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

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 fundamental. 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, and there “substitute” a supply tanker, hung with corner reflectors, giving very a reflected signal similar to an aircraft carrier, both to satellites and to the radar of an allegedly “accidentally” reconnaissance plane missed. The aircraft carrier itself at maximum speed goes where the enemy will look 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.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. certero 18 May 2020 06: 11 New
    • 16
    • 10
    +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 18 May 2020 15: 00 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      All the general staffs of the world at all times had (and have) a certain inertia of thinking: before the start of the 2nd World War there were desperate defenders and proteges of cavalry and URs ... The first declared "What is the density of fire? You look at this advancing horse shaft! !! ", the latter, on the contrary, pointed to the experience of the 1st World War -" A machine gun, a dugout and barbed wire and no enemy will pass "... And in the Navy his Majesty reigned in general the battleship !!! The real war then put everyone in their place and cavalry grunts and lovers of gigantomania ... Real fighting 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
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      And where can we get autonomous drones?
      1. certero 18 May 2020 23: 18 New
        • 2
        • 2
        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
          • 3
          • 2
          +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 19 May 2020 20: 50 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Of course not. Wireless aircraft will be much easier.
            1. timokhin-aa 19 May 2020 22: 15 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Look at the size of the "hunter". You can’t deceive physics, if you need to drag two UR-VV and a couple of 500 kg bombs, and with a thrust-weight ratio no worse than that of a fighter and about 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 20 May 2020 00: 33 New
                • 2
                • 2
                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
                  • 0
                  +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 20 May 2020 15: 17 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +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
                      • 0
                      +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 20 May 2020 15: 23 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -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
                      • 0
                      +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 20 May 2020 15: 47 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -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
                        • 0
                        +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 20 May 2020 15: 34 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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
                    • 0
                    +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 20 May 2020 15: 53 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 23 May 2020 15: 47 New
    • 1
    • 1
    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 26 May 2020 23: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Nonsense! We won’t be able to work from the sea for the same reason as from the land .. Namely, there is a direct conflict with the NATO country, and if just the same from the ground, you can at least somehow launch the “Without Identification Marks” planes (which we can observe) flights from an aircraft carrier in plain text say who and what .. This is the whole problem, and not the difficulty of organizing a safe airfield somewhere in Libya .. And the Bosphorus isn’t closing for this reason, no one wants a full-fledged conflict with a sharp increase in rates .. all of it they pretend .. But when the armed forces of one country directly declare this directly, and the participation of the AOG is nowhere more direct, then there will be a “loss of face" by another state with a corresponding escalation of the conflict .. We don’t have to make requests like this with the involvement of the AUG. By the way, for this reason, naval battles have not been observed since the time of the Second World War between serious opponents at sea, and bulk tactics are practiced, so that in case of something like traffic accident it would be no use of weapons ...
  • mark1 18 May 2020 06: 18 New
    • 14
    • 5
    +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 18 May 2020 11: 53 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +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 18 May 2020 15: 20 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 18 May 2020 20: 25 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +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 19 May 2020 14: 20 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: BoA 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 19 May 2020 21: 40 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: NEOZ
              MiG29K is the maximum that we can count on.

              Maybe the MiG-35K will be better?
      2. 5-9
        5-9 18 May 2020 15: 45 New
        • 1
        • 6
        -5
        We "have" 2 UDCs ... though they fly under the Egyptian flag ... but in a situation where you really need to really land somewhere, I think that the issue will be resolved ... :))) well, they didn’t take them right thing ....
        1. timokhin-aa 18 May 2020 20: 53 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          I knew that everything was simple with you, but so ...
      3. Phoenix 23 May 2020 15: 49 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -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
        • 0
        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 26 May 2020 23: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 27 May 2020 08: 40 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -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 27 May 2020 13: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 27 May 2020 14: 04 New
              • 1
              • 1
              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 29 May 2020 10: 50 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 29 May 2020 12: 14 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  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 29 May 2020 20: 22 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Well, the military also needs toys because of ranks and stuff .. And the UDC, in addition to this component, can bring at least some kind of benefit .. Let it not be a dear ship .. This is not an AUG with the people involved, we will not go bankrupt, look and come in handy. 4 "Mistral "would cost us 2bn \ dollars this pah .. We won’t give 404 2.9bn not so long ago and just didn’t notice .. Here they will build at home therefore the money will go to the Russian economy, which is not so bad ..
                    1. Kalmar 29 May 2020 23: 53 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: max702
                      The boat is not expensive let it be .. This is not the AUG and we won’t go broke, you look and it will come in handy. 4 “Mistral” would cost us 2 billion

                      2 lard dollars was "pooh" when oil was expensive, and sanctions have not yet begun. Now they have announced 2 UDCs for 100 billion rubles: somehow these boats can’t be called inexpensive. Five corvettes for this money could be cooked up and shawarma for surrender.
                      1. max702 30 May 2020 11: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 30 May 2020 11: 53 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        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 same one whose "budgets crack" the population financially support during the crisis? I don’t argue that there is money in the country in principle, but there’s definitely not enough money for “absolutely everything”. The same Boomerangs and T-14 did not begin to buy precisely because it was expensive. And “Peter the Great” on the model of “Nakhimov” to pump - too (and there, it seems, the order of prices is similar - about 100 billion). The fleet, in principle, does not fall as many as we would like, so we need to think very carefully what to spend money on.
                      3. max702 31 May 2020 20: 20 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        According to the SSBN, I agree to the wind and no cover will save them only if they pulnut from the pier and no more .. And as for Russia, everything is simple here, the IMF manages MONEY in our country, and there is no money for our country's authorities. Thanks to the saints of the 90th and EBN of the constitution .. It seems that there are progress on this issue .. As far as the boomerangs and T-14 are known, they don’t want to repeat the raw epics of the T-64 name And it’s not burning especially if it’s honest .. slowly, and there they will update the constitution, and new economic laws will be adopted here and then it’s clear that there is denyuzhka for everything ..
                      4. Kalmar 1 June 2020 08: 38 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        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 switches to Vasyuki." Like, all the distortions in the Russian economy are caused solely by the wrong laws (why didn’t they accept the correct ones?) And the crooked constitution (and what are they planning to correct on this topic?). It's funny))
                      5. max702 2 June 2020 00: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Why the hedge of the "normal" fleet to cover the SSBN? Everything and everything ultimately rests on denyuzhku .. Here is the stated purpose of covering the SSBN, that is, to ensure the possibility of launching ICBMs from these boats, well, let's estimate how much it will cost to launch one ICBM with all these costs .. We will include here the cost of developing the SSBNs, missiles, development a full-fledged AUG (because you will protect the figs without an aircraft carrier), add the cost of an air wing with AWACS, drones, and so on, turn on the training of crews for all this splendor, and of course take into account the cost of producing this amount of iron and don’t forget about the ground infrastructure for all these toys, and estimate the contents this in the right form and condition .. And what time does the launch of one ICBM come out? How many billion dollars? 10-15? And the most interesting thing is that this will never start ... That is, the money was thrown out, it is not clear what? Immediately I hear screams that type is a guarantee of our safety! Good .. But is it possible to provide these guarantees with other tools? Are there any other ways and tools? It turns out there is! And his name is Strategic Missile Forces ... With all due respect to naval missiles, silos will cover them like a sheep, like operational readiness and combat stability .. Our country is called not Singapore and not Monaco and not Liechtenstein, but Russia, to destroy silos scattered over 1 \ 7 sushi of the globe like this is simply impossible .. In the event of a mass strike, it’s the silos and they will shoot back within 3-5 minutes bringing light and warmth to the partners .. And this heat will be enough for everyone and everything .. And there’s also Poplar and Yars add .. So the question is, why do we need a fleet to cover the SSBN 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. 18 May 2020 07: 02 New
    • 15
    • 4
    +11
    Defective aircraft carriers and attempts to replace them.
    With the same success, we can talk about inferior "cruisers" criticizing the construction of destroyers, or argue that helicopters are "underflight". Initially, the correct setting of the topic. First of all, not “aircraft carriers”, but UDC and other aircraft carriers, which, for example, in Japan are called “destroyers”. Secondly, not “replace”, but supplement.

