The British also thought so, but this, as they themselves admitted, turned out to be an erroneous doctrine, to have weaker but more numerous ships. They built the so-called "Canopus" type EB. Then, closer to WWII, they started a series of "York" (which were not equipped). And all these ships showed the fallacy of such a theory. Not to be confused with the doctrine of the mosquito fleet. This is me all on capital ships. Our defensive doctrine of the UDC is not particularly needed, but not so critical. And building aircraft-carrying ships (which are needed for air defense) on their basis is a deep mistake.
    2. Usher
      Usher 18 May 2020 15: 50 New
      0
      And at the price of the UDC, it is not much cheaper than a normal aircraft carrier. All because of its notorious "versatility". This is essentially a floating headquarters for the landing force + airfield + hospital + warehouse + much more. Because of this, the UDC is not a cheap toy. For me it is better to have a normal avik, even with a springboard, and separate amphibious ships of the BDK type.
  • timokhin-aa
    18 May 2020 21: 09 New
    +1
    Vikrant is the first pancake, the Indians have never built anything like that, they even had nowhere to complete it, sheet by sheet they cooked it up in the "wet" dock. Their situation in terms of shipbuilding facilities is worse than ours. Hence the price.
    UDC in size sufficient for VTOL aircraft will rise to two-thirds of this price. Do not believe me, compare with American ones, with "America" ​​or "Wasp" - Makin Island, with GTU.
    And Mistral will not be able to carry any aircraft, it is not adapted for this, a small one.
    Once again, America, with its 43000 tons, is dragging 10-12 VTOL aircraft, a rescue squad with Osprey, and two PSS helicopters and all.
    You will not put it into Mistral either.
    When the planes of the 22nd MEU in Libya made ten (!!!!) sorties from Kirsarge, they had to be changed to an air group from another expeditionary force - the Harriers needed repairs, but this ship could not be made, unlike an aircraft carrier.
    On the deck in our climate you can’t always put anything, it will freeze.
    1. Demagogue
      Demagogue 18 May 2020 21: 52 New
      +1
      We also did not build aircraft carriers, except for Vikra. And you can remember what time it got up. 5 billion.
      Displacement is heavier than Izumo. I gave it as an example. His project needs to be reworked. The size of the hangar there can be seriously increased. Remove the dock camera and so on. Lighten it even. And the example of Izumo shows that 14 cars fit easily
      The British SVVP served the same on smaller ships. And to place all 16-20 aircraft can only be in a combat situation. America has a tiny hangar in the aft section. It could easily be doubled if the Americans needed it. But to them it is important as a bait too. And for us it burns less.
      1. timokhin-aa
        18 May 2020 22: 51 New
        0
        We also did not build aircraft carriers, except for Vikra. And you can remember what time it got up. 5 billion.


        I have already given estimates of the cost of an aircraft carrier in the Russian Federation, 350-400 billion rubles for about 12 years in equal parts.
        A lot, but not a lot.
        A UDC of 40 + kilotons will rise somewhere in 200, plus 60-100 here for the development of VTOL aircraft, without the cost of serial machines, of course.
        Well, its disadvantages as platforms are listed in the article.

        The Mistral is not suitable as a ship that could come under fire - in principle. And its full displacement is with the landing party to the eyeballs.
        1. Demagogue
          Demagogue 19 May 2020 08: 07 New
          +3
          400 billion rubles for a heavy aircraft carrier is not even funny.
          For some reason, for some reason, you start from the design of an aircraft carrier, but it is secondary. Everyone wants to get a combination of udk + f35v precisely because of f35v. Stealth aircraft is a powerful tool. For example, the presence of a udk with yak-141m2 would allow us to dominate any enemy without carrier-based aviation without options. Stealth aircraft can and aug deliver unpleasant moments. E2-s su35 or instant-35 will see empty for 420 km. And this is the best we have. That is, the presence of horizontal take-off aircraft does not help us in any way. And our version of f35 with an epr of at least 0.01 may leak. An airplane is needed first.
          1. timokhin-aa
            19 May 2020 14: 21 New
            +1
            Everyone wants to get a combination of udk + f35v precisely because of f35v.


            And they would be smart, would try to get a combination of an aircraft carrier + F-35C.
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 18 May 2020 07: 46 New
    +1
    They correctly said that we do not have a carrier-based aircraft. Even on paper.
    No aircraft - no aircraft carrier. Which proved the decision to postpone the Storm project for an indefinite period.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 18 May 2020 07: 59 New
      +5
      Not so, there are planes, there is no combat-ready deck-based air group. They were not able to properly prepare it for a quarter of a century. And where did the figure of 7.7 flights per day come from for Kuznetsov, I also do not understand. For most of the sorties actually carried out from Khmeimim.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 May 2020 11: 38 New
      0
      And what about the MiG-29K?
    3. timokhin-aa
      18 May 2020 21: 12 New
      +3
      They correctly said that we do not have a carrier-based aircraft. Even on paper.


      Storm project


      For your information has never existed, do not believe zhurnalyugam. KGNTS in the framework of the Curtains had to study the contours and no more, it was research.
      But the Krylovites wanted to design the boats so much that they stuck a model of an aircraft carrier similar to the real one on top of the contours and began to drag it around the exhibitions.

      There was no such project, which means they could not be postponed. Such an insider from the participants of the process.
      1. vVvAD
        vVvAD 22 May 2020 07: 26 New
        0
        There was no such project, which means they could not be postponed. Such an insider from the participants of the process.

        Very sad, I wanted to believe. On the other hand, even the model of Storm, although it caused respect, did not look optimal. Maybe for the better? Indeed, if you have an aircraft carrier with our introductory, then not 80-100 thousand tons.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 18 May 2020 08: 22 New
    0
    There are interesting points about aircraft carriers ...
  • Avior
    Avior 18 May 2020 08: 36 New
    -1
    It became unclear what the author generally leads in the cycle.
    Kuznetsov, Vikrant, the Chinese — springboard aircraft carriers with horizontal take-off planes — have the same fundamental flaw as any UDC.
    It is impossible to use AWACS aircraft from them.
    We will not talk about the existing fundamental possibility of using AWACS based on a tiltrotor; for the Russian fleet, this is unrealistic for obvious reasons.
    Thus, the air defense functions of such aircraft carriers are, by definition, limited, now and in the future, and do not particularly differ from the capabilities of the UDC when loading it with VTOL aircraft, only by the number of aircraft. And in some respects, maybe even better, given that problems with the aerofinisher are quite capable of creating big problems, as we know.
    In addition, the fact that the aircraft has the fundamental possibility of taking off from the deck of an aircraft carrier does not say that it is possible to use it from the deck in a combat situation. Until the concept of such an aircraft carrier confirms its fundamental suitability for combat use, there is no point in seriously considering the construction and use of such ships, except as training ones.
    Now it’s not serious to talk about the construction of a catapult aircraft carrier.
    It is prohibitively expensive in both construction and maintenance, and it is also technically difficult to do both.
    as for Juan Carlos
    "Juan Carlos" with us, many consider an example to follow, but this is a bad example

    But there is nothing about the "bad example" in the article. In fact, such ships are built based on the financial and technical feasibility of building and maintaining a particular country. And such a ship is much, incomparably better than none.
    Italian Cavour, by the way, is only called an aircraft carrier, in fact it is the same UDC.
    It’s not even worth talking about the British - an example of how ships do not need to be built
    They managed to reserve a place for catapults and finishers, and before that to rebuild from the catapult and the springboard round-trip.
    Regarding the capabilities of the F-35V.
    By download.
    The stealth mode is needed for him only with unsuppressed air defense.
    In any case, aviation will begin with this.
    Further, part of the aircraft will be allocated to suppress the remnants of air defense, and the rest will be loaded in full for attacks on enemy troops and other things.
    About the range.
    The range of option B is 300 km less than version C, but 100 km more than Hornet.
    Somehow the Americans are getting around this range.
    In general, I think that construction should begin by determining the need for certain functions and financial and technical capabilities in construction and maintenance, and look at the ratio of capabilities and price for them.
    A large and formidable aircraft carrier is not an end in itself.
    1. Demagogue
      Demagogue 18 May 2020 10: 19 New
      0
      A large and formidable aircraft carrier is not an end in itself.


      Big and formidable is unreal. We do not have a project. That is, you need to start from the level of Ulyanovsk and build the next generation aircraft carriers until the normal one comes out. The Chinese with their speeds began in 2005 and they are not even close to a full-fledged aircraft carrier. With our speeds, this is an adventure of 45 years.
      1. Avior
        Avior 18 May 2020 10: 48 New
        +1
        I completely agree.
        to the last article of the cycle, I wrote this in detail.
      2. LeonidL
        LeonidL 18 May 2020 18: 19 New
        +1
        Are you sure that in 45 years these floating monsters will be of interest to someone else? Why go ahead with your eyes on the back of your head? Aircraft carriers today are police-type weapons for punishing the weakest, the one from whom the answer will not fly. No more. A sort of neocolonialism. The Russian Federation does not have such gloomy goals, nor does it have a budget. Therefore, a different path was chosen - absolutely right, ensuring our own security due to superiority not in quantity but in quality.
        1. Avior
          Avior 18 May 2020 18: 34 New
          +1
          after 45 years, everything can change dramatically, and more than once.
          therefore, the point is that such 40-year projects do not need to be started if there is no extra money, especially.
          1. LeonidL
            LeonidL 18 May 2020 18: 45 New
            +1
            Sergey completely agrees with you. Therefore, Putin is trying to invest in breakthrough developments that give a head start in tens of years of peaceful life. And the aircraft carriers ... well, beautifully, effectively, even effectively against Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia ... A sort of floating police baton. In the Russian Federation, there are no geopolitical goals for such a decay, therefore, if it is built, everything will end as in all Big Fleets from Nicholas II to Brezhnev ... with a saw cut on pins and needles. Alas. Well, many do not understand that building a Vian carrier in itself is only less than half the business and costs - then everything will start - from training the crew and air group, to problems with the lack of normal basing conditions, creating an escort, supplies, housing ... and then all this wealth will turn out to be as needed as Egypt's Mistral.
            1. Avior
              Avior 18 May 2020 19: 04 New
              -2
              and before that the war years were planned? Were there anyone who wanted to be hit by Russian nuclear missiles? Wow.
              And without geopolitical goals in any way?
              But, for example, the semi-official military group of East Baboonia hijacked a Russian ship with the necessary medical load in the country and drove it to its shore, then will they threaten them with ICBMs or Poseidon?
              RCC rebels are not uncommon in the 21st century, there will be a problem, you just won’t send your BDK to help out ...
              1. LeonidL
                LeonidL 18 May 2020 23: 15 New
                +1
                Well, for Babooniya and BDK and UDC enough for the eyes, especially with an escort. Political will for such movement is another matter ... And it’s even easier to escort ships with important cargoes by warships - here, and one guard will suffice. And indeed the script is too ZABabuinsky. Perhaps you have revised once again the good old action movie about pirates of the Pacific Ocean?
                1. Avior
                  Avior 18 May 2020 23: 44 New
                  0
                  Yes, I like Nimitz and did not offer to build.
                  Stretch your legs on clothes.
                  The movie pirates did not have RCC, by the way, Eremenko and Kasyanov manually handled them, our boatswain abruptly turned out to be their cook.
                  And about Baboonia ...
                  Hussites look, 21st century all the same. There may be problems with them at the BDK.
                  1. LeonidL
                    LeonidL 19 May 2020 06: 43 New
                    +1
                    Sergey, we here held a small online conference with fellow retirees. And you and I are most likely wrong, alas. The message is - suppose your scenario is implemented and Baboonia captures the cargo ship. we are shaking steel eggs, we send either AUG (your version) or BDK (UDC) my version ... the first challenge is if the Barmalei from Baboonia have RCC. then most likely there is an air defense system / MANPADS and some anti-aircraft defense, as well as some air defense ... that is, Russia, to the applause of the benefactors / benefactors of the mysters / sirs, is drawn into another Afghanistan, which is directly contraindicated to Russia. In addition, a smart government will not ring iron eggs, but will act differently. Here, options are offered from sending Kadyrov to the Koran, to sending guys with specific special training to the neighboring Baboonii and other countries, who are quietly stealing a certain number of relatives of both sexes of the leaders of the barmalei, showing video in the ND of clamping related genitals into ... a vise, for example, well there are bad hints of a sad fate and rude treatment of the other sex. I think that this option of the retired special forces colonel is very effective and will quickly allow the bulk carrier to continue on its way. The problem here is that Russian dry cargo vessels now rarely fly under the Russian flag, well, for the most part they belong not to Russia, but to Russian and other bourgeois / capitalists ... Something like that.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 19 May 2020 08: 33 New
                      -2
                      . Russia, to the applause of the benefactors / benefactors of the mysters / sirs, is drawn into another Afghanistan, which is directly contraindicated to Russia.

