Military Review

Defective aircraft carriers are not suitable for the Russian fleet

366
Defective aircraft carriers are not suitable for the Russian fleet
In the short term, there is no alternative to Kuznetsov


Study of what really can be light aircraft carriers and aircraft with short / vertical take-off and landingof that how much do they end up being cheaper for societies that already have at least some carrier forces and carrier-based (in Russian terminology - ship) aviationand that how much can an aircraft carrier replace a landing ship with a through flight deck (at least easy and inferior), it was necessary not by itself. It was needed to assess which direction the Russian fleet is heading towards the development of carrier forces, and now they are trying to push it (the other). And I must say that it's not all simple.

Options for Russia


According to “The Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Naval Activities for the Period Until 2030”approved by presidential decree No. 327 of July 20, 2017, it is planned to create an offshore aircraft carrier complex in Russia.

What is this complex, the question is still open. The Navy wants a large aircraft carrier, and the Navy is right about this. It is possible that a tactical and technical task for such a ship or TTZ project has already been formulated somewhere. However, there are nuances.

The practice of naval construction in recent years in Russia shows that often scientifically sound decisions, or even just already launched and practically feasible projects, are simply destroyed by the personal will of individual figures influential enough to overturn the normal decision-making process with a “kick”, contrasting the established order with personal incompetence due to the position of power and corruption interest at the same time. This is how project 20386 came about, which destroyed the ability to renew domestic anti-submarine forces in a reasonable amount of time, so project 22160 appeared, which the fleet now simply does not know where to stick, and this is useless vessel (just like that) in the end, it just defiles from one base to another.

Could something like this happen to future carrier forces? Alas, yes.

two news for thought.

The first one already appeared in the very first article on the topic: “According to Deputy Prime Minister Yu. Borisov, Russia is developing a vertical takeoff and draft aircraft”.

Second: on December 2, 2019, President Putin at a meeting on the problems of military shipbuilding stated:

“In the coming years, it is necessary to actively increase combat capabilities fleet. In many respects, this depends on the planned entry into the combat structure of the Navy of frigates and submarines designed for the use of Zircon hypersonic missiles ... as well as destroyers and landing ships. "

I must say that with all due respect to the personality of V.V. It is impossible not to miss Putin, that achieving dominance at sea and in the air is a prerequisite for the use of landing ships and landing as such. And this outside the base combat radius aviation can only be achieved with the help of naval aviation. However, the "Fundamentals", according to which we should still have aircraft carriers, he approved.

However, individuals “several levels lower” may have their own interest.

Before the fire on the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, the author was hinted that he might not get out of the repair. Moreover, in the testimony of people who survived the flooding of the PD-50 floating dock, there is such an interesting thing as the “strong push” that people on the floating dock felt before it began to flood.

Then the fire that happened “out of the blue”. This is some kind of strange chain of coincidences, as if they are pushing us somewhere.

The British, too, had a similar fire, to the Victories AB, which was quite moderate in its consequences, but after it the government of Harold Wilson, who was eager to turn the third most powerful country in the world into the hand-held dog of the Americans, was written off by this aircraft carrier, although he still could serve. Has our Wilson started somewhere, even in a low position?

Let’s go on the other side. In 2005, a number of specialists from GOSNII AS wrote a book “Aviation of the Russian Navy and scientific and technological progress. Concepts of creation, development paths, research methodology ”. This work, saturated with both interesting facts and a curious hardware, contains one interesting statement. The authors point out that every time the scientific research on aircraft carrier topics was intensified in the USSR, in the West, in the specialized press, there was just a shaft of publications that painted in paints how wonderful light aircraft carriers are, how much they give to those countries that have them are invested, and that, generally speaking, is the future main route for the development of aircraft carrier forces.

True, the Nimitse appeared on the output, then the Fords, and in the worst case Charles de Gaulle and Queen Elizabeth.

The fact that in Russia there is a lobby, albeit weak (and hidden), puzzled by the issues of depriving our country of at least some significant aircraft carrier forces, will be unobvious for many, but it does exist, and there is information support for the idea of ​​“let's write off Kuznetsov” and instead we will build a pair of UDC with “vertical lines”, too, there is - otherwise it simply could not have spread so widely.

Here is a banal example of another idea that was propagated by the same methods.

There is an opinion, and this opinion has a lot of supporters that atomic submarines armed with anti-ship missiles (SSGN) are such a superweapon that can literally sweep out any number of aircraft carrier groups from the face of the oceans. Apologists for this idea think that they themselves have come to this, or appeal to the time of S.G. Gorshkova when such submarines "registered" in the Navy.

In fact, in the Soviet Navy, these ships were part of a very complex system, from which there is almost nothing left today, and the very concept of “PLARK as a superweapon” was very competently thrown into the unstable consciousness of Russian patriots by a concrete Russian-speaking resident of the city of Seattle, never a Russian citizen being at the turn of the 2000s and 2010s. At the same time, a person works for himself in the American aviation industry and has good communications in the US Navy. Why he did this is still an open question. We won’t poke a finger, just, if you are a supporter of this idea, then keep in mind that in fact it is not yours.

It is also possible to accurately track the source of the set of ideas “why do we need an aircraft carrier, because you can put a dozen VTOL aircraft on a landing ship, here’s your aircraft carrier,” if you ask yourself. Such ideas simply do not arise.