    Alexander, figuratively speaking, will prove, in his entire series of articles, that Bentley is cooler than Lada Kalina. Only Nimitz-type ships, these are aircraft carriers, everything else is empty and worthless. It should be noted right away that "inferior aircraft carriers" were actively used by the same United States in World War II. The picture shows the escort aircraft carrier "Bog".
    Initially, such aircraft carriers were reworked from merchant ships, and further, they were initially built on their basis. In the early summer of 1942, the owner of the shipyard in Vancouver Kaiser, suggested that the American government deploy in its 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 should also have its own mobilization reserve, its help. In the Soviet Union, civilian vessels were supposed to be used for helicopter carriers ("Captain Smirnov").

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, all four rollers went to Ukraine and were sold to Global Container Lines and Marianna Shipbuilding Ltd. In 2001-2002, three of them ended up in a scrap metal dump in India, only Vladimir Vaslyaev joined the US Navy. In the United States, a radical modernization of the ship was carried out, the hull of the ship was disassembled and lengthened by inserting an additional section. In general, it was destroyed and destroyed, everything that could strengthen and complement our fleet, especially the aircraft carrier. For the same reason, it was suggested through corrupt media that the aircraft carriers were useless for "land Russia." Now Alexander, apparently, went from the opposite in his "ideological sabotage", on the principle that we don’t want a "goat", but we can’t.

    Understand, Alexander, Russia cannot build its Nimitz right now, but we can gain experience by creating the same UDCs that any fleet needs, the same US, which has enough nuclear carriers. Your extremes, a very dubious "good" for our fleet, both categorically in aircraft-carrying ships and in VTOL aircraft, without which aircraft-carrying ships can not do. I am for a strong Russian fleet, in which I really want to believe that there will also be large nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Yes, we can’t build more aircraft carriers than the United States, we can’t even build frigates anymore, but we must have a full-fledged, balanced fleet capable of performing ALL tasks at sea, and this is impossible without carrier-based aircraft and carrier ships. Otherwise, on the topic of "they have more," here, as in the USSR, each commander of our ship should make it clear to any provocation, "All the power of the Soviet Union is behind me!"
    1. Alexey RA 18 May 2020 11: 09 New
      • 12
      • 1
      +11
      Quote: Per se.
      It should be noted right away that "inferior aircraft carriers" were actively used by the same United States in World War II. The picture shows the escort aircraft carrier "Bog".

      Only now 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 shore until it captured coastal airfields.
      Moreover, in the zone of the possible presence of the enemy’s fleet, the AVEs acted exclusively in the presence of cover from 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 the mistake of identifying the enemy) saved the "taffy" 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, civilian vessels were supposed to be used for helicopter carriers ("Captain Smirnov").

      With boots from the General Staff, this was planned. smile
      The fleet rejected these “alterations” because of the lack of even minimal protection and survivability. And helicopter carriers designed according to naval standards only entered the building of pr. 1143.
      Quote: Per se.
      Russia can’t build its own Nimitz now, but we can gain experience by creating the same UDCs that any fleet needs, the same US, which has enough nuclear 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. 18 May 2020 12: 04 New
        • 10
        • 1
        +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 fail. Yes, the States began to build UDCs already having heavy aircraft carriers, and so what? Why we have gained experience in construction, from "Moscow" and "Leningrad" (project 1123). Why did the Chinese get experience from the completion of our “Riga” (aka “Varyag”, aka “Liaoning”).

        "Halzan," say, "boots" from the General Staff planned? If some people didn’t “bend their fingers”, so that on the base of a civilian ship would be a “Swiss, a reaper, and a dude”, it could well be an option for a landing helicopter carrier. Finally, it might be better if instead of an aircraft-carrying cruiser (project 1143), the so-called Ivan Tarava (project 11780) was built, and now from project 1143.4 (initially Kharkov, then Baku, then Admiral Fleets of the Soviet Union Gorshkov ") and it was necessary to build full-fledged aircraft carriers, up to the atomic 1143.7 Ulyanovsk (on which both AWACS aircraft, Sukhoi aircraft, and Yak-141 type VTOL aircraft were supposed).

        After the collapse of the great country, we had at least two aircraft carriers, “Gorshkov” and “Kuznetsov,” which would fit perfectly with what Alexander Timokhin so persistently advertises. Ideally, they could have completed the "Varyag", so the traitors and fools what was to be done? Our "buy and sell" initially gave "Gorshkov" in addition to the deal on the MiG-29K, that is, in fact, for nothing. Only after a bargain "on validol" to pay extra in the alteration.


        Now what is the argument, I’m saying, we don’t want to “goat”, but we can’t “cow” ... “Nothing” will cover the SSBN deployment area, and the fleet’s grouping, even with one like “Conti di Cavour” , be like us, can already. Only, behind them should be "The whole power of the Soviet Union", and not the little boys bad, renegades from the CPSU, that only cheeks are inflated, to raise the rating, but in fact being henpecked of their new "Washington Regional Committee". It is unlikely that they keep their junk in foreign banks and foreign currency, they need a strong fleet, which is one of the main instruments of an independent policy in upholding national interests.
        1. EvilLion 18 May 2020 13: 33 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -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 18 May 2020 14: 37 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: Per se.
          "Halzan," say, "boots" from the General Staff planned? If some people didn’t “bend their fingers”, so that on the base of a civilian ship would be a “Swiss, a reaper, and a dude”, it could well be an option for a landing helicopter carrier.