                      No, of course, this is not an option.
                      This refers to a short one-time operation.
                      Suppressed aviation heavy weapons of the enemy, landed, took control of the site, paralyzed the reinforcements approach for a while, took what was needed, and left.
                      1. LeonidL
                        LeonidL 19 May 2020 18: 35 New
                        +1
                        Sergei! Well this is paper fast! When entering Afghanistan, I also dreamed differently than it grew together. Therefore, iron eggs must be paired with excellent brains.
                      2. vVvAD
                        vVvAD 22 May 2020 07: 51 New
                        0
                        Afghanistan is not at all here - as an example. Afghanistan, let it be known to you, is a political decision, not a military one. That’s where you can finish talking about him.
          2. vVvAD
            vVvAD 22 May 2020 07: 45 New
            -2
            Quote: LeonidL
            In Russia there are no geopolitical goals for such luxury

            I do not agree, there are a couple of targets - these are the classic goals of an escort aircraft carrier:
            1) Increased air defense connection.
            2) (Do-) and reconnaissance on the spot and the command center - for a couple of thousand kilometers.
            KUG without reliable target designation does not need calibers. Satellites are vulnerable in their own way, have weather restrictions and a low channel in our case, associated with insufficient satellite constellation even for monitoring purposes. For satellites are also quite an expensive pleasure. Even Glonass-K is not an example less than any ship or carrier-based aircraft AWACS.
            3) Providing PLO connections (only UDC can block this).
            1. LeonidL
              LeonidL 23 May 2020 06: 31 New
              0
              Vadim! The political decision does not provide for the use of a mass of troops and equipment. The political decision is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.
              On geopolitical goals - where and whom to cover? Which remote naval bases rely on? Which countries and which preziks to protect and from whom? To shake steel eggs? I’m calling a lot, but a little sense. The fleet described by you is the fleet of yesterday or the day before. The new fleet will be different, of a different composition, of a different quality ... And the main task of such a Fleet, like the Armed Forces, is to possess such weapons, the quality and novelty of which provide priority and, therefore, Russia's security for 20 years. Victory in war today is the prevention of war.
              1. vVvAD
                vVvAD 24 May 2020 13: 26 New
                0
                How does your writing compare with what I wrote? Maybe we do not have an ACG capable and operating outside our territorial seas, which in such operations would not hurt to cover respected "partners" and potential "friends" from the air forces? Maybe it makes no sense for us to protect our own sea communications with weapons (simply by the fact of having), for example, the NSR? Or maybe our country has absolutely no military-political rivals who dream of taking over not only Siberia, but in general everything that is of the slightest value? Or maybe our probable ones are so noble that they will never allow themselves to cut these very sea communications, and also never interfere with business and politics? Or maybe we have so many ARPKSNs, or are they so cheap or useless that they can be easily exchanged, allowing incidents like the Kursk? Or is the ARPKSN status a guarantee against this?
                Victory in war today is the prevention of war.

                Of course. But you will not deny the fact that with all the desire of mankind to avoid a war of this magnitude, the world after WW2 was more than once on the verge of a nuclear disaster?
                And the main task of such a Fleet, as well as the Armed Forces, is to possess such weapons, the quality and novelty of which provide priority, and therefore the security of Russia for 20 years

                It is highly doubtful that aircraft carriers as a class will disappear in 20 years. Read about the disappearance of battleships. With aircraft carriers, nothing like this is happening now. Yes, threats are growing for them - as for tanks, infantry, etc. etc. But this is nothing more than an eternal confrontation between weapons and armor. Therefore, after 20 years, goals and objectives will remain for aircraft carriers. Even if they turn into carriers of vertically flying UAVs (not in 20 years, of course).
      3. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 19 May 2020 00: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: LeonidL
        Aircraft carriers today are police-type weapons for punishing the weakest, the one from whom the answer will not fly.

        Leonid, do not need Khrushchev’s propaganda on the site to produce ....
        Your AVU somehow stands apart from aircraft carrier aviation. But in essence it is a floating airfield, and it is needed in order for the Aviation to solve combat missions in remote areas of the oceans, where there are no coastal airfields. In order for the aviation strike groups not to act on the reach, and the pilots should not be afraid to reach the airfield, not to mention the idea of ​​starting an air battle ... Refueling in the air? in a DB zone? - well, it’s only science fiction writers who can set a tanker under attack ...
        Yes, now the time for our AVU has not yet come. If we can solve the problem of reliable covering of ship forces in the DMZ without an AVU, then we don’t need to talk ... But for now, somehow without them it’s poor to talk about the combat stability of the OBK / KUG / KPUG beyond the range of coastal aviation.
        If the fleet snuggles up to its shore, then the enemy will shower us with the KRBD, and no air defense / missile defense system will cope with the wasps, if you do not smash the hornets' nest before the task completion line. "Basics" in the red book clearly prescribe this ...
        If this is still not clear to someone, then let him read Murzilka with pictures, or write a dissertation on the dangers of aircraft carriers to gain dominance in the DMZ and gain victory over the adversary in modern naval combat. It will be the most!
        AHA.
        1. LeonidL
          LeonidL 19 May 2020 06: 30 New
          -1
          I understand your opinion, but I remain at my own. RF is not yet affordable for fun and, in principle, is not needed. This is the last century.
        2. LeonidL
          LeonidL 19 May 2020 06: 53 New
          0
          Alexander! I am saying that and who is breeding here, in particular, about "gaining dominance in the DMZ" - this is yours and others' personal and only personal opinion and desire. So no emotion. Murzilka with pictures are articles by some authors, in particular this review. Obtaining a victory over an adversary in a modern naval battle sounds great, but there will not be such battles under any scenario. They have not existed since 1917, the last naval battle against the enemy was Moosund with one outdated pre-dreadnought battleship Slava, a pair of old cruisers, destroyers ... After that, neither the Soviet Fleet nor the Russian took part in any naval battle, but taking into account modern weapons, God forbid, and will never participate. Even in the worst scenario (God forbid) there will be no time for this. Therefore, I advise you to play computer games on a powerful PC with an excellent VC and a large OP, and not give advice on what and how to build. Before building, normal people always answer the questions why, for what, and whether it will ever be useful.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 May 2020 11: 07 New
            -1
            Leonid! I proceed from the Presidential Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of military activity ... Fundamentals of the preparation and conduct of operations, * other * documents.
            What are your conclusions based on? On a brilliant foresight of the future? Or on the fact that you are so "kaaaaetsya"? Or are you the only bearer of "common sense" and infallible decisions? But what about the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces? General Staff of the Navy? Defense Council, military technical commission and other think tanks? Isn't that too presumptuous of you, huh?
            To the question - "why?" -- (Behind the fence! am )
            If coastal airfields are suppressed in the first strike (and this is provided for by the partners' plans), then in the Norwegian Sea both SSBNs, MPRO, and AUS of partners will calmly operate ...
            3M22 is very good, but how "good" we do not yet know for sure. And if something goes wrong, tady - OUCH !? So what?
            To the question of DMZ. We will not look exceptional in our mouths for ages. Serious changes are coming in the mindsets of the elite, amendments to the Constitution will nevertheless be accepted ... We made our choice. And we have friends in the Western half-ass. The same Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela ... Or do you think the White Swans will fly again and will circle until the Yankees surrender? Therefore, everything will be, but not immediately and not as much as we would like.
            About "my opinion". This is not forbidden to anyone and is even very useful, yes. But to consider that it is the only true .... somehow not comme il faut, however!
            Yours faithfully, hi
            1. LeonidL
              LeonidL 19 May 2020 18: 32 New
              +1
              Alexander! The message "until the Yankees surrender" is wrong. Do not give up, do not hope. Most likely, as always, sooner or later, but world problems will have to be solved collectively and without "domination of the sea." These are most likely unattainable dreams of the guarding boys of the Soviet era. The Russian Empire, the USSR, and the Russian Federation have never had domination at sea except for short-term very local situations with Turkey. Do not believe in the unattainable. Do not attribute white swans to me - these are your inventions. I express my vision of the situation - you are yours. As one wise man said, "What was we know, what is, we see what will be ... we will live to find out." Good luck.
          2. timokhin-aa
            19 May 2020 22: 24 New
            -1
            After that, neither the Soviet Fleet nor the Russian participated in any naval battles,


            But what about the destruction of the T-31? But what about the fight with the Z-26? But what about the Mirage missile attack in 2008?
            Passed by?
            1. LeonidL
              LeonidL 20 May 2020 07: 00 New
              +1
              Well, if you call it "naval battles for domination of the sea", then Norway has more merit. Look how much she and what she sank in 1940 in a few days of war! And you are listing a few skirmishes of ships of the 2nd and 3rd classes. About the "Mirage" in general lovely! Call the sinking (with agony) of one boat an anti-aircraft missile! yes, I agree that the dominance of the Black Sea was confirmed in the great battle of MRK and simply the RK. ... Two flowed under the bridge ... But the commandos sank them right in the port. It's funny! You position yourself as a "prominent naval theorist", why don't you understand the difference between ...
              1. timokhin-aa
                20 May 2020 11: 09 New
                -2
                Victory over the adversary in a modern naval battle sounds great, but there will be no such battles in any case. They have not been since 1917


                Your words?
                1. LeonidL
                  LeonidL 21 May 2020 01: 09 New
                  +1
                  If you do not understand what is at stake - do not meddle with nonsense. As always, you notice a speck in your opponent's eye. Reread your writings on dominance at sea. The speech in the commentary was originally about "achieving superiority at sea" - about sea battles, and not about short-term fire contacts, skirmishes, etc. The only case of achieving some semblance of "domination" is the battle around Soho. there, yes, several MO and TC, coastal batteries and aviation managed to practically nullify the enemy's Ladoga grouping and, as a result, domination over Ladoga was ensured. Well, in 2008, there is generally a lot of amusing things up to the need to use the air defense missile system for the Georgian cutter. Do you consider this a naval battle? This does not even suit a sea battle.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 18 May 2020 11: 38 New
    +3
    Quote: Avior
    They managed to reserve a place for catapults and finishers, and before that to rebuild from the catapult and the springboard round-trip.

    At the same time, when the parliamentarians asked if the "Queen" were really "transformable aircraft carriers", on which it is technically possible to install catapults with minor alterations, they were told that no work had been done to adapt the AV to ejection takeoff and the possible installation of a catapult. Everything remained at the stage of a talking shop - "according to rough estimates, this can be done," and did not even reach the stage of a commercial offer. These works were not included in the contract.
    Because the decision to go STOVL [that is the initial decision for jumpjets] was taken in, from memory, 2002, no serious work had been done. It had been noodled in 2005, but no serious work had been done on it. It was not a contract-quality offer; it was a simple assertion that that could be done, but nobody said, “It can be done at this price”, and certainly nobody put that in a contract.

    © Bernard Gray, chief of defense materiel - address in Parliament in 2013
    1. Avior
      Avior 18 May 2020 13: 24 New
      0
      the catapult involves either a powerful steam generator, or such a powerful source of electricity.
      A nuclear installation is capable of providing both.
      But the turbine is a big question, even if you modify it.
      1. timokhin-aa
        19 May 2020 22: 25 New
        0
        There is no question, the turbines give out hundreds of kilograms of gas with a temperature of 600 degrees every minute, this is enough for a waste heat boiler with a huge margin. And for three catapults would be enough.
  • Usher
    Usher 18 May 2020 12: 40 New
    -3
    Again, if only against writing something. They chewed you again and laid down why. Why do you persist in your ignorance?
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 18 May 2020 18: 32 New
    +4
    Quote: Avior
    It became unclear what the author generally leads in the cycle.