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

          Series 1143 was started by construction, as it were, a little earlier than the start of the design of Ivan Tarava. smile
          And about the plans “starting from Baku to build full-fledged AVs” - so the Navy had nothing against it. 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.
          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 - for there was only one Stapel 0 in the country, and the UDC refused to climb on Stapel 1. smile
          1. timokhin-aa 18 May 2020 20: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 19 May 2020 10: 00 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 testing of aircraft and training pilots to ejection take-off was excluded from the equipment of this complex, and only the technological (called an accelerating 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
                • 0
                +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
          • 0
          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 18 May 2020 13: 17 New
        • 0
        • 7
        -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 it were on the Falklands aircraft carriers "Big Brother" was not observed.
        1. Alexey RA 18 May 2020 14: 03 New
          • 9
          • 0
          +9
          Quote: Avior
          Yes, as it were on the Falklands aircraft carriers "Big Brother" was 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 18 May 2020 15: 35 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Avior
          Yes, as it were on the Falklands aircraft carriers "Big Brother" was 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 18 May 2020 16: 06 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            but it's about aircraft carriers.
            and they were definitely not there
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2020 17: 03 New
              • 8
              • 0
              +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 18 May 2020 18: 38 New
                • 0
                • 5
                -5
                "Therefore, the British and raked in full from the Argentines" ////
                ---
                And the Argentines capitulated laughing
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2020 20: 29 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +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 18 May 2020 20: 41 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    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 18 May 2020 20: 43 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Quote: Liam
                      Vietnam

                      Oh, how many wonderful discoveries we have ... And how many US ships lost in that war?
                      1. Liam 18 May 2020 20: 46 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        And how many planes?)
                      2. timokhin-aa 18 May 2020 20: 59 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        The question is the ability to protect NK from air strikes. The Argentines would not even come close to the American compound, or even to the KUG protected by the Kuzy.
                        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 18 May 2020 21: 52 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        nor even the Argentines would even come close to the KUZ protected by KUG.

                        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
                        • 0
                        +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 18 May 2020 23: 53 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        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 the ejection aircraft carrier needs a higher speed in order to "drape? Or is it due to the peculiarities of the" horizontal "takeoffs and landings of its aircraft? And for the" vertical flyers "/ springboards, this is not so relevant
                      6. timokhin-aa 19 May 2020 14: 20 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Are you sure that a higher speed ejection aircraft carrier is needed in order to "drape"?


                        Yes, for sure, because the Americans have done this trick more than once with our intelligence.
                      7. Liam 20 May 2020 00: 44 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        )))
                        Imaginary logical connection
                        A logical trick in which an imaginary, desired logical connection is presented as true (non sequitur).

                        The aircraft carrier needs a higher speed for the free flow on the plane of the take-off and landing aircraft. For this, it also always turns “against the wind”)
                      8. timokhin-aa 20 May 2020 11: 07 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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 19 May 2020 17: 02 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +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 any respect, failed result as “missed some attacks” - this must be possible :)))
                    Quote: Liam
                    depended on the lack of AWACS

                    Which on the VTOL carrier is not and cannot be. Only ersatz in the form of helicopters, which, like the Harriers, could only be said "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 Argos didn’t completely collapse the Neptune AWACS aircraft (WWII), they calmly opened the location of the British warrant and launched their anti-ship missiles onto the British ships. The British discovered this already during the attack. And in the USSR they knew from their own experience that getting out unnoticed to the AUG is very difficult, although not impossible.
                  3. Liam 20 May 2020 01: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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
                    • 0
                    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 20 May 2020 11: 15 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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
                    • 0
                    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 20 May 2020 13: 50 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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
                    • 0
                    +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 20 May 2020 16: 04 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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
                    • 0
                    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 20 May 2020 16: 57 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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

        Actually, Invincible and Hermes are aircraft carriers, they have nothing to do with UDC. And that means a lot. The aircraft carrier is still “imprisoned” for the use of its air group, this is for him the main function. UDC - no. And I doubt very much, for example, that the UDC would be able to provide the number of VTOL sorties that British ABs provided.
        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 20 May 2020 23: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 21 May 2020 06: 52 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 21 May 2020 10: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 21 May 2020 14: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 extra-class pilots, the best testers. In general, this is forbidden for combat pilots, they are only with 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 21 May 2020 19: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 21 May 2020 20: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 is he big? "Gentleman's set" of a fighter - 2 medium-range and 2-4 short-range air-launched missiles. The same R-27 more than 350 kg EMNIP and never weighed. But the fuel ... Wow :))) This is really important.
      10. 3danimal 21 May 2020 21: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 19 May 2020 16: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Okay, ueli :))) I incorrectly formulated - it meant the loss in the ships
  • voyaka uh 18 May 2020 20: 52 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +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 verge of a foul" ///
    ---
    The Argentine garrison capitulated. The Falkland capital was captured. All these expressions “on the verge of a foul” are a crude juggling.
    The Second World War was also extended on the verge of a foul.
    But Berlin was captured by the Soviet army. Germany capitulated.
    And nobody cares what happened before that "on the verge of a foul in 1941-42"
  • Avior 18 May 2020 13: 18 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -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 it were on the Falklands aircraft carriers "Big Brother" was not observed.
  • Niko 20 May 2020 11: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And who says that it is mandatory in the "first line"? Each problem is solved with the help of suitable ships and planes, 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 fit better than one huge one. The same situation - the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th "why do we need cruisers of the 2nd rank? (They are undercruisers, tins, undershots) we will configure armadillos! And how the same admirals changed their minds after Port Arthur and Novik
  • EvilLion 18 May 2020 11: 38 New
    • 2
    • 2
    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 18 May 2020 12: 35 New
      • 1
      • 6
      -5
      Well, imperceptible, yeah. Another German and dreamer of wet Teutonic orders?
      1. EvilLion 18 May 2020 12: 43 New
        • 1
        • 1
        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 18 May 2020 12: 46 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -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 18 May 2020 13: 03 New
            • 1
            • 1
            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 PTR effectively, if luck is successful, you can stop (not burn) a bottle of tiger gasoline, but only make an ambush so that their crews are on the sidelines and open fire only when enemy tanks turn the side, which in practice means they’re crossing the defensive line. Maybe 1-2 tanks will be stopped. Obviously, hundreds of calculations are not necessary for this task. And this is no different from the notorious paknest from 6-7 ZiS-3, which began to beat the Germans on board.
            1. 5-9
              5-9 18 May 2020 15: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 18 May 2020 16: 01 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              A typical mistake. Tanks do not fight in a spherical vacuum. I’m tired of you with a childish look. Have you read the books? Served though? In addition to tanks on the battlefield of the Second World War, and now there are a lot of goals. You ignore my words and speak your hypothesis. PTR, this is one of the elements of VET. Not the base, but only one of the elements, the same as a mine or a grenade or attack aircraft. Clear? In short, I’ll explain more simply, PTR is a “Faustpatron” at its technical level. Or like RPG-18 or RPG-7. At the beginning of WWII there was no other such mobile weapon against technology (not just against tanks). End empty chatter and offtopic. Here we are talking about UDC.
              1. EvilLion 18 May 2020 16: 45 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +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 19 May 2020 17: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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 20 May 2020 23: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The PTR was useless against the later versions of the T-3 and all T-4s.
  • 911sx 18 May 2020 16: 30 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -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 18 May 2020 18: 12 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      "And Russia needs exactly an aircraft carrier (and preferably 4-6 units) for tasks that everyone understands. " - Is that a joke? Where to build? Where to base? Yes, for these projects, you first need to build coastal infrastructure, shipyards, ... up to trainings for crews. What will these aircraft carriers stand on barrels and wind a resource? So it already was. And the escort, supply ships, basing points in remote areas? Tell the crews to "live according to Sobolev" on board? So remember that one of the reasons for the Kronstat tragedy was precisely because the crews spent two years of the war locked up under armor. Officer families are also not in need of a Spartan way of life ... The country simply cannot afford such expenses. Anyway, the time of aircraft carriers expires as in the past, the time of dreadnought and battleships, heavy artillery cruisers, etc.
      I should note that, in principle, the article is satisfactory in filing a compilation of material from foreign sources, without attacking the leadership of the Russian Federation, without any kind of militaristic deception, without trying to impose your own and only your own vision of the problem. The author is clearly moving in the right direction. It is of course necessary to take into account that the author expresses his personal opinion, the opinion of a man "sick of the Navy", although without the experience of service and naval education. The editorial board of VO is desirable, as is customary in serious publications, to supplement publications with a postscript below - that this is the personal opinion of the author. Otherwise, the editorial board may also be liable for rash statements.
  • pmkemcity 18 May 2020 07: 05 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Russia's problem is the lack of a carrier-based aircraft. However, why a deck aircraft, if the deck itself is not?
    Kuznetsov is incorrect to compare with pure 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 flights to Syria at the level of "the best world analogues" not because of the flaw of the air group and technical capabilities, but in view of the banal logistics, or rather, in its complete absence. Neither ammunition nor fuel necessary for intensive strikes Kuznetsov carries, the supply was not organized. In justification, it will be said that it was not built for routine coastal raids, but for air defense units, which implies a much smaller number of sorties and less use of ammunition.
    1. Selevc 18 May 2020 15: 14 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Kuznetsov could not provide the number of flights to Syria at the level of "the best world analogues" not because of the flaw of the air group and technical capabilities, but in view of the banal logistics, or rather, in its complete absence. Neither ammunition nor fuel necessary for intensive strikes Kuznetsov carries, the supply was not organized.

      That's it - most of the fans of aircraft carriers do not want to understand the simple fact "Effectively using AUG is like playing soccer in the big leagues - you need to go through all the steps to become a champion and nothing else" .. But in another way, only Potemkin villages turn out afloat. .. And what is China or India building there, an aircraft carrier or a large trough, as they say - it’s written with a pitchfork on the water ...
    2. timokhin-aa 18 May 2020 21: 04 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +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 19 May 2020 08: 15 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -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
          • 1
          • 1
          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 18 May 2020 07: 41 New
    • 11
    • 5
    +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 18 May 2020 12: 39 New
      • 5
      • 5
      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 18 May 2020 13: 45 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        And what will we do with ONE monster of 100 thousand tons and “the right planes? Will we put it in the Black Sea? Or in the Baltic Sea or in the north? And when we press it, will we send it to the Pacific Ocean to repeat Tsushima? While several small aircraft-carrying ships quite capable of solving specific tasks in real life
        1. Usher 19 May 2020 17: 06 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          And who tells you about a monster of 100 thousand tons? Why do you come up with on the go?
          1. Niko 19 May 2020 17: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Good: half-monster s 50 thousand tons will be left: one
            1. Usher 19 May 2020 17: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 19 May 2020 17: 27 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                I’m not talking about udk (this is generally the problem of this series of articles: everything is piled up, and even more so in the comments.) we will suddenly! A “real” Avik with the right planes and had a chance to quarrel with the Japanese pre-combatants (even in today's numbers, not tomorrow) with the support of the current number of destroyers and submarines self-defense forces ... I do not think that we would have such a positive attitude as the author on paper
        2. timokhin-aa 20 May 2020 14: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 20 May 2020 16: 52 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -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
              • 0
              +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 20 May 2020 17: 00 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            And what do you propose to do, for example, in the case when Japanese anti-submarine formations start from 4 separate sections to catch our squares, and on board each of the underdevelopers, in addition to helicopters, there will be a 35x link? And will our only "monster" have to raise the planes to the range limit in 3-4 different places and there they will already be predictably expected by much more advanced, albeit small, fifth generation planes? Let it be just for timely guidance on ours, although for an attack, I think against the 5x they have a good chance
            1. Niko 20 May 2020 17: 07 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 20 May 2020 17: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 20 May 2020 18: 27 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 20 May 2020 19: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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 20 May 2020 22: 09 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 20 May 2020 22: 21 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 still think that building an aircraft carrier for some reason we will not build or even upgrade it? And this is not taking into account the fact that in addition to stealth (which is completely compensated by the OLS and the Wave), the F-35B has no advantages, only disadvantages.
                      1. Niko 20 May 2020 23: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 20 May 2020 23: 08 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Oh yes, at least some escort is needed ..... another 20 years
                      3. Newone 20 May 2020 23: 13 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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 backlog on the creation of aircraft carriers. There is even a good average aircraft carrier. There is a 5th generation airplane. So "we run slower and start later" is an incorrect statement.
                      4. Niko 20 May 2020 23: 49 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -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 20 May 2020 23: 58 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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 20 May 2020 23: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 21 May 2020 08: 08 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 21 May 2020 13: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 do you manage to come to such conclusions, I do not understand. Shipyards for high-grade ocean vessels are being built in the country. Thread returned to train aviation crews. Nuclear power plants, such as GEM aircraft carriers, have been developed. The school for the creation of aircraft has not gone anywhere and is developing.
                      9. Niko 21 May 2020 18: 12 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        They can’t build a dock in the country for the only “aircraft carrier” which, as you put it, “didn’t drown glory to God,” God really does, but the dock must be built by yourself and the “shipyards” and judging by your opinion, the huge and numerous trained pilots (using computer simulators) know people wrote half a year ago about 8 EIGHT pilots. The fate of the big shipboys of the times of the USSR who got serious repairs unfortunately is almost always the same. Needles.
                      10. Newone 21 May 2020 18: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The USSR did not build a dock for Kuznetsov, but Kuznetsov itself could build it.
                        and "shipyards" and judging by your opinion, huge and numerous, trained pilots (using computer simulators), knowledgeable people wrote half a year ago about 8 EIGHT pilots.