    To the fact that bad economy usually translates into "money down the drain"
    1. Avior
      Avior 18 May 2020 18: 35 New
      0
      that means you need smart savings.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 18 May 2020 18: 40 New
        +2
        Quote: Avior
        that means you need smart savings.

        This does not happen.
        Any savings in the military sphere as a result translate into additional costs while reducing efficiency.
        1. Avior
          Avior 18 May 2020 19: 14 New
          -1
          smart it happens if smart save smile
          and if it’s foolish to save, you get Zamvolt or an English aircraft carrier.
  • timokhin-aa
    18 May 2020 21: 15 New
    +4
    Do you understand that a half-dead ersatz aircraft carrier is just a target, but there’s no sense in it at all?
    It doesn’t have to be built at all; no aircraft carrier is better than this.
    Cavour is not UDC, it’s a mixture of an aircraft carrier with a rocker, it can’t land an landing force, it has two landing craft and that’s all, the rest of the pier pier goes.
    1. Avior
      Avior 18 May 2020 22: 05 New
      0
      Do you yourself understand how much the availability of aviation fundamentally raises the capabilities of any ship group?
      And about Cavour, "almost can't" means that he can, which means that he is a universal ship for a certain range of tasks.
      1. timokhin-aa
        18 May 2020 22: 54 New
        0
        I understand how much, and I understand that 2/3 of the price tag of an aircraft carrier, these opportunities are not worth it.

        And about Kavour, "almost can't" means that he can,


        Almost two of these boats are for foot soldiers.
        All other equipment from it can only be unloaded to the pier. This is not a landing ship.
        1. Avior
          Avior 18 May 2020 23: 28 New
          0
          two boats for foot soldiers
          that is, it can still drop.
          For those tasks, and in the concept that the Italians themselves see for him.
          That is a universal ship.
          I don’t understand what you are arguing about, and, most importantly, why ?.
          Formally, Kavur aircraft carrier, in fact, UDC, once has the ability to land and deploy troops. If even landing he has less opportunity than you want, what is the point of this dispute?
          Yes, they need him more as an aircraft carrier; they have San Giorgio and not only for landing.
          Nevertheless, he is able to carry out certain operations with the landing on his own, for example, evacuation from countries with riots.
          They are building a new one, with great opportunities for landing.
          But both will be universal integrated ships.
          The price of Kavur is 1,3 billion. I don’t know where you found 2/3 of the cost of an aircraft carrier.
          and most importantly, what is the point of your dispute because of its classification.
          From what to call, his opportunities will not increase, he will not decrease.
          1. timokhin-aa
            19 May 2020 14: 19 New
            +1
            Formally, Kavur aircraft carrier, in fact, UDC, once has the ability to land and deploy troops.


            The author of the idea to build a ship of 30 kilotons, which can:
            1. to land an infantry company without equipment in good weather and "simple" in the part of landing on the shore
            2. transport heavy equipment in the aircraft hangar without the possibility of landing on an unequipped shore.
            3. Ensure the use of 10 attack aircraft (including hangar storage)
            must be judged for treason.

            The Italians, of course, have the right to evaluate this miracle of technology as you like.
            The main thing is that we don’t start doing anything like this.
            And yes, your price is no longer relevant, alterations for the F-35 also cost money.
            1. Avior
              Avior 19 May 2020 14: 32 New
              -1
              rework always costs money. as well as repairs.
              therefore, it’s always cheaper not to redo it. This is a common problem.
              But sort of a discussion about something else?
              about whether only Nimitz is needed and no less, or less and cheaper.
              And as a result?
              The Italians have a ship capable of using one and a half dozen aircraft, expanding the capabilities of the ship’s group to hundreds of kilometers of strikes along the coast and at sea, and fundamentally changing the capabilities of the group.
              But those who dream of Nimitz do not have it.
              So the choice is simple.
              1. timokhin-aa
                19 May 2020 22: 27 New
                0
                But those who dream of Nimitz do not have it.


                Well, if you properly kick the 100th and 279th okiapas and the command of the Northern Fleet, then it will appear abruptly, so much so that the Italians will envy.
                By the way.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 19 May 2020 10: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Avior
        Do you yourself understand how much the availability of aviation fundamentally raises the capabilities of any ship group?

        Not aviation, but a normal air group. What can an ersatz give? A couple of other SKVVP on patrol, without AWACS? And two more pairs on deck in reserve? And only in high alert - in normal mode, he will be able to provide rotation of the patrol from one pair.
        1. Avior
          Avior 19 May 2020 10: 24 New
          0
          In order to say ersatz or not, you need to determine the tasks of the ship.
          If this is an expeditionary UDC, then this is a ship primarily for its tasks.
          Can it be used as an air defense carrier? Maybe, but with limitations.
          If any restrictions are called ersatz, then ships - not ersatz on the fingers can be counted.
          So this is a question of terminology.
          If you have money and technical capabilities, you need to build separately ejected aircraft carriers. UDC, amphibious assault ships - for specific tasks they will be more efficient.
          If money and opportunities are worse, you need to be content with what you have.
          In my opinion, this is obvious.
          There is no money for Bentleybury Lada, it is still much better than walking.
          hi
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 19 May 2020 12: 27 New
            0
            Quote: Avior
            There is no money for Bentleybury Lada, it is still much better than walking.

            No, here this analogy does not roll. Here we are rather buying injury instead of a gunshot (why, it looks cool - like a real one) - and come with him to a shootout. smile
            1. Avior
              Avior 19 May 2020 14: 10 New
              -1
              Analogies are a slippery thing. Especially contrived smile
              probably, if you have nothing but injury, then you should not go to a shootout.
              But what does this have to do with the fact that you have nothing but cannot be for objective reasons?
              In principle, do not buy injury if it is not suitable for a shootout, even if it helps from a punks with knives?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 19 May 2020 15: 45 New
                0
                Quote: Avior
                But what does this have to do with the fact that you have nothing but cannot be for objective reasons?
                In principle, do not buy injury if it is not suitable for a shootout, even if it helps from a punks with knives?

                Saving money on the trunk. Instead of throwing part of this amount into injury and unreasonably hope that he will help in case of anything even from a punks with knives. smile
                1. Avior
                  Avior 19 May 2020 15: 54 New
                  -1
                  If you can’t acquire the trunk in principle, then you can save as much as you like in vain expectation that the situation will change.
                  In addition, it makes no sense to discuss a contrived analogy instead of a real situation.
                  It’s just a substitution of the subject of discussion, not related to reality
                  hi
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 18 May 2020 23: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: Avior
    It is impossible to use AWACS aircraft from them.

    Why is it so categorical? stop
    1. lighten the hardware complex, replace the BDT with modern digital instead of analog products, reduce the number of operators from 9 to 5, put ASBU ...
    2. Replace the "mushroom" with AFAR and "side" conformal radars, tie it on the satellite-VZOI ...
    3. Put forced dviguny, air refueling system
    4. If this is not enough, then use PSU (DCS) for takeoff, as it once was.
    And he will sit on the aerofinisher.
    You only need to be puzzled by the problem, and our kulibins and fleas will be tucked! bully
    1. Avior
      Avior 18 May 2020 23: 54 New
      -1
      I meant existing AWACS aircraft
      and when others appear, then the conversation is different
  • Undecim
    Undecim 18 May 2020 11: 00 New
    +6
    The author continues to develop the theme sucked out of his own finger and heroically tries to solve the same imagined problem.
    As the last war, in which fleets were used with high intensity, recedes farther and farther into the past, more and more frankly strange solutions enter into the practice of the navies of various countries.
    One such solution is the strange idea that universal landing ships are capable of replacing normal aircraft carriers in one form or another.

    Nobody anywhere was going and is not going to replace aircraft carriers with landing ships. If the author has other information, I would like to see a link to it.
    All of these ships are designed to transport, deploy, manage and fully support the amphibious landing. The air group deployed on these ships also serves for this purpose. It was for this purpose that they were designed and built. Nobody plans to use these ships as aircraft carriers. With the same success, you can analyze how bad an aircraft carrier will be from a tanker, since it is inconvenient to store aircraft in tanks.
    1. Demagogue
      Demagogue 18 May 2020 11: 20 New
      +3
      You write nonsense. Many countries plan to use the udk precisely as aircraft carriers. Starting in the United States, which regularly conduct drone exercises in this role. And they even send udk in the role of aircraft carriers to threaten the Chinese. The Japanese specifically plan to use two udk as aircraft carriers.
      And the topic raised by the author is for mega relevant. Without carrier-based aviation, our fleet is essentially incapable.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 18 May 2020 11: 48 New
        +2
        The same question for you as for the author is a source of information where it says that landing ships are planned to be used as full-fledged aircraft carriers.
        No one considers aircraft-carrying landing ships as full-fledged strike aircraft carriers. Everyone perfectly understands that the air group of such a ship has limited capabilities, and from this point of view, they are considered and used within the framework of these capabilities.
        When planning the conversion of helicopter carriers to aircraft carriers, the Japanese are well aware that they are actually getting what the Western Control Ship is called in the west and plan to use them for this purpose.
        By the way, the possibility of conversion was laid at the design stage.
        1. Demagogue
          Demagogue 18 May 2020 12: 36 New
          +1
          There is no such term "full-fledged aircraft carrier". You originally wrote:
          Nobody anywhere was going and is not going to replace aircraft carriers with landing ships.


          But this is not true. The same America does not even have a docking chamber. That is, there is a desire to apply precisely in the role of a light aircraft carrier. But there is such a term. And there are a lot of examples: Koreans tiny udk Dokdo want to remake under f35v. Even a light aircraft carrier with a 5th generation aircraft is a force.
          1. +5
            +5 18 May 2020 16: 03 New
            +1
            God, samsungs who have Seoul and 50% of the industry under the gun of hundreds of trunks from 152 mm Juche people and themselves near by the Juche people and Han people - i.e. commies to the capitalists in their person will arrange a sea blockade for one or two, AB why?
        2. Usher
          Usher 18 May 2020 12: 41 New
          0
          But why is it all the same shoved and made of them light AUG? The article has a link to work with the UDC for the Taliban. Is this not enough for you?
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 18 May 2020 13: 08 New
            0
            Actually, I asked questions to the author.
            As for your The article has a link to work with the UDC in the Taliban, then how this is not the answer to the question. All the best.
            1. Usher
              Usher 18 May 2020 13: 11 New
              -1
              What kind of excuses? This is the answer to your stupid question. The very fact of using UDC as an aircraft carrier for striking at ground targets. This is an attempt to wishful thinking. That is, cram F-35 into the concept of light aircraft carriers based on UDC.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 19 May 2020 10: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Usher
            But why is it all the same shoved and made of them light AUG?

            These are not light AUGs, but floating naval airfields. A sort of reincarnation of escort aircraft with squadrons of marine corps on board, designed exclusively to support marines on the coast.
            You might as well declare a "light AUG", for example, "taffy" Sprague. smile
    2. timokhin-aa
      19 May 2020 23: 12 New
      0
      Nobody anywhere was going and is not going to replace aircraft carriers with landing ships.


      What kind of self-confidence. Open any Marine Aviation Plan from the USMC and go forward to the Lightning carrier (CV-L) section.
      Everything is easily googled.
      I won’t say anything for 2020, but in the old years it went from plan to plan, even when it was already clear that the idea had failed, it wasn’t rubbed from there anyway.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 20 May 2020 00: 19 New
        0
        Phrase While the amphibious assault ship will never replace the aircraft carrier not seen at USMC Marine Aviation Plan? See the Lightning carrier (CV-L) section.
        1. timokhin-aa
          20 May 2020 00: 27 New
          0
          Well, then read on?



          When I refer to some document, I usually know what is in it.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 20 May 2020 00: 34 New
            -1
            I usually too. And I read it to the end. A hypothetical option is considered for some extraordinary case, which may never be needed, but it needs to be worked out.
            1. timokhin-aa
              20 May 2020 10: 59 New
              -1
              And which was tested during the exercises of "America" ​​with the Lightnings, during the combat service of the "Wasp" in the Philippine and South China Seas, as part of the combat use of the F-35B in real military operations in Syria and Afghanistan.
              Enough for you?
              This I still do not dump rotten domestic insiders on "VO", but there are such plans - get out of there.
              Actually what actually generated this series.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 20 May 2020 11: 08 New
                0
                In the examples you cited, the situation made it possible to test the theory in practice, no more.
                By the way, since 2018, if I'm not mistaken, from. Marine Aviation Plan options for light aircraft carriers disappear altogether.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  20 May 2020 11: 34 New
                  0
                  They will disappear.
                  The theory did not pass the test of practice. At them.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 18 May 2020 11: 18 New
    0
    The aircraft performed more than 100 sorties, spent more than 1200 hours in the air, and all this for 50 days. That is 2 sorties per day. Taking into account the indicated hours - two on average six-hour departures
    I feel a mistake on my subconscious, even my wife (elementary school teacher) got confused. If 1200 hours per 100 flights, we get the average flight duration of 12 hours !? Have American pilots gotten around? I really liked the article, the arguments with the numbers are undeniable! You do not just have to make an icon from an AWACS aircraft for an aircraft carrier. In WWII, aircraft carriers found each other without him. The carrier group as a rule has a specific goal and reconnaissance should be carried out precisely on the approaches to the target and not in the oceans. For a comparable opponent, Hokai will always be the primary and not the most difficult target in the theater of war, a matter of time and tactics of air combat. The same subsonic Superhornets with subsonic Harpoons and a launch range of 150 km without a control center from an AWACS aircraft will have to independently detect a ship group running at full speed. This means that they will be hit by an air patrol of aircraft specially trained to conduct air combat. If there is a threat of launching anti-ship missiles from a distance of 150 km, the ship’s order will have time to cover itself with interference, and turn on all possible air defense, and complete the maneuver.
    1. Usher
      Usher 18 May 2020 12: 44 New
      -1
      You are wrong. And very much. The main goal of any fleet is to destroy the enemy fleet. But not some kind of port. And putting the enemy fleet in the first place in the priorities, everything becomes clear. A mistake in intelligence cost the Japanese several aircraft carriers and generally victory.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 18 May 2020 13: 29 New
        -3
        The main goal of the fleet is to defeat the enemy as a state and military force, but whether it has a fleet or not is not important. So it is precisely some kind of port there that should be the main goal in defeating the enemy and then in destroying the naval forces. The fact that the Japanese in December 1941 sank the old battleships did not drop a single bomb on the oil tanks of the American Navy with boiler fuel oil in the end was very expensive ...
        1. +5
          +5 18 May 2020 16: 05 New
          0
          To bomb the oil tanks of the first country in the world for oil production, and even with a huge commercial fleet, which should not be melted to sink, i.e. fuel for US Navy will be a stupid occupation .... but on the contrary, in Japanese and German it is the other way around
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 18 May 2020 16: 25 New
            -1
            Do not try to make judgments without understanding. The states believed that in the event of the destruction of naval fuel oil reserves in Pearl, it would be possible to restore FM reserves sufficient for active operations of the 1944 scale no earlier than 1945-47. According to various estimates. However, only in the absence of counteraction ...
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 19 May 2020 10: 24 New
              0
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              The states believed that in the event of the destruction of naval fuel oil reserves in Pearl, it would be possible to restore FM reserves sufficient for active operations of the 1944 scale no earlier than 1945-47. According to various estimates.

              And the source of this assessment is possible?
              The fact. that fuel reserves at Pearl Harbor were equal to three-day US production. Destroying storage tanks was also not a big problem - in 1942, an underground storage facility of Red Hill Storage for 250 million gallons of fuel was put into operation on Oahu. Until that time, fuel could be stored in temporary storage facilities - old tankers (as the Japanese did at island bases).
              Moreover, the destruction of fuel reserves even in aboveground storage facilities is not such an easy task - for this it is necessary to hit each of the tanks scattered over a large area.
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 19 May 2020 10: 58 New
                -1
                The question is not that there was a three-day US mining, the question is the complexity of the delivery. The destruction of fuel reserves and the destruction of the main base of USN was well worth paying for it with airplanes of 1 air fleet and Khashir fleet - completely. I admit the solution of the issue as part of the landing operation.

                Alas, I don’t remember the source ...
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 19 May 2020 11: 23 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  The question is not that there was a three-day US mining, the question is the complexity of the delivery.

                  What is the difficulty? The United States has a large tanker fleet, which, in addition, after the introduction of the oil embargo, was partially freed up due to refusal to transport oil to Japan (the Japanese chartered their tankers to import oil from the Allies).
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  The destruction of fuel reserves and the destruction of the main base of USN was well worth paying for it with airplanes of 1 air fleet and Khashir fleet - completely.

                  After that, the main operation can be curtailed - Japan will not have the strength to support actions in Southeast Asia. For example, on Kido Butai, all trained IJN deck pilots were assembled in a blow to Pearl Harbor.
                  And here the United States puts on the board a second set of pieces - from the West Coast and from the Atlantic. Having as the main base - San Diego, and Pearl Harbor - as a forward base (as it was before 1941).
                  By the way, do not forget that Pearl Harbor became the main base less than a year before the war (and the navy did not rejoice at this smile ) And before that, the US Pacific Fleet was successfully based on the West Coast. And all the infrastructure there remained - in better quality and more than on Oahu.
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 19 May 2020 12: 34 New
                    0
                    The United States has a large tanker fleet, which, in addition, after the introduction of the oil embargo, was partially freed up due to refusal to transport oil to Japan (the Japanese chartered their tankers to import oil from the Allies).


                    It is still necessary to bring. It all takes time

                    For example, on Kido Butai, all trained IJN deck pilots were assembled in a blow to Pearl Harbor.


                    Do you remember how involved the aircraft carriers in the invasion of Southeast Asia, I suppose. I classify as insignificant ...
                    Japan will not have the strength to support actions in Southeast Asia.


                    The main strike missions were carried out in the SEA by the coastal fleet aviation and heavy cruisers with destroyers. That is why I am writing the battleships that could and should have been exchanged for Pearl Harbor, at least all 6 ships of the Ise, Fuso and Nagato type.

                    And all the infrastructure there remained - in better quality and more than on Oahu.


                    Oahu still needs to crawl
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 19 May 2020 13: 14 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      It is still necessary to bring. It all takes time

                      9-10 days - if from Frisco.
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      Do you remember how involved the aircraft carriers in the invasion of Southeast Asia, I suppose. I classify as insignificant ...

                      Rabaul, Kavieng, Darwin - and further cleanse the Indian Ocean.
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      The main strike missions were carried out in the SEA by the coastal fleet aviation and heavy cruisers with destroyers.

                      Only because the USN "big pots" were in the bases, not wanting to be substituted by the Khasirsky fleet and Kido Butai. The main forces were mutually balancing each other. smile
                      In your alternative, there are no two constraining factors on the part of Japan. But the US Atlantic Fleet with its AB and pre- and post-Washington dwellers did not go anywhere. In fact, the United States has the opportunity to prematurely complete the first stage of the WPO (raids "hit and run", achieving superiority over the enemy) and start the second - an offensive along the chain of atolls in the direction of Metropolis. With only cruisers and basic aircraft in opponents. smile
                      1. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 19 May 2020 13: 39 New
                        -2
                        The complete loss of Pearl Harbor as the nodal point of the Pacific theater of operations is not worth it?

                        Rabaul, Kavieng, Darwin -


                        What gave a blow to Darwin ?: And what about Rabaul do you remember?

                        9-10 days - if from Frisco.


                        All this must be brought in due volume, and this is a gain in time ...
                      2. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 19 May 2020 16: 02 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        The complete loss of Pearl Harbor as the nodal point of the Pacific theater of operations is not worth it?

                        For complete loss, you need to bomb the entire port area. Kido Butai does not have enough ammunition for this.
                        Moreover, on PX, and so it was full of complaints precisely from the point of view of the basing of the fleet - the base was not trivial for the permanent basing of the Pacific Fleet core and was in a state of completion. A sort of American Port Arthur. smile
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        All this must be brought in due volume, and this is a gain in time ...

                        And where to rush? Kido Butai is gone. Khashir fleet - too. smile
                        Together with the new forces of the USN Pacific Fleet, tankers with transports will come.
      2. Usher
        Usher 18 May 2020 16: 10 New
        +1
        And again, a mistake you do not confuse the marine component of the Strategic Missile Forces. Any confrontation at sea implies the existence of a fleet of a potential enemy. If there is no fleet, then there’s a conversation about nothing. And if there is a merchant and navy. That own fleet is needed to destroy the enemy fleet. Ports and coastal cities can be completely destroyed with complete dominance from the air and sea. Who will let you land on ships in the port? Ports have their own protection if they did not know. And at the expense of the Japanese, you do not understand. I'm talking about intelligence. About the underestimation of high-quality reconnaissance, the comrade above wrote that they say it’s all right, that you ran into intelligence and AWACS planes. I showed him the bitter experience of the Japanese on Midway. When the Japanese could not find the American AUGs and could not understand the enemy plan in time. And organize a defense. The Japanese surprised with their doubleness. Performed impudent operations and attacks, and sometimes acted so stereotyped that you wonder.
    2. LeonidL
      LeonidL 18 May 2020 18: 28 New
      0
      "The main goal of any fleet is to destroy the enemy fleet. Not some port." - I think you are deeply mistaken, it is in the distant past. Now this is possible for small-sized local conflicts over fishing grounds ... The destruction of the coastal infrastructure, the port makes the fleet incapable of combat. And for such purposes, AUG is not needed. God forbid a "big" war, all this floating scrap metal will be absolutely useless. Yes, today for the AUG there are tasks of a neo-colonial plan, the role of a world policeman ... But how will the military doctrine of the Russian Federation fit in here? If the AUG is a strategic weapon, then what strategic tasks should the hypothetical AUG of the Russian fleet solve, which could not be solved by other means?
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 19 May 2020 00: 47 New
      +3
      Quote: Usher
      The main goal of any fleet is to destroy the enemy fleet. But not some kind of port.

      You continue to prepare for the last war!
      The priority tasks of the Fleet look something like this:
      - destruction of important industrial, administrative and military installations of the enemy on the coast; - destruction of SSBNs and nuclear weapons carriers; - destruction of large NK and other carriers of the CRBD and the KR; - Destruction of ports and infrastructure of the enemy forces basing system, etc. up to the promotion of NE in coastal areas.
      1. Usher
        Usher 19 May 2020 10: 30 New
        0
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Quote: Usher
        The main goal of any fleet is to destroy the enemy fleet. But not some kind of port.

        You continue to prepare for the last war!
        The priority tasks of the Fleet look something like this:
        - destruction of important industrial, administrative and military installations of the enemy on the coast; - destruction of SSBNs and nuclear weapons carriers; - destruction of large NK and other carriers of the CRBD and the KR; - Destruction of ports and infrastructure of the enemy forces basing system, etc. up to the promotion of NE in coastal areas.

        Once again, all that you said is achievable after the establishment of dominance in the sea and in the air. How to capture him? Only by destroying or locking the enemy fleet.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 19 May 2020 11: 03 New
          0
          Destruction of the enemy fleet is not required at all ....
          1. Usher
            Usher 19 May 2020 16: 46 New
            0
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            Destruction of the enemy fleet is not required at all ....

            Justify? I don’t understand something apparently. Something innovative invented?
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 19 May 2020 11: 12 New
          -1
          Quote: Usher
          all that you said is achievable after establishing dominance in the sea and in the air.