                        How do you connect the really large shipyards under construction and the "8 pilots?
                        there is a shipyard, there is a pilot training center. Shouting "Raska ffsseee" is a bit early.
                        Needles.
                        Nakhimov has already been allowed, yeah ...
                      11. Niko 21 May 2020 20: 24 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        "Raska ffssee" ?????? Also worthy and constructive answer
                      12. Niko 21 May 2020 21: 06 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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
    • 0
    0
    In this case, there is a basic strike aircraft.
  • timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    War is not wall to wall.
  • Doccor18 18 May 2020 12: 51 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +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 18 May 2020 15: 47 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      tanks and ships, these are two different things. Absolutely! Your opinion is wrong. In the fleet, having an under-armed ship is a mistake. All due to the fact that there are fewer ships, and especially capital ones. The British also thought so, but this, as they themselves recognized, proved to be an erroneous doctrine to have weak but more numerous ships. They built the so-called “Canopus” type of electronic devices. Then closer to WWII, began a series of "York" (which were under-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 for capital ships. Our protective doctrine UDC is not particularly needed, needed, but not so critical. And build aircraft carriers on their basis (which are needed for air defense) is a deep mistake.
    2. Usher 18 May 2020 15: 50 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      And at the price of UDC, it’s not much cheaper than a normal aircraft carrier. All because of its notorious "universality." This is essentially a floating headquarters for the landing + airfield + hospital + warehouse + much more. Because of this, UDC is not a cheap toy. For me it is better to have a normal avik, even with a springboard and separate landing ships of the BDK type.
  • timokhin-aa 18 May 2020 21: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Wikrant is the first pancake, the Hindus never built anything like that, they even had nowhere to finish it, sheet by sheet was cooked in a "wet" dock. Their shipbuilding capacity situation is worse than ours. Hence the price.
    UDCs large enough for VTOL will rise in two-thirds of this price. Do not believe me, compare with the US, with "America" ​​or "Wosp" - Mackin Island, with the gas turbine.
    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 18 May 2020 21: 52 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +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
        • 0
        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 19 May 2020 08: 07 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +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
            • 0
            +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 18 May 2020 07: 46 New
    • 7
    • 6
    +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 ... 18 May 2020 07: 59 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +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 18 May 2020 11: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And what about the MiG-29K?
    3. timokhin-aa 18 May 2020 21: 12 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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 22 May 2020 07: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 18 May 2020 08: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There are interesting points about aircraft carriers ...
  • Avior 18 May 2020 08: 36 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -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 on the basis of the financial and technical feasibility of building and maintaining a specific 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 18 May 2020 10: 19 New
      • 3
      • 3
      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 18 May 2020 10: 48 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        I completely agree.
        to the last article of the cycle, I wrote this in detail.
      2. LeonidL 18 May 2020 18: 19 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 18 May 2020 18: 34 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +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 18 May 2020 18: 45 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Sergey completely agree with you. That's why Putin is trying to invest in breakthrough developments that give odds in decades of peaceful life. And the aircraft carriers ... well, beautiful, effective, even effective against Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia ... A sort of floating baton. In the Russian Federation there are no geopolitical goals for this kind of luxury, because if everything is built everything will end like in all the Big Fleets from Nicholas II to Brezhnev ... by cutting it with needles. Alas. Well, many people don’t understand that building a carrier-carrier alone is less than half of the business and costs - then everything will begin - from training the crew and the air group, to problems with the lack of normal basing conditions, creating an escort, supply, housing ... well and then all this wealth will be just as necessary as Egypt "Mistral".
            1. Avior 18 May 2020 19: 04 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -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 18 May 2020 23: 15 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +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 18 May 2020 23: 44 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  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 19 May 2020 06: 43 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +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 19 May 2020 08: 33 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -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 19 May 2020 18: 35 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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 22 May 2020 07: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 22 May 2020 07: 45 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -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 23 May 2020 06: 31 New
              • 1
              • 1
              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 24 May 2020 13: 26 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And how does your writing relate to what I wrote? Maybe we don’t have CMC capable and operating outside of our territorial seas, which in such operations would not hurt to protect respected “partners” and probable “friends” from IOS? Maybe it makes no sense for us to protect our own sea communications, for example, NSR, with weapons (simply by the fact of availability)? Or, perhaps, our country does not have any military-political rivals dreaming of taking over not only Siberia, but in general everything that is of the least value? Or, perhaps, our probable ones are so noble that they never allow themselves to cut off these very sea communications, and also never interfere with business and politics? Or maybe we have so many ARPKSN, or are they so cheap or useless that they can easily be exchanged, allowing for incidents like Kursk? Or is the status of ARPKSN 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 19 May 2020 00: 27 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +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 clings to its shore, then the enemy will throw us a missile-launch vehicle, and no air defense / missile defense system can cope with the wasps unless the hornet’s nest is carried to the line of mission. The "basics" in the red book clearly state 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 19 May 2020 06: 30 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -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 19 May 2020 06: 53 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Alexander! I’m saying that whoever produces here in particular about “gaining dominance in the DMZ” is yours and others’s personal and only personal opinion and desire. So no emotions. Murzilka with pictures is an article by some authors, in particular this review. Victory over the adversary in a modern naval battle sounds great, but there will be no such battles in any case. They were not there since 1917, the last naval battle against the adversary was Mozund with one obsolete pre-dreadnought battleship Slava, a pair of old cruisers, destroyers ... After that, neither the Soviet Fleet nor the Russian participated in any naval battle, but taking into account modern weapons, God forbid, and will never participate. Even in the most terrible situation (God forbid) there will be no time for this. Therefore, I advise you to play computer games on a powerful PC with an excellent VK and a large OP, and not give advice on what and how to build. Before building normal people always answer questions why, for what, and whether it will come in handy sometime.
          1. Boa kaa 19 May 2020 11: 07 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -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 the brilliant foresight of the coming? Or the fact that you so "kaaaaetsya"? Or are you the only bearer of “common sense” and infallible solutions? But what about the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation? General Staff of the Navy? Defense Council, military-technical commission and other think tanks? Is it not 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 still do not know for sure. And if something goes wrong, tady - OH !? 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 "your opinion." It is not forbidden to anyone and is even very useful, yes. But to consider that it is the only true one ... somehow it’s not comme il faut, however!
            Yours faithfully, hi
            1. LeonidL 19 May 2020 18: 32 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Alexander! The message "until the Yankees surrender" is not true. Do not give up, do not hope. Most likely, as always, sooner or later, but world problems will have to be resolved collegially and without "supremacy at sea." These are most likely unattainable dreams of the frightening boys of the Soviet era. Dominance at sea by the Russian Empire, the USSR, the Russian Federation never had except short-term very local situations with Turkey. Do not believe in the unattainable. Do not attribute to me white swans - these are your inventions. I express my vision of the situation - you are yours. As one wise man said, "What was we know, what we see, what will happen ... we will live to know." Good luck.
          2. timokhin-aa 19 May 2020 22: 24 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -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 battle with the Z-26? But what about the Mirage missile attack in 2008?
            Passed by?
            1. LeonidL 20 May 2020 07: 00 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Well, if you call it "naval battles for supremacy at sea", then Norway has more merit. Look how much it was and what it sank in 1940 in a few days of the war! And you list a few skirmishes of ships of the 2-3rd classes. About the "Mirage" in all charm! Call the sinking (with torment) of one boat an anti-aircraft missile! yes, I agree the dominance of the Black Sea is confirmed in the great battle of RTOs and simply RK. ... Two flowed away ... But commandos drowned them right in the port. It's ridiculous! You are positioning yourself as a “prominent marine theorist," so you don’t understand the difference between ...
              1. timokhin-aa 20 May 2020 11: 09 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -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 21 May 2020 01: 09 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  If you do not understand what is at stake - do not mess with stupid things. As always, you notice a speck in the opponent’s eye. Reread your works on the theme of supremacy at sea. The comment was originally about "achieving superiority at sea" - about naval battles, and not about short-term fire contacts, clashes, etc. The only case of achieving some semblance of "domination" is the battle around Soho. there, yes, several MOs and TCs, the coastal battery and aviation managed to practically nullify the enemy’s Ladoga group and, as a result, domination over Ladoga was ensured. Well, as of 2008, there’s a lot of everything there, up to and including the need to use air defense systems against the Georgians. Do you consider this a naval battle? It’s not even a naval battle.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Alexey RA 18 May 2020 11: 38 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +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 whether the Korolevs were really “transformable aircraft carriers” on which it was technically possible to install catapults with small alterations, they were told that no work was done to adapt the AB to catapult take-off and possible installation of the catapult. Everything remained at the stage of the talking room - “according to approximate estimates this can be done”, and did not even reach the stage of the 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 18 May 2020 13: 24 New
      • 2
      • 2
      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
        • 0
        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 18 May 2020 12: 40 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Again, if only against writing something. They chewed you again and laid down why. Why do you persist in your ignorance?
  • Lopatov 18 May 2020 18: 32 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +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 18 May 2020 18: 35 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      that means you need smart savings.
      1. Lopatov 18 May 2020 18: 40 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +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 18 May 2020 19: 14 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -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
    • 0
    +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 18 May 2020 22: 05 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Do you yourself understand how much the availability of aviation fundamentally raises the capabilities of any ship group?
      And about Cavour, “almost cannot” means that he can, and that means that he is a universal ship for a certain range of tasks.
      1. timokhin-aa 18 May 2020 22: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 Cavour, “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 18 May 2020 23: 28 New
          • 1
          • 1
          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
            • 0
            +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. land a company of infantry without equipment in good weather and "simple" in terms of landing land
            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 19 May 2020 14: 32 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -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
                • 0
                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 19 May 2020 10: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 19 May 2020 10: 24 New
          • 1
          • 1
          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 19 May 2020 12: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 19 May 2020 14: 10 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -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 19 May 2020 15: 45 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 19 May 2020 15: 54 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -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 18 May 2020 23: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 the AFAR and the "side" conformal radars, tie it to the AES-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 18 May 2020 23: 54 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I meant existing AWACS aircraft
      and when others appear, then the conversation is different
  • Undecim 18 May 2020 11: 00 New
    • 10
    • 4
    +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 18 May 2020 11: 20 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +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 18 May 2020 11: 48 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +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 18 May 2020 12: 36 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          There is no such term as a 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. 5-9
            5-9 18 May 2020 16: 03 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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 18 May 2020 12: 41 New
          • 4
          • 4
          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 18 May 2020 13: 08 New
            • 3
            • 3
            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 18 May 2020 13: 11 New
              • 3
              • 4
              -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 19 May 2020 10: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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.
            With the same success it is possible to declare a “light AUG”, for example, “taffy” Sprague. smile
    2. timokhin-aa 19 May 2020 23: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 20 May 2020 00: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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
          • 0
          0
          Well, then read on?