          Do you know for sure that rpkSN-s and plRK-s will not be able to discharge their intended goals without what you wrote? bully
          1. Usher
            Usher 19 May 2020 16: 55 New
            +1
            Do you know for sure that rpkSN-s and plRK-s will not be able to discharge their intended goals without what you wrote? bully

            SSBNs are a deterrent and a weapon of a different order. We are considering a conflict with, for example, Indonesia, Argentina. Because of the dispute, won't you wave a nuclear club? We'll have to swim and break the face))) A recent example of Falklands. And the SSGN is just a weapon of destruction of the fleet. What is the problem? I am not saying that ports should not be destroyed. Why is everyone rushing to extremes. But rivals do not stand still, the same South Korea or Japan have a strong fleet. And you think that they will let our Antaeus approach the shore? How will you organize a landing operation when the UDC may simply be drowned? Don't talk about alliances, NATO and the UN, etc. Here it is a matter of doctrine and the lot has specific tasks, the rest are dealt with by the politicians, the country's leadership, and not the admirals. This is a hypothetical conflict. And in such a conflict, with a fairly high-tech enemy, it is better to have fewer ships, but strong and fully equipped. Than a lot of "paramilitary barges". Which are limited in many ways. And in general, we do not even have a VTOL aircraft project, who will give you super-expensive and complex F-35s?
  • Avior
    Avior 18 May 2020 13: 39 New
    +1
    You do not just have to make an icon from an AWACS aircraft for an aircraft carrier.

    this is its basis for use in air defense.
    Combat aircraft will not be able to stand on duty in the air around the clock for a very long time.
    Subsonic Superhornets

    supersonic
    Flight performance [edit | edit code]
    Maximum speed (E / F models): 1,8+ M [5]

    In WWII, aircraft carriers found each other without him

    And with him too.
    AWAC based on Avenger.
    Grumman TBM-3W Avenger with APS-20 - 1944 radar. 40 pieces made.

    There were other aircraft with radar.
    hi
  • timokhin-aa
    18 May 2020 21: 18 New
    +2
    If 1200 hours per 100 flights, we get the average flight duration of 12 hours !? Have American pilots gotten around?


    It was necessary to divide by the number of planes in a departure. In the original English. there were no sorties, but just flights to strike.
    Inaccurate translation on my part.
  • Courier
    Courier 18 May 2020 12: 07 New
    0
    On fishlessness, and cancer is fish
    1. Usher
      Usher 18 May 2020 13: 12 New
      -2
      Quote: Courier
      On fishlessness, and cancer is fish

      Only in war is it simply a matter of life and death. This is like auxiliary cruisers against the real)
  • Niko
    Niko 18 May 2020 13: 57 New
    +2
    The author stubbornly and categorically tries to prove using facts that are obvious to everyone that being rich and healthy is much better than being poor and sick, it’s hard to argue with this, but it’s clear to any HEALTHY thinking person that any weapon (and the aircraft carrier also) needs a concept of use and is selected for specific conditions. The same example of the Japanese, they are not only for political reasons, destroyers. And no one disputes that AK is the best machine, but nevertheless it’s nice to have machine guns and grenade launchers in the unit and SVD - everything has its place
    1. Usher
      Usher 18 May 2020 16: 13 New
      +1
      This is what we are talking about. That just everyone should deal with their profile. And do not portray something else. And UDC as an aircraft carrier, this is nonsense. It is necessary to have Avik (any normal Avik with an air finisher) and a landing ship, and not a chimera, which cannot do anything normally. There are few planes and few landing.
  • +5
    +5 18 May 2020 15: 39 New
    -2
    For us in all this, it is important that no one in our country thinks of taking Juan Carlos, Izumo or Cavour as a model.

    Well, the Fy-35 will not be sold to us, so there is no need to worry .... :)
    But the springboard will not have AWACS ....
    Iiiii, in general, Russia’s AVs are not needed if we are not going to take the place of the world gendarme when the United States crawls in our hemisphere in the territory from India to the Cape Verde Islands (east of Hindustan, the Han “partners” reserve will be ... except for the Japanese protectorate of the Far Eastern Federal District :)) ))
    But neither the donkey nor the padishah is dying, America is undoubtedly a kirdyk, but it would be possible to live up to this moment ... and there you see Fords from them "for scrap" you can buy one or the Han brothers - for yourself, and the second - for they will build according to a joint project ... and before the onset of this bright future - S-500, Su-57, T-14 ... but at least Husky with Gorshkovs - he is not AB ...
  • Lavrenty1937
    Lavrenty1937 18 May 2020 17: 20 New
    0
    The first AB can be built by 2040, the fourth - by 2060-2065. And how to defend all these 40-45 years? Option: until the end of the 20s we are building two UDCs. We put on them helicopters AWACS, anti-submarine. Thus, to a large extent, we solve the tasks of protecting the SSBN from the enemy’s nuclear submarines in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. If the VTOL is created and placed on the UDC, then it will be possible to fight with the Orions and Poseidons. Thus, the stability of both SSBN groups will be significantly increased. Further: Kuznetsov will provide stability for the potato-avian group on the Northern Fleet, and on the Pacific Fleet - the next (second) pair of UDC (or helicopter carriers) with VTOL aircraft. This is far from the best option. But still, it is much better than being completely unarmed (in terms of aircraft-carrying ships), waiting for 40-45 years to build four AB. Although they also need to be built (at least a couple).
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 18 May 2020 18: 34 New
      +1
      Lavrenty Pavlovich! Who, where, for what money, why will you carry out your grandiose plans? "Our first AB can be built by 2040, the fourth - by 2060-2065. And how do you defend yourself all these 40-45 years? Option: by the end of the 20s, we are building two UDCs. " do you even know that the world and Russia are now with the economy? Do you suggest this type of "guns instead of oil"? And then you yourself will run with a placard to the next monster for oil instead of guns?
      1. Lavrenty1937
        Lavrenty1937 19 May 2020 02: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: LeonidL
        Lavrenty Pavlovich! Who, where, for what money, why will you carry out your grandiose plans? "The first AV can be built by 2040, the fourth by 2060-2065. And how can we defend ourselves for all these 40-45 years? Option: by the end of the 20s, we are building two UDCs." do you even know that the world and Russia are now with the economy? Do you suggest this type of "guns instead of oil"? And then you yourself will run with a placard to the next monster for oil instead of guns?
        I have it written "can be built." That is, even if such a decision is made at the request of A.A. Timokhin.
        1. LeonidL
          LeonidL 19 May 2020 18: 38 New
          0
          Clearly, Gennady! So let’s drink for not all wishes to be fulfilled! And only those desires that meet the possibilities!
  • con_nick
    con_nick 18 May 2020 17: 21 New
    -3
    And this, among other things, is a more than 25% greater fuel supply compared to the F-35B with better weight return (no fan). And, which was quite expected, - for almost 300 kilometers a larger combat radius. Here it is, the cost of saving. How much this will bring advantages in percussion problems, for example, you can just not say.
    On paper, but more) In fact, perhaps less. A well-known case, when in the Falklands, the commander of the "Harriers" squadron drew attention to the fact that the time of loitering among his subordinates differs at times. I quickly figured out that many of them were retraining from the Phantoms and kept the habit of returning to the ship with a 30% supply of fuel, in unforeseen situations - to wait for their turn on the circle, to enter the second call, etc. He gave them a scolding, in the end they began to return with 3-5% of the stock. If you need to write in more detail / give a link, although without me, you probably know.
    Then count for yourself. There is no ordinary deck here any advantages. Given the equal dimensions of the aircraft, the combat radius of the KVVP will be at least no less. Although the F-35C is noticeably larger (the wingspan is one and a half times larger) F-35B, but even in this case, the combat radius is approximately the same.
    This is with regards to fuel. Now about the weight return. The F-35C certainly does not have a fan, but there is much more to take off from the catapult and land on the aerofinisher - such as a reinforced chassis, hook and other little things. As a result, with the same combat load and combat radius, the F-35C is significantly heavier than the F-35B.
    1. timokhin-aa
      18 May 2020 21: 22 New
      +1
      I know that Ward soaked such a thing, but we must remember that one Harrier fell into the water in these situations and two did not fall just because they could reach the landing ships and board them.
      Well, San Carlos Forward Op. Base is worth remembering.

      In general, not everything was so unambiguous with the minimum balance.

      As a result, with the same combat load and combat radius, the F-35C is significantly heavier than the F-35B.


      Yes, not the same radius there. And the load is not only measured in terms of mass - in one plane it is possible to suspend the air defense in internal compartments, but not in the other, and this is a big difference.
      1. con_nick
        con_nick 18 May 2020 22: 36 New
        +1
        I know that Ward soaked such a thing, but we must remember that one Harrier fell into the water in these situations and two did not fall just because they could reach the landing ships and board them.
        Well, San Carlos Forward Op. Base is worth remembering.

        In general, not everything was so unambiguous with the minimum balance.

        You see, I’m trying to convey my point of view to you - that two, in principle, were able to sit down and save both the pilot and the car, but one fell. In the case of the decks, all three would fall, you know? Well, or would leave the battle earlier, etc. For some reason (in my opinion) you see that they have sat down something bad, that’s why I don’t understand why.
        And the load is not only measured in terms of mass - in one plane it is possible to suspend the air defense in internal compartments, but not in the other, and this is a big difference.

        Also, you should not talk about the wretchedness of the whole concept of HVAC due to the shortcomings of one specific model, in this case the F-35. Nothing prevents you from making the KVVP with the internal compartment required for technical requirements, especially if you do not cut both the deck and the fighter of the Air Force from it.
        1. timokhin-aa
          18 May 2020 22: 57 New
          0
          In the case of the decks, all three would fall, you know?


          When working on the same radius? Do not make people laugh. A phantom on the same radius could patrol the area for at least an hour, and with the same 30% remnant return back without the risk of fuel production, and Harrier could work on the defended area for no more than 10 minutes and then fall into the water.
          1. con_nick
            con_nick 18 May 2020 23: 02 New
            +1
            When working on the same radius? ...

            Then - yes, there were advantages. Today - they are not. The radius is the same, practically.
            1. timokhin-aa
              18 May 2020 23: 07 New
              0
              I cited the figures in the article. You do not see them?

              Moreover, these figures do not take into account that:

              1. When takeoff ms short deck SKVVP forced to use very intensive vertical thrust. So in the real world - another minus to the radius.
              2. When performing shock tasks, the deck can carry a shock load on the internal suspension, but there is no vertical. And on the outside it is aerodynamic drag and an additional reduction in range.

              So in real life the difference is even more dramatic.
    2. Usher
      Usher 19 May 2020 10: 33 New
      0
      What is the combat radius of the same for VTOL aircraft as for horizontal aircraft? What do you smoke?
  • con_nick
    con_nick 18 May 2020 17: 37 New
    -3
    What's the output?

    On the way out, the Indians have a ship that can give no more than 75 flights per day (I remind you that there is a limitation when landing on an aerofinisher - no more than 3 landings per day), capable of raising its air group in 30-40 at best. min. At the same time, they can return strictly to this ship, and if it is damaged, "the catapult is the salvation, and there is tension on the lines." Taking off from the springboard of "ordinary" planes some other time is a separate topic altogether. In short, there is nothing good in this, and either build a full-fledged AV catapult + aerofinisher, or KVVP + springboard. But not springboard + aerofinisher, "Kuzya" and "Vikrant" - this is the worst option. But this is so, by the way)
    And the Japanese got a ship capable of almost immediately raising its air group (albeit not with full combat load), the pilots are able to make at least 5, at least more sorties per day - it depends on technical services. And even if they do not reach the ship for fuel, or the ship is damaged, they will be able to find on the radar some passing container ship and board it.
    1. timokhin-aa
      18 May 2020 21: 25 New
      0
      Did you come up with it all yourself? What is the fundamental difference in the speed of the lift of the air group at the catapult and the springboard ship?

      Well, the rest of the same series, the F-35 will not take off vertically with a load, acceleration is needed, it’s not empty to fly up with a minimum of fuel for five minutes, well, about how the landing of ONE Harrier on a container ship looked like google yourself please.
      1. con_nick
        con_nick 18 May 2020 22: 46 New
        -1
        What is the fundamental difference in the speed of the lift of the air group at the catapult and the springboard ship?

        There was a well-known old picture, where several Yak-38s are standing on the "Kiev" at different angles to the axis of the ship, and they take off, with a slight takeoff. Yes, with an incomplete load, but in the air defense version (when you need to quickly raise the group) it will do quite well. And further. AB with a catapult should always go against the wind, preferably at maximum speed, and this is not always feasible, especially when working along the shore.
        Well, the rest of the same series, the F-35 will not take off vertically with a load, acceleration is needed, it’s not empty to fly up with a minimum of fuel for five minutes, well, about how the landing of ONE Harrier on a container ship looked like google yourself please.

        Above I answered "it will not take off vertically", but I know how Harrier got on the container ship) There, the captain of the container ship misunderstood the pilot and dropped the speed, which only complicated the landing, increasing the pitching. The pilot had fuel for 1 minute, he sat down without maneuvering, there was no time, but nevertheless he saved the car by removing the rack. Again, a normal deck boat would be lost.
        1. timokhin-aa
          18 May 2020 23: 02 New
          0
          There was a well-known old picture, where several Yak-38s are standing on the "Kiev" at different angles to the axis of the ship, and they take off, with a slight takeoff.


          That's just Yaki, not only were but remain the only aircraft in the world capable of such a take-off.
          No one else mastered.

          Again, a regular deck would be lost.


          An ordinary deckhouse would rise to the ceiling, turn on the radar, detect a warrant from a couple of hundred kilometers, which before that would be lost and calmly fly to an aircraft carrier.
          1. con_nick
            con_nick 18 May 2020 23: 11 New
            +1
            An ordinary deckhouse would rise to the ceiling, turn on the radar, detect a warrant from a couple of hundred kilometers, which before that would be lost and calmly fly to an aircraft carrier.

            I don’t like to argue, and I don’t know how. For me, the future belongs to the KVVP, and the Navy does not need the SMZ and DMZ ships, which it is not capable of, if necessary, the KVVP will land. In short, I believe that the advantages of KVVP outweigh the disadvantages, and much more. And you, in my opinion, "are preparing for the last war." But life will show which of us is right. Thanks for your articles and good luck!
            1. Usher
              Usher 19 May 2020 10: 35 New
              0
              What are the advantages? Until a fundamentally new engine is invented. No advantage of vertical bars will be so obvious over their main drawbacks, low weight of the aircraft and a small radius.
              1. con_nick
                con_nick 19 May 2020 10: 52 New
                0
                What are the advantages?

                By and large, reinforced concrete dignity is one - the base system, the rest are not indisputable, let’s say so. And this advantage, in my opinion, outweighs all the shortcomings - even if you fully accept your arguments and the arguments of the author without disputing them. This gives enormous advantages both in the economic plan (the ability to mobilize aircraft from land to sea and vice versa), and in the operational plan - the flexibility of using AEC is much higher.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  19 May 2020 14: 14 New
                  +3
                  So base VTOL aircraft is not easier than normal aircraft. A vertical carrier carrier ship is almost the same price as a conventional aircraft, and on the ground ordinary aircraft fly verticals to death.
                  1. con_nick
                    con_nick 19 May 2020 17: 11 New
                    0
                    IMHO, today, it is absolutely clear that the requirements for the aircraft are such that it should be able to be based not only on specially built ships for it, but also on operational sites on other ships and mobilized ships, as well as from coastal platforms, up to I do not know ... drifting ice)) After Falkland, in my opinion it is clear as God's day.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      19 May 2020 22: 13 New
                      +1
                      The fact is that, after deducting flights from some mobilized container ship or a single take-off from the BDK, the VTOL aircraft is inferior in universality to conventional aircraft, especially on land.
                      A little disassembled here

                      https://topwar.ru/170069-likbez-bezajerodromnoe-i-rassredotochennoe-bazirovanie-aviacii.html
                      1. con_nick
                        con_nick 20 May 2020 09: 15 New
                        0
                        Yes, thanks, I read this article of yours. What do I have to say? If we leave aside hydro-aviation, transport, and talk only about the usual combat (fighter, bomber, maybe with the exception of assault - shorter than reactive and supersonic) - my opinion is unambiguous - only airfield base. Moreover, on good, poured concrete GDP, and not on slabs; with aerodrome aerofinishers and other emergency landing systems; aircraft must be in hangars. For without this, raising the raid to the required 300 hours a year is impossible. And that’s all, for paraphrasing a famous phrase, it’s not the planes that are fighting, people are fighting. Yes, the MiG-29 can and can take off from the highway and land on the ground (this is on land, he has nowhere to land on the sea), once. Two times, three times, five times. Further, problems will begin both with the chassis and with the glider, etc., and this does not bode well. The initial design of the machine under such conditions will lead to a significant reduction in performance characteristics. Therefore, for me - from the very beginning it is unacceptable to count on the fact that airfield combat aircraft will be able to work without airfields. Of course, everything happens in a war, but from the very beginning it should be set as a regular use of aviation ... Nonsense. And KVVP is an aircraft capable of regularly relying on prefabricated airfields of limited area, both on land and at sea.
                        As for conventional aircraft at sea, everything is clear, only a catapult. I don't understand why you are in favor of Vikrant. I recommend reading here:
                        http://takr-kiev.ucoz.com/forum/89-164-1
                        If you are too lazy to read everything, then clearly and clearly about the takeoff from the springboard of conventional aircraft said in message # 80.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        20 May 2020 11: 22 New
                        0
                        I do not advocate for Wyckrant, I indicate that he is much more successful than the carrier of the VTOL.
                        In general, I am also for the catapult.
              2. Usher
                Usher 19 May 2020 17: 11 New
                +1
                Just the opposite. A jet plane is distinguished by the fact that it can deliver a missile / bomb quickly over a long distance or protect an object. Leave the rest to the helicopters. No need to make a wolfhound from a dachshund. I do not deny that VTOL is a breakthrough, but betting on them is a big mistake.
          2. timokhin-aa
            19 May 2020 14: 12 New
            0
            Thanks to you, too. But you still do not forget that the planes are made for war, and not just to beautifully take off from the top.
  • Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 18 May 2020 18: 04 New
    -1
    The aircraft carrier Vikramaditya, the destroyer Dali ..... Something tells me that we were raped, India is now a country of the 2nd world, and we are the 3rd.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 18 May 2020 19: 16 New
    0
    Agreeing with the author almost throughout the article, I can not help but reproach this paragraph:
    In all the fleets of the world, aircraft carriers are either one of the fastest ships, or simply the fastest, and this is not just that. In preparation for repulsing the strike described above, almost any American commander will try to “hide” an aircraft carrier - for example, using the well-known “windows” in the flights of enemy satellites to lead a group under a cloudy front
    The same argument about the speed of avoiding retaliation, but only in the case of ekranoplan, was noted.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2020 20: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The same argument about the speed of avoiding retaliation, but only in the case of ekranoplan, was noted.

      And rightly so. Because the ekranoplan should be compared with missile aircraft, which will come out of attack much faster
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 19 May 2020 02: 46 New
        0
        With autonomy of 5 days and the ability to settle on the water? It is to compare with RTOs.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 May 2020 17: 07 New
          +2
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          With autonomy of 5 days and the ability to settle on the water?

          Does autonomy mean that the ekranoplan can lie 5 days on water in anticipation of an order to strike? And how does this differ from a missile carrier, at least a month able to stand by waiting for an order at the jump airfield?
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          It is to compare with RTOs.

          This is possible, because both ekranoplan and RTOs are absolutely useless against AUG
    2. timokhin-aa
      18 May 2020 21: 26 New
      +1
      You confuse chalk with cheese again. An armed reconnaissance officer will not dump to the limit of the discovered ekranoplan, he will bring him down.
      And from KUG he will just blame, so as not to bring him down and to convey information to his ..
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 19 May 2020 02: 57 New
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        An armed reconnaissance officer will not dump at the limit of the detected ekranoplan, he will bring him down
        Not for starting a dispute, because I can’t answer within XNUMX hours, but:
        If it was technically feasible, it would be a good help to place a laser weapon (LO) with a power of 100-500 kW on the NOC, capable of defeating small-sized targets: UAVs, light boats and boats, destroy sensitive optics of anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft, and in the future ensure their physical destruction

        https://topwar.ru/171181-na-granice-dvuh-sred-nyrjajuschij-nadvodnyj-korabl-2025-koncept-i-taktika-primenenija.html
  • Wasilii
    Wasilii 19 May 2020 01: 44 New
    +1
    laughing laughing You have garbage and not a branch. Some carriers came up with some. The diving cruisers came up on the next branch, and you have no imagination. It is necessary to compose on a larger scale, on a larger scale.
  • Demagogue
    Demagogue 19 May 2020 16: 04 New
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Everyone wants to get a combination of udk + f35v precisely because of f35v.


    And they would be smart, would try to get a combination of an aircraft carrier + F-35C.


    8 billion dollars and more. Rather, we multiply 8 billion by several attempts. All that is cheaper is any Liaoning or Vikra with 20 Chinese dryers or twigs. Which beat on them, as with good morning. The drlo is neither there nor there.
    The number of departures before repairs and other nonsense do not play a role. If the conflict is of low intensity, then there will be enough links to wrestle with 100 km of missiles inside the cc. And if an Armageddian, then the whole butch for a few hours and the aircraft consumables, like PCR.
    1. timokhin-aa
      19 May 2020 22: 32 New
      0
      Well, Vicra with 20 planes, and America with the same displacement with 10.
      There is a difference?
      1. Demagogue
        Demagogue 19 May 2020 22: 43 New
        0
        America in October 2019 at the exercises on the concept of lightning carrier carried 14 f35v. By the way f35v can carry 14 aim120. There is an excellent radar afar, which in turn makes it a mini Avax. It scans very fast.



        And if you throw out the convertiplanes, then up to 24 f35v. All is serious. America Liaoning will demolish the same in half an hour.
        Mistral had a hangar for 16 heavy helicopters, that is, 10 f35 fit into the hangar, and the hangar can be doubled there. Increase the nose by 20 meters, make the deck 5 meters wider, and voila.
        1. timokhin-aa
          19 May 2020 22: 50 New
          -1
          I am aware of these teachings, as well as of what conclusions they ended with. These conclusions were materialized in the reform of Berger, about which I wrote, and according to its composition, the squadron of Marine Corps aircraft is cut from 16 to 10 aircraft. Including in the Americas. Suggest why?
          I will.
          Imagine having a MSS helicopter raised from this
          UDC before lifting the aircraft (and this is necessary) the engine failed, it is urgent to sit on the deck.
          Well, he sits down.
          Now look at the construction of aircraft and tell me how to remove it in the hangar?

          And if you throw away the convertiplanes,


          It is impossible, the pilots from the territory of the anti-Cancer will be pulled out. 4 pieces, please provide. And two rescue helicopters for lifting pilots from the water, too.
          What I wrote about in the article.

          America Liaoning will demolish the same in half an hour.


          America will not be able to attack him, the difference in the speed of combat maneuvering 13 km / h and not in America's favor.
          The scheme of avoiding an attack for an aircraft carrier in the article is briefly described.
          1. Demagogue
            Demagogue 19 May 2020 23: 04 New
            0
            The whore with helicopters is solved elementarily, with a third elevator. On the mistral, by the way, 2 elevators in the stern. If you extend the hangar into the bow section and make another elevator there, then everything is ok. It’s just that America’s designers didn’t think about the problem. Rather, there is a hangar only in the aft section, it was necessary to continue forward, like on Izumo, to continue. And everything is decided.
            Liaoning will not run away. Airplanes will not overtake. Even in the WWII did not overtake, and then the era of jet aircraft. Speed ​​is good, but without e-2 it cannot be closed. F35 calmly go inside and fill him up
            1. timokhin-aa
              19 May 2020 23: 17 New
              -1
              I have a feeling that you are not reading the commented article.
              Look there is a plan of the hangar of "America", estimate its location on the ship from the photo and tell where you are going to make the third lift.

              Regarding Liaoning.