          When I refer to some document, I usually know what is in it.
          1. Undecim 20 May 2020 00: 34 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -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
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              And which was checked during the exercises of "America" ​​with Lightnings, during the military service of "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?
              It’s me that I still don’t dump rotten domestic insiders on “VO”, but there such plans - to get to work out.
              Actually what actually generated this series.
              1. Undecim 20 May 2020 11: 08 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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
                  • 0
                  0
                  They will disappear.
                  The theory did not pass the test of practice. At them.
  • Scharnhorst 18 May 2020 11: 18 New
    • 3
    • 3
    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 18 May 2020 12: 44 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -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 ... 18 May 2020 13: 29 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -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. 5-9
          5-9 18 May 2020 16: 05 New
          • 1
          • 1
          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 ... 18 May 2020 16: 25 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -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 19 May 2020 10: 24 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 ... 19 May 2020 10: 58 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -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 19 May 2020 11: 23 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +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 ... 19 May 2020 12: 34 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 19 May 2020 13: 14 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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.

                      Just because the "big pots" of the USN were standing in the bases, not wanting to be substituted under the Khashir fleet and Kido Butai. The main forces mutually balanced each other. smile
                      In your alternative, there are no two constraints on the part of Japan. But the US Atlantic fleet, with its AB and pre- and post-Washington forces, has not disappeared. In fact, the United States has the opportunity to prematurely complete the first stage of the WPO (“hit and run raids, achieving superiority over the enemy) and start the second - an offensive along the chain of atolls in the direction of the Metropolis. Having in the opponents only cruisers and base aircraft. smile
                      1. Cyril G ... 19 May 2020 13: 39 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -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 19 May 2020 16: 02 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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 18 May 2020 16: 10 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 18 May 2020 18: 28 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      "The main goal of any fleet is to destroy the enemy fleet. And not some port there." - I think you are deeply mistaken, this is in the distant past. Now this is possible for small-sized local conflicts over fishing spots ... Destruction of coastal infrastructure and the port makes the fleet incapable. And for such purposes AUG are not needed. Do not bring the Lord to the "big" war, all this floating scrap metal will be absolutely useless. Yes, today for the AUG there are tasks of a neocolonial plan, the role of the world policeman ... But how does the military doctrine of the Russian Federation fit into this? If AUG is a strategic weapon, then what strategic tasks should a hypothetical AUG of the Russian fleet solve, which could not be solved by other means?
    3. Boa kaa 19 May 2020 00: 47 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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 19 May 2020 10: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 ... 19 May 2020 11: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Destruction of the enemy fleet is not required at all ....
          1. Usher 19 May 2020 16: 46 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 19 May 2020 11: 12 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -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 19 May 2020 16: 55 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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