              Not only Americans can inflate carbon reflectors and hang tankers with them.
              I briefly mentioned how withdrawal from attack is carried out.
              The main theater of operations for the Chinese is on their shore, if they raise the basic SDRLO, they have them in naval aviation.
              1. Demagogue
                Demagogue 19 May 2020 23: 38 New
                +1


                I marked in the photo two possible places for the elevator. The Japanese made the center of the deck. But you can make an elevator on the side.

                Corner reflectors are good, they will also be drowned.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  20 May 2020 00: 06 New
                  0
                  There is no longer a hangar there, well, compare the sizes of your rectangles with the lifts themselves in the same photo.
                  The Japanese didn’t make about the center of the deck from a good life, in the last article, see the caption for the title photo))
                  Izumo is not large enough to have a lift on board in front. And on deck, he eats at least one place in the hangar.

                  Well, and your belief that the Americans are such gods of war who always own a situation that cannot be deceived or killed, I do not want to comment.
                  1. Demagogue
                    Demagogue 20 May 2020 07: 13 New
                    +1
                    You do not read what I write: the hangar had to be done longer. Then the elevator is not a problem there. I did not check the dimensions of the elevator on a scale, excuse me, showed approximately. But so everything is decided. On the same Mistral, a chopped off nose is built up, the deck is slightly wider, the hangar is longer, add an elevator. And the aircraft carrier is ready.



                    For Americans, I'm a realist, not an optimist like you. High-resolution afar radar certainly distinguishes Liaoning from the corners. Without e-2 there will not be a full-fledged aug too. And the Americans already have e-3d, which sm-6 induces beyond the horizon. Sees from our planes over 400+ km, rockets fly over 400 km, well, what are the odds?
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      20 May 2020 11: 16 New
                      0
                      the hangar had to be done longer.


                      So it will not be UDC.
                      Because of crowdedness, people have to put up beds in Wosp’s not even in cockpits, but in vestibules and corridors, in three tiers - regularly.
                      Where to double the hangar?

                      In fact, you want to turn the UDC into an aircraft carrier, on which there is no place to place an airborne landing.
                      But then the question arises - is it not easier to add 1/3 of the cost and get a normal ship with 20-25 F-35C in the same dimensions?
                      Such plans in the United States, by the way, are being discussed.

                      High-resolution afar radar certainly distinguishes Liaoning from the corners. Without e-2 there will not be a full-fledged aug too. And the Americans already have e-3d, which sm-6 induces beyond the horizon.


                      Well, you can’t thoroughly know its capabilities, plus there remains a factor that we discussed - it’s not enough to see the target, it still needs to be hit.
                      But GOS missiles are not so perfect at all.
                      Plus the SpetsBCH factor in a "non-lethal" form - it is quite possible to put all the ranges for everything that emits with the help of nuclear weapons, and you will not have to bring it to a nuclear war.
                      Plus operational factors that you seem to fundamentally ignore.
                      1. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 20 May 2020 18: 51 New
                        +2
                        Isn’t it easier to add 1/3 of the cost and get a normal ship with 20-25 F-35C in the same dimensions?


                        Not easier. UDC 700 million dollars, light aircraft carrier Izumo 1.2 billion. A ship under 25 f35s - 5 billion.

                        It’s not by chance that I laid out the Mistral scheme. There, the hangar can be increased due to the hospital by 68 people and similar nonsense.

                        According to GSN, etc.: if the enemy has more equipment at times and it is much more modern, then there is no chance.
                        Over in the a50 branch, bots flew at me for writing that it sees an upgraded 1m2 in 225 km only. This is a shame, where to fight with this? Just wasting money on ineffective equipment.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        22 May 2020 13: 20 New
                        0
                        Not easier. UDC 700 million dollars, light aircraft carrier Izumo 1.2 billion. A ship under 25 f35s - 5 billion.


                        Google the price of UDC America.
                        To make a catapult aircraft carrier out of it under a twice as large air group is plus 30%.

                        According to GSN, etc.: if the enemy has more equipment at times and it is much more modern, then there is no chance.

                        Korea, Vietnam, Yemen ...
                        HAVE NOT seen how the Hussites solder air defense systems from an optoelectronic turret broken off from a downed helicopter, somewhere mined by UR explosives and a weapon suspension pylon broken off from a downed aircraft?
                        And they - WIN.
                      3. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 22 May 2020 19: 59 New
                        +1
                        America 3.4 billion worth. Plus 30 percent is 4.5 billion. Is it not enough? 4 light aircraft carriers or 7 udk.

                        And about the Hussites, whom I incidentally communicated with: how will their semi-partisan experience help us at sea? You can fight on land in Hezbollah mode, but the technique will decide everything at sea. And she always decided.
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        22 May 2020 21: 58 New
                        +1
                        4 light aircraft carriers or 7 udk.


                        Here are just about 4 aircraft carriers, about 96 aircraft, and only 7 UDC only 70 and they are worse. On 4 aircraft carriers there can be AWACS, but not on UDC.

                        And UDCs are vulnerable to enemy counterattacks.

                        And about the Hussites, whom I incidentally communicated with: how will their semi-partisan experience help us at sea?


                        This is me to the fetish of technology.
                      5. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 23 May 2020 08: 26 New
                        +2
                        What kind of fetish?
                        Which drills do you want to use? We do not have modern compact with afar and are not planned. The Chinese have the kj-600 ready, but we don’t. We build piles of scrap metal with 400, which are meaningless without avax. Over the horizon, there is no one to launch their long-range missiles. We are in the stone age. For 15 years, people have been lying about the development of afar and everyone doesn’t care. A key technology in a modern war, and only in 2017 we built a plant for the production of transistors for afar. Prior to this, they promised to make chicken litter.
                        This is a fiasco. And the bottom is that no one even understands the depth of failure.
                      6. timokhin-aa
                        23 May 2020 13: 32 New
                        +2
                        Andrei, but did you BUILD a factory?
                        Failure in our country, not only in AFAR, we have such "AFAR" in bulk is not a reason to crawl to the cemetery or capitulate.

                        And, an important point - it has ALWAYS been so. And we still exist, the last 15-16 years still exist well.
                      7. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 23 May 2020 19: 26 New
                        0
                        Modern warfare cannot be won without victory in the air. There can be no victory in the air without afar. It is clear that we have many other failures. But this is the most critical.

                        We, as Spain, in 1897 build one small armored cruiser Columbus to fight the American monsters of Iowa and Indiana. And that’s okay, but we don’t have time to produce the main caliber guns. And even this boat is unarmed.

                        This was not always the case, under Peter we were a force and for some time. This man appreciated the brains and bought them where and how much he could.

                        Did you mean the standard of living? It has grown, but we must understand that all this time we have not developed our human resources. We have hundreds of thousands of men sitting crossword puzzles solving without producing any product.
                      8. timokhin-aa
                        23 May 2020 21: 23 New
                        0
                        Modern warfare cannot be won without victory in the air.


                        Vietnam, the first Chechnya?

                        There is such a book, Elena Sergeevna Wentzel, "Introduction to Operations Research", so to speak, the basics of the mathematical apparatus used by staff officers, all lieutenants know it.

                        So, from it, a puzzle about the struggle of aviation and troops armed with tactical missiles ran into my memory. The "red" side strikes with missiles at the identified airfields, the "blue" side hits the detected missile launchers with aviation. The blue has a priori air superiority, since the Reds have no aviation at all.
                        Do not be lazy, find.

                        All difficulties are surmountable, we will have AFAR, do not be so nervous.
                        And out of touch with UDC or aircraft carriers in principle.
                        A little later, simply, in 2024-2025.
                        Until then, you just have to win by other methods.
                      9. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 23 May 2020 22: 07 New
                        0
                        Vietnam and Chechnya is a partisan. I don’t want to partisan. And in Vietnam there was aviation and air defense in the north. You will now refer me to the Wenzel book in this regard. 1964 But this does not work anymore. Americans from the 70s have abruptly come off technologically so that now we have no methods against them. Why, I wrote above.

                        But now the partisan will be difficult. Thanks to drones and other new technology. Big brother is already here.
                        I don’t worry, I just don’t see any logic in our military planning.
                      10. timokhin-aa
                        23 May 2020 22: 10 New
                        0
                        Okay, let's tie it up. I understood your position. The coming years in the world will be very turbulent, so to speak, who will see who is right and what is stronger - equipment or everything else.
  • Newone
    Newone 20 May 2020 20: 50 New
    +1
    Do you really believe US agitation about 400 km? Why then their Saentis Sentry can’t properly track Iranian cruise missiles?
    1. Demagogue
      Demagogue 20 May 2020 21: 25 New
      0
      I just noticed that I described above. Not e-3d, but e-2d. But still . Firstly, Sentry might not have been in the air then. Secondly, as I understand it, they are out of date. If the e-2d has the latest radar with afar, then the e-3 has a regular twist. And its capabilities for small goals are limited. Modern technology has a tendency to miniaturization. Such large guargars are no longer needed. On small planes get headlights that lead thousands of targets. But since there are e-3s on the farm, they are being modernized. An opponent can help in the war against low tech.
    2. Newone
      Newone 20 May 2020 21: 52 New
      0
      Well, the Sentinels were supposed to be there around the clock. They are against the terrible Iran.
      AFAR, by the way, has no particular advantage in terms of small targets against a conventional radar, rather the opposite. Do the Hussites lie in interference generators.
    3. Demagogue
      Demagogue 20 May 2020 23: 13 New
      0
      AFAR is primarily lpi. That is, the ability to scan a target with a chaotic combination of beams at different frequencies. Spo finally doesn't understand what's going on. An ordinary radar will immediately light up. And she has predictable pulses. Afar resolution is better simply by definition: "LPI radar emits a low-power signal with intra-pulse modulation so that the range of a detected target can be determined with good range resolution." The ability to irradiate a target at different frequencies at the same time naturally offers many possibilities.
    4. Newone
      Newone 20 May 2020 23: 17 New
      +1
      And lpi mode only reduces the target detection range. It's just that the beam power is less, the diagram is wider. Alas, you cannot fool the physics of processes with advertising phrases.
    5. Demagogue
      Demagogue 20 May 2020 23: 31 New
      0
      What does the advertisement have to do with it? Elementary resolution sar for planes without afar and look at it. The su-35, and there Pfar at least 3 m. And the radar with afar 0.1 or less. You can’t fool her with any corner. And lpi allows you to scan the target with weak pulses, how is the range reduced here? And drowning for antediluvian radars in the 21st century is, to say the least, stupid. Even Pfar Irbis is a hopelessly outdated radar station that shreds predictably with powerful impulses, unmasking the aircraft and creating opportunities to crush it with interference. And Doppler ... This is not serious.
    6. Newone
      Newone 20 May 2020 23: 49 New
      0
      We are talking about the detection range and not the resolution of the synthetic aperture. These are different things. And the AFAR signal in the lpi mode is more difficult to suppress by radio interference than the PFAR, but it is weaker and therefore the detection range is less.
    7. Demagogue
      Demagogue 21 May 2020 08: 09 New
      +1
      Timokhin and I initially discussed precisely the resolution when you joined. It was about whether angular reflectors imitating an aircraft carrier would detect radar from afar. You stated that there are no advantages in resolving afar.

      And in range: A typical LPI radar has a switched pulse power of up to 1 W. To detect a target at the same range, a conventional pulsed radar requires a pulsed power of at least 10 kW. This ensures that the LPI radar achieves a gain in signal processing compared to a reconnaissance receiver equal to the product of the signal duration and the receiver bandwidth. Such a gain allows us to overcome the advantage of reconnaissance receivers in range (received signal power is proportional to the square root of the distance) over conventional primary radars (received signal power is proportional to the fourth root of the distance).
    8. Newone
      Newone 21 May 2020 14: 02 New
      0
      I said literally "Do you really believe the US agitation about 400 km?" where is the aperture?
      To detect a target at the same range, a conventional pulsed radar requires a pulsed power of at least 10 kW.
      Another agitprop? The attenuation of the radio signal is proportional to the cube of the distance. Any signal. The lpi mode is actually radiation and reception by the locator at the same time of signals at several different frequencies and then extraction of the real signal from this data array. Since there are many channels, it is possible to use methods for extracting a useful signal against a background of noise. The power of each channel is weaker than the power of a single-frequency signal in proportion to the number of channels. Accordingly, the detection distance is less.
  • maximghost
    maximghost 20 May 2020 05: 09 New
    -2
    During the Iraq campaign, the Americans used UDC as an aircraft carrier, i.e. for striking the ground. Used, of course, harrier - you can analyze the moment. So where are the Soviet UDCs with VTOL?
  • andrew42
    andrew42 20 May 2020 17: 32 New
    +3
    The author began with a no-lose option - with criticism of the "non-aircraft carriers" that should have performed the originally conceived UDC functionality, that is, the landing (!) Functionality. And then "our song is good, start over!" - Russia needs full-fledged aircraft carriers. We have heard this a hundred times. It would seem that it would be more logical to continue the discussion that there is no place for airplanes on a "paratrooper", from the word at all, and calm down on this, moving on to an alternative, to the concept of an amphibious helicopter carrier (UDC with a landing force, maximally reinforced by a group of assault helicopters, and the minimum necessary armored vehicles) ... But no. Nothing new, the same endless ode to the full-fledged "nimits".
  • certero
    certero 21 May 2020 03: 19 New
    +2
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Well and most importantly - a computer program can already win the air battle, but the machine can not deceive a person and will not be able for a very long time.

    Haha two times. Try playing a regular computer toy against the computer. Let's see how you cheat. Or, okay, play chess against the computer now. Making a fully autonomous fighter is 100 times easier than an autonomous bomber and a thousand times easier than an autonomous tank. It’s just that the fighter’s goal selection problem is not at all worth it. Unlike the same tank. And everything else has long been fully automated. And if you want dog dumps, then there the robot will significantly surpass the living pilot, if only because of the possibility of large overloads.
    1. timokhin-aa
      23 May 2020 21: 28 New
      0
      Try playing a regular computer toy against the computer. Let's see how you cheat. Or, okay, play chess against the computer now.


      You propose options where the "player" is deprived of the opportunity to go beyond the algorithm. This is a little different.

      And everything else has long been fully automated


      For example?
  • Niko
    Niko 21 May 2020 08: 22 New
    0
    The example of Japan in World War II shows well: the fleet, and especially the aircraft carrier fleet, is first of all people, trained, skillful, in sufficient quantity to have a reserve. Ships can be built in extreme times under the same conditions - and who will fly? We need an aircraft carrier like air, not to threaten those who have 20 of them, we need a school, we need a real goal for industry, etc. to preserve experience. And if no money: let it be kuzya, no money for him? Build a new one and let it be small or whatever "not before" if only it appears as the first step
    1. Newone
      Newone 21 May 2020 14: 21 New
      -2
      1. Nafig do not need "small aircraft carriers". Waste of resources. The ship either performs its combat mission or not. The "small" aircraft carrier is NOT performing its combat mission now - there is no aircraft for it and designing such an aircraft will take, as it were, no more time than the aircraft carrier itself. Unfortunately, the experience of running ahead of the horse is already there. Nothing good.
      It is necessary to design an aircraft carrier under an ALREADY designed aircraft or for the modernization of an already developed aircraft. Yes, leave the possibility of introducing promising solutions, take them into account, but design them for something that can fly with a high degree of probability. VTOL is needed, important and good for a number of tasks, but it is NOT yet.

      2. China also had no experience in building aircraft carriers. And nothing, they bought the Varyag from us and are making their own "average" aircraft carrier, not the UDK.

      3. If the task is to teach the collective, then it is not necessary to build a non-aircraft carrier, but an ASW helicopter carrier. We really "need this ship like air".
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 23 May 2020 22: 06 New
        0
        You wrote - “then we need to build not a non-aircraft carrier, but an PLO helicopter carrier. We really need this ship like air.” I apologize, but why do we need it? What such submarines and in what variants of military conflicts will it hunt? A separate question - with what efficiency?
        1. Newone
          Newone 24 May 2020 00: 59 New
          0
          At the US MAPL in the deployment area of ​​our SSBNs, for example. On Japanese and Korean diesel submarines in the Pacific.
          "A separate question is with what efficiency"
          From my point of view, as much as possible for us.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 24 June 2020 03: 55 New
            0
            And who will allow our anti-submarine helicopter carriers to hunt for the US MAPL in wartime? After all, they will become the primary goal and they will try to destroy them in the first minutes of the war. Their maximum effect is possible in the area of ​​operation of coastal fighter aircraft, but they are not needed in this area, coastal anti-submarine aircraft will cope (although it is not a fact that enemy carrier-based fighters will allow it too). In the Pacific - Are you going to fight with Japan and South Korea separately, without war with the United States? And even if separately - for what such water areas will the presence of anti-submarine aircraft carriers be required? This is the economy of Japan, South Korea, and even China is vitally dependent on shipping in the Pacific Ocean. And what do we cover? Short sea swimming? The landing in Hokkaido? So for this coast-based anti-submarine aviation is enough for the eyes. Well, the fact that we have almost no coastal anti-submarine aircraft is not a reason to build anti-submarine helicopter carriers, but rather the opposite.
            1. Newone
              Newone 28 June 2020 01: 44 New
              0
              1. Anti-submarine search is carried out in peacetime and a massive anti-submarine search - in the threatened period
              2.
              And who will allow it
              And who will NOT allow them?
              destroy in the first minutes of the war
              And how do you destroy them in the first minutes of the war? In the patrol zone of our SSBN? Those. Where surface control is already provided by ground / surface means?
              3. A helicopter carrier greatly expands the capabilities of a mass group anti-submarine search using helicopters (it’s simplified to fly refueling helicopters much closer + you don’t need to deliver fuel to coastal sites + it’s more difficult for the enemy to predict search tactics)
              4.
              for which such water areas will the presence of anti-submarine aircraft carriers be required
              Barents Sea, Sea of ​​Okhotsk at least. It would be nice to have a ship in the Mediterranean and in the Persian Gulf.
              5.
              the fact that we have almost no coastal anti-submarine aircraft is not a reason to build anti-submarine helicopter carriers,
              The fact that you do not take into account anti-submarine helicopters as part of anti-submarine aviation is not a reason to throw loud phrases about the lack of aviation. And there are no alternatives to helicopters (due to tactical (anti-submarine search speed), technological (serious backlog of our aircraft search buoys) and economic reasons (aircraft buoys are expensive and one-time)).
              1. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 28 June 2020 02: 19 New
                0
                "An anti-submarine search is carried out in peacetime and a massive anti-submarine search is carried out during a threatened period" - well, yes. If we are going to attack first, then of course. But we are a peaceful country and we won't be the first to attack? And if the enemy strikes first and sinks our SSBNs, then there is zero sense from such tracking. By the way, did our anti-submarine helicopters track many foreign submarines in peacetime? And given that our SSBNs are capable of reaching America by launching SLBMs right off our shores, under the cover of shore-based aviation and stationary sonar systems, I see no point in anti-submarine helicopter carriers. And not only me, but considering the shipbuilding plans - and the leadership of the fleet.
                "And who will NOT allow them? And how will you destroy them in the first minutes of the war? In the patrol zone of our missile forces? That is, where control of the surface situation is already provided by ground / surface means?" - the enemy fleet, specifically anti-ship missiles launched from deck and coastal aircraft, surface ships and submarines, will not allow it. And given the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, it is impossible to exclude the appearance of a potential enemy and coastal anti-ship missiles with a range of more than 500 km. No cover ships can withstand a simultaneous star attack from hundreds of anti-ship missiles.
                "The helicopter carrier greatly expands the capabilities of mass group anti-submarine search with the help of helicopters (it is simplified for helicopters to fly much closer for refueling + no need to deliver fuel to the coastal sites + it is more difficult for the enemy to predict search tactics)" helicopter carriers (and after all, you need not one, not two or three), it will be much cheaper to use coastal anti-submarine aircraft in the patrol areas of our SSBNs.
                "The Barents Sea, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk at least. It would be very nice to have a ship in the Mediterranean and in the Persian Gulf" - i.e. directly off the coast of our potential adversaries, in the area of ​​operation of not only carrier-based, but also coastal fighters, bombers and base patrol aircraft, you propose to place large, very expensive ships, with a huge crew, extremely vulnerable to all types of weapons, to the slaughter, while we don't even have escort ships for them.
                "The fact that you do not take into account anti-submarine helicopters as part of anti-submarine aviation is not a reason to throw loud phrases about the absence of aviation."
                Those. What do you now have in the fleet, do you consider it to be real anti-submarine aviation? Yes, we don’t even have the money to upgrade all IL-38 and Tu-142, fly with antediluvian Soviet equipment and weapons
                "And there is no alternative to helicopters (due to tactical (anti-submarine search speed), technological (serious lagging of our aircraft search buoys) and economic reasons (aircraft buoys are expensive and disposable))".
                Those. we don’t have money for normal buoys, let's find even more money for anti-submarine helicopter carriers.
                Understand correctly - I have nothing against anti-submarine aircraft carriers as a class. For everyone there is the USA, Britain, France, China. which are highly dependent on shipping, they are really needed. But what good is Russia from them - kill GOD, I don’t understand. Talking about covering the SSBN patrol area is a whim. Foreign nuclear submarines in these areas can and should be tracked without anti-submarine helicopter carriers. And considering what a terrible situation we have - with the SSBNs, with multipurpose nuclear submarines, and surface ships of the main classes, we can only dream about aircraft carriers so far.
                1. Newone
                  Newone 28 June 2020 02: 52 New
                  0
                  The anti-submarine search in peacetime and the threatened period is the main means of anti-submarine protection of the SSBN. Just because a military undetected boat attacks and, possibly, destroys our cruiser rpksn.
                  By the way - many of our anti-submarine helicopters tracked foreign submarines in peacetime?
                  more than enough.
                  but given shipbuilding plans - and fleet management

                  Therefore, helicopter carriers are building in the Crimea, yeah.
                  anti-theft missiles
                  And these missiles will teleport to our helicopter carrier, or what?
                  RCC with a range of more than 500km
                  Will these teleport too?
                  You propose to place large, very expensive ships for the slaughter,
                  In order to prevent an unexpected strike by hundreds of anti-ship missiles (including nuclear warheads) from submarines across the territory of the Russian Federation and save infrastructure from destruction? Sure.
                  Those. we don’t have money for normal buoys, let's find even more money for anti-submarine helicopter carriers.
                  Disposable buoy. Helicopter carrier serves 20-30 years.
                  highly dependent on shipping,
                  Helicopter carriers are not needed to protect shipping. Their task is to protect the SSBN and to identify and squeeze out of the water area of ​​boats carrying cruise missiles.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 22 May 2020 14: 14 New
    0
    [quote] [/ In addition, the destruction of fuel reserves even in aboveground storage facilities is not such an easy task - for this you need to hit each of the tanks scattered over a large area .quote]
    Finally remembered the economics of war! Judging by the scale of the image, each tank with a capacity of at least 1000 cubic meters. Nowadays, a random flight of the Tomahawk with a cassette warhead will destroy the storage under the root. But these are not losses - how many planes will not take off and the ships will not go to sea? ... That is, they will not be able to cause you even such damage.
  • LeonidL
    LeonidL 24 May 2020 19: 56 New
    -1
    Quote: vVvAD
    Maybe we don’t have the IBM, capable and operating outside of our territorial seas

    Russia simply does not have bases other than Syria, unlike the USSR, and there are no such geopolitical goals for either the KGU or the AUG. You need to dance from here.
  • DDT
    DDT 26 May 2020 19: 42 New
    0
    God, is it really incomprehensible to the author? First, the United States with its "full-fledged" aircraft carriers will smash the Russian fleet to smithereens and clear a strip of land for the UDCs of its junior partners. Then all sorts of British and Japanese will land colonization troops. So much for the role of UDC, BDK, etc. laughing wink wink
    1. Newone
      Newone 7 July 2020 17: 40 New
      0
      What are wet dreams :)