            RPKSny is a deterrent, and a weapon of a different order. We are considering a conflict, for example, with Indonesia and Argentina. Because of the argument, will you not wave a nuclear club? Have to swim and break your face))) A recent example of the Falkland. A PLARK 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 so rushing to extremes. But the rivals do not stand still, the same South Korea or Japan have a strong fleet. And do you think that they will let our Antey go ashore? How will you organize a landing operation when the UDCs can simply drown? No need here about alliances, NATO and the UN, etc. Here the matter is in the doctrine and the lot has specific tasks, the rest are the politicians of the country's leadership, not the admirals. There is a hypothetical conflict. And in such a conflict, with a fairly high-tech adversary, 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 don’t even have a VTOL project, who will give you super-expensive and complex F-35s?
  • Avior 18 May 2020 13: 39 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +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
    • 3
    • 1
    +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 18 May 2020 12: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    On fishlessness, and cancer is fish
    1. Usher 18 May 2020 13: 12 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -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 18 May 2020 13: 57 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +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 18 May 2020 16: 13 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +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.
  • 5-9
    5-9 18 May 2020 15: 39 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -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 doesn’t need AB if we are not going to take the place of the world gendarme during the USA pupping in its hemisphere from India to the Cape Verde Islands (east of Hindustan there will be a reserve of Han partners ... except for the Japanese protectorate of the Far Eastern Federal District :)) )))
    But something don’t die either, don’t die, America is undoubtedly kirdyk, but you would have lived to this point ... and there you can look at Fords from them “for scrap” you can buy either the Han brothers, for yourself, and the second for they will build according to a joint project .... and before the advent of this bright future - S-500, Su-57, T-14 .... but at least Husky with the Gorshkovs - he is not AB ...
  • Lavrenty1937 18 May 2020 17: 20 New
    • 2
    • 2
    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 18 May 2020 18: 34 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Lavrenty Pavlovich! Who, where, for what money, why will you implement your grandiose plans? "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 UDC. " Do you even know that in the world and in Russia now with the economy? Do you suggest the type "guns instead of oil"? And then yourself run with a placard to the next monstration for oil instead of guns?
      1. Lavrenty1937 19 May 2020 02: 56 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: LeonidL
        Lavrenty Pavlovich! Who, where, for what money, why will you implement your grandiose plans? "The first AB can be built with us 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." Do you even know that in the world and in Russia now with the economy? Do you suggest the type "guns instead of oil"? And then yourself run with a placard to the next monstration for oil instead of guns?
        It says "can be built." That is, even if such a decision at the request of A. A. Timokhin is made.
        1. LeonidL 19 May 2020 18: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Clearly, Gennady! So let’s drink for not all wishes to be fulfilled! And only those desires that meet the possibilities!
  • con_nick 18 May 2020 17: 21 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -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, yes more) In fact - perhaps less. A well-known case when the Harrier squadron commander in the Falklands drew attention to the fact that the time spent on barrage with his subordinates was significantly different. He quickly understood that many of them were retraining from the Phantoms and retained the habit of returning to the ship with a 30% fuel supply, for unforeseen situations - in the circle, wait their turn, enter the second run, etc. He arranged for them to catch up, as a result, they began to return from 3-5% of the reserve. If you need to write more / I will 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
      • 2
      • 1
      +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 18 May 2020 22: 36 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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
          • 1
          • 1
          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 18 May 2020 23: 02 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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
              • 1
              • 1
              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 19 May 2020 10: 33 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      What is the combat radius of the same for VTOL aircraft as for horizontal aircraft? What do you smoke?
  • con_nick 18 May 2020 17: 37 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    What's the output?

    The output is that the Indians have a ship that can give no more than 75 departures per day (I remind you, when landing on an aerofinisher there is a limit - no more than 3 landings per day), capable of raising its air group at best for 30-40 min At the same time, they can return strictly to this ship, and if it is damaged, - "the catapult is the salvation, and the tension on the slings." About taking off from the springboard of “ordinary” planes some other time, this is generally a separate issue. In short - there is nothing good in this, and either build a full-fledged AB catapult + aerofinisher, or KVVP + springboard. But not a 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
      • 1
      • 1
      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 18 May 2020 22: 46 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -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 an old picture known, where on the “Kiev” there are several Yak-38s at different angles to the axis of the ship, and so take off, with a slight take-off. Yes, with an incomplete load, but in the option of air defense (when you need to quickly raise the group) it will work for itself. And further. An 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 fly upright,” but I know how Harrier got on the container ship) There the captain of the container ship did not understand the pilot and threw off the course, which only complicated the landing, increasing the pitching. The pilot had fuel for 1 min., He sat down without maneuvering, there was no time, but nevertheless he saved the car by removing the rack. Again, a regular deck would be lost.
        1. timokhin-aa 18 May 2020 23: 02 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          There was an old picture known, where on the “Kiev” there are several Yak-38s at different angles to the axis of the ship, and so take off, with a slight take-off.


          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 18 May 2020 23: 11 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +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 do not like to argue, and I do not know how. For me, the future is for KVVP, and the Navy does not need SMZ and DMZ ships, which it is not capable of, if necessary, to sit KVVP. In short, I believe that the merits of KVVP outweigh the shortcomings, and much more. And you, in my opinion, are "getting ready for the last war." But life will show which of us is right. Thank you for your articles and good luck!
            1. Usher 19 May 2020 10: 35 New
              • 1
              • 1
              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 19 May 2020 10: 52 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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
                  • 0
                  +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 19 May 2020 17: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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
                      • 0
                      +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 20 May 2020 09: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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.
                        With regards to conventional aircraft at sea - everything is clear here, only a catapult. I don’t understand why you stand for Wikrant. 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
                        • 0
                        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 19 May 2020 17: 11 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +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
            • 0
            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 18 May 2020 18: 04 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -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 18 May 2020 19: 16 New
    • 1
    • 1
    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 18 May 2020 20: 32 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +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 19 May 2020 02: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        With autonomy of 5 days and the ability to settle on the water? It is to compare with RTOs.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 May 2020 17: 07 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +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
      • 2
      • 1
      +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 19 May 2020 02: 57 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -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 19 May 2020 01: 44 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +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 19 May 2020 16: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    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
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Well, Vicra with 20 planes, and America with the same displacement with 10.
      There is a difference?
      1. Demagogue 19 May 2020 22: 43 New
        • 1
        • 1
        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
          • 2
          -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 19 May 2020 23: 04 New
            • 1
            • 1
            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
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              I have a feeling that you are not reading the commented article.
              Look, there is a plan for the "America" ​​hangar, estimate its location on the ship according to the photo and skad, 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 19 May 2020 23: 38 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +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
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  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 20 May 2020 07: 13 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +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
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      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 Special Non-lethal factor of the Special Warheads is that it is possible to put all the ranges of everything that emits using nuclear weapons, and you won’t have to bring to a nuclear war.
                      Plus operational factors that you seem to fundamentally ignore.
                      1. Demagogue 20 May 2020 18: 51 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +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
                        • 0
                        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 22 May 2020 19: 59 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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
                        • 0
                        +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 23 May 2020 08: 26 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +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
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Andrei, but did you BUILD a factory?
                        The failure with us not only in the AFAR we have such "AFAR" in bulk is not a reason to crawl into the cemetery or surrender.

                        And, an important point - it has ALWAYS been so. And we still exist, the last 15-16 years still exist well.
                      7. Demagogue 23 May 2020 19: 26 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        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
                        • 0
                        0
                        Modern warfare cannot be won without victory in the air.


                        Vietnam, the first Chechnya?

                        There is such a book, Elena Sergeevna Ventzel, "Introduction to Operations Research," this is the basics of the math apparatus used by staff officers, all lieutenants know it.

                        So, a puzzle about the battle between aviation and troops armed with tactical missiles was cut into my memory from it. The "red" side strikes with missiles at the identified airfields, the "blue" at the detected missile launchers hammering aircraft. The blue has a priori air supremacy, since the "red" aviation does not have 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 23 May 2020 22: 07 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        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
                        • 0
                        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 20 May 2020 20: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Do you really believe US agitation about 400 km? Why then their Saentis Sentry can’t properly track Iranian cruise missiles?
    1. Demagogue 20 May 2020 21: 25 New
      • 1
      • 1
      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 20 May 2020 21: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 20 May 2020 23: 13 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      AFAR is primarily lpi. That is, the ability to scan the target with a chaotic combination of rays at different frequencies. Spo ultimately does not understand what is happening. Normal radar will immediately light up. And she has predictable pulses. Resolution for afar is better simply by definition: "An LPI radar emits a low-power signal with intrapulse modulation so that the range of the detected target can be determined with good resolution in range." The ability to irradiate a target at different frequencies at the same time naturally provides many opportunities.
    4. Newone 20 May 2020 23: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 20 May 2020 23: 31 New
      • 1
      • 1
      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 20 May 2020 23: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 21 May 2020 08: 09 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 21 May 2020 14: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I stated literally "Do you really believe US propaganda about 400 km?" where is about 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 20 May 2020 05: 09 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -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 20 May 2020 17: 32 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The author began with a win-win option - with criticism of the "under-aircraft carriers" who would have to fulfill the originally conceived UDC functional, that is, the landing (!) Functional. Well and further "our song is good, start over!" - Russia needs full-fledged aircraft carriers. This we have heard a hundred times. It would seem more logical to continue the discussion that there is no place for airplanes on the "paratrooper", from the word at all, and calm down on this, moving on to the alternative, to the concept of an airborne helicopter carrier (UDC with an airborne assault force, the most reinforced group of attack helicopters, and minimally necessary armored vehicles) . But no. Nothing new, all the same endless ode to the full-fledged "nimitsa".
  • certero 21 May 2020 03: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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
      • 0
      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 offer options where the “player” is deprived of the opportunity to go beyond the framework of the algorithm. This is a little wrong.

      And everything else has long been fully automated


      For example?
  • Niko 21 May 2020 08: 22 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The example of Japan in World War II shows well: the fleet, and especially the carrier fleet, are primarily people trained, skilled, in sufficient numbers to have a reserve. Ships can be built in extreme conditions under the same conditions, but who will fly? We need an aircraft carrier like air, not to threaten those who have 20, we need a school, we need a real goal for industry, etc. to save experience. And if no money: let it be a kuzya, no to him? Build a new one and let it be small or whatever "under" as long as it appears as a first step
    1. Newone 21 May 2020 14: 21 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -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 fulfilling its combat mission now; there is no aircraft for it, and designing such an aircraft will take no more time than the aircraft carrier itself. Unfortunately, there are already runs in front of the horse. 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 a Varangian from us and are making their own “average” aircraft carrier, and not udk.

      3. If the task is to learn the collective, then it is necessary to build not a pre-aircraft carrier, but a helicopter carrier. We really need this ship as air.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu 23 May 2020 22: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You wrote - “then it’s not a pre-aircraft carrier that needs to be built, but a PLO helicopter carrier. We really“ need this ship like air. ”- I apologize, why do we need it? What kind of submarines and in what variants of military conflicts will it hunt? A separate question - with what efficiency?
        1. Newone 24 May 2020 00: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 - with what efficiency"
          From my point of view, as much as possible for us.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu 24 June 2020 03: 55 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 28 June 2020 01: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 28 June 2020 02: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                “An anti-submarine search is carried out in peacetime and a massive anti-submarine search is in a threatened period” - yes to health. If we were going to attack first - then of course. But are we a peaceful country and will not be the first to attack? And if the enemy hits first and drowns our SSBNs, then the sense of such tracking is zero. By the way - many of our anti-submarine helicopters tracked foreign submarines in peacetime? And given that our SSBNs are capable of reaching America, launching SLBMs right on our shores, being under the cover of coastal aviation and stationary sonar systems - I see no reason in anti-submarine helicopter carriers. And not only me, but given shipbuilding plans - and the leadership of the fleet.
                "And who will NOT allow them? And why will you destroy them in the first minutes of the war? In the patrol zone of our rfsn? That is where the control of the surface situation is already provided by ground / surface means?" - the enemy fleet, and specifically anti-ship missiles launched from deck and coastal aircraft, surface ships and submarines will not allow. And given the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the appearance of a potential enemy and coastal anti-ship missiles with a range of more than 500 km cannot be ruled out. No cover ships can withstand the simultaneous stellar attack of hundreds of anti-ship missiles.
                “A helicopter carrier greatly expands the capabilities of a mass group anti-submarine search using helicopters (it’s easier for helicopters to refuel to fly much closer + you don’t need to deliver fuel to coastal sites + it’s more difficult for the enemy to predict search tactics)” - yes, for the money that costs the purchase and operation of anti-submarine helicopter carriers (and they need more than one, not two and not three), coastal anti-submarine aviation will be much cheaper to use on our SSBN patrol areas.
                “The Barents Sea, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk at least. It would be very nice to have a ship on 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 fighter bombers and base patrol aircraft, you propose placing large, very expensive ships with a huge crew that are extremely vulnerable to all types of weapons, while we even have no guard 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 lack 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 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 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 28 June 2020 02: 52 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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 22 May 2020 14: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 24 May 2020 19: 56 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -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
    • 0
    0
    God, is it really incomprehensible to the author? First, the United States and its “full-fledged” aircraft carriers will smash the Russian fleet and clear the land strip for the UDC actions of its junior partners. Then all sorts of British and Japanese will land colonization-occupation troops. Here is the role of UDC, BDK, and so on. laughing wink wink
    1. Newone 7 July 2020 17: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What are wet dreams :)