Thus, we have a complex of the following events:

- from somewhere in the mass consciousness the idea of ​​using landing ships instead of aircraft carriers and vertical / short take-off and vertical landing aircraft instead of normal ones made their way into the mass consciousness;

- it seems that some kind of the same idea was thrown to the very top, in any case, Y. Borisov claims that the creation of the SKVVP is carried out “on the instructions of the president”;

- the only aircraft carrier and the infrastructure for its repair is pursued by a sequence of accidents and disasters, which in some places look somewhat strange and make you think about sabotage;

- the president announced that destroyers and landing ships will be the basis of Russia's sea power.

All these factors taken together indicate that the distortion of the development path of domestic aircraft carrier forces and the repetition of British mistakes by our country is quite real. And the fact that Russia is supposedly being pushed according to the British version is also significant in many respects.

So far, it is known that the “development” of the SKVVP does not really really go well: this is not an experimental development (OCD), the result of which should be a real plane. This is a research work - R&D, and it is still very far from OCD. Both the fleet and the VKS take off this aircraft as soon as they can, and the reasons for this are quite obvious, because it will be as worse than domestic aircraft with normal take-offs and landings, as the Sea Harrier was worse than the Phantom for the British Navy. It remains only to wish success to sailors and pilots in the disruption of this undertaking, this project really will not be of any use.

And it’s worthwhile to finish off the idea of ​​the usefulness of a hypothetical domestic “vertical line” completely.

Vertical thrust versus horizontal speed


You need to understand that there is never enough money, and directing financing to one project it is impossible not to cut funding to another project. When sending money to SEC, it is necessary to understand where they will be taken from. And to be sure that it will be justified. And you also need to understand the time factor.

How much money and time will be spent on creating a hypothetical domestic SKVVP? So far it has taken two years. Already. And some money too. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to make a forecast, focusing, firstly, on how many such planes are created in modern Russia, and, secondly, on how much time it took to create them before.

The closest in complexity to the hypothetical SKVVP is the PAK FA / Su-57 program. Briefly go over it. First about time.

The creation of the fifth generation fighter started in 1986. Now it’s 2020, and the plane is still not ready - there is no full-time engine, there are questions about the radar with AFAR. All this will also be solved, but not today, but within a few years. If we assume that in 2024 we will have in the series a fighter with a second stage engine and more or less localized serial H036 radar, then we can say that for 38 years the task of creating a new generation aircraft was completed.

Briefly go over the stages: MiG 1.42 and 1.44, projects of the Sukhoi Design Bureau S-37 and later S-47 "Golden Eagle", the work of the Design Bureau named after The cradles above the engines that generated the AL-41F, together with the never-built Mikoyan LFI and S-54 from Sukhoi, made up the scientific and technical groundwork necessary for the design and construction of the fighter. In the early 2000s, those OCD started, which eventually spawned the Su-57 and would soon spawn its full-time engine and radar. Without the previous array of work on experimental combat aircraft and engines for them, the PAK FA program would not have started.




The fair value of these two aircraft must be added to the PAK FA program.

Thus, to create a fundamentally new car, our country needs 35-40 years.

And if you count from the start of the PAK FA program, without taking into account the time spent on the previous backlog, then the countdown should be from 2001. That is, today it is 19 years old, and for our hypothetical 2024 - 23.

But maybe there is an opportunity to somehow resolve the issue more quickly? Let's look at how these issues were resolved before.

So, our first serial vertically flying attack aircraft, which was truly combat-ready, was the Yak-38M of 1984. A little-known fact - in terms of its qualities in percussion operations, this machine surpassed the Harriers and lost the first place among the verticals only in 1987, with the advent of the Harrier II.


Option “M” and “clean” Yak-38, many consider the same aircraft, but this was far from the case. In the photo, the color version characteristic of the latest serial Yak-38M

Of course, in terms of its flight-technical characteristics, the Yak was much inferior to normal aircraft, but it was absolutely inevitable, the Harrier was also worse than the Phantoms, and the F-35B was significantly worse than the F-35C.

How long did it take Yakovlev Design Bureau, the Navy and the USSR as a whole to finally create a normal combat VTOL? We look at the stages:

1960-1967: the Yak-36 project, a stillborn demonstrator of the possibility of vertical take-off, which, however, had a fatal effect on naval aviation and the navy on the brain of D.F. Ustinova.

1967-1984: the epic with the first serial "vertical" - the Yak-36M / 38. This car was created for three years, then for seven years it went to a series, after entering service, it turned out that the planes were not operational, they had to be redone at first, sometimes directly on the ships, this did not help, in 1980 they were sent to the war in Afghanistan, where it was possible to choose the optimal settings for the engines and nozzles during take-off. After that, the aircraft quickly reached the limit of their combat effectiveness and showed that they could not fight, after which the following modification was created, which became more or less combat ready.

Total: 24 years to the first serial finished attack aircraft. What about the Yak-41? He was prevented by the collapse of the USSR, but before the collapse of the USSR, they were engaged in this machine since 1974 (the first drawings began to be drawn even earlier). Thus, 17 years passed from the political decision to create an aircraft to the start of its tests - and all this was before the collapse of the USSR. Then the Americans paid for several more years of testing and the construction of two more prototypes, and even this was not enough to at least approach the real capabilities of this machine. For today, there is documentation and one sample suitable as a guide. He is being dragged now through workshops and laboratories as part of ongoing research.

Thus, in the USSR, the timing of the creation of military aircraft was not much shorter. But maybe it is we Russians who are so blue-legged, and we need to learn something in the West? Also no. At Harrier (if you count with Kestrel, which is inseparable from the final machine), the path from drawing to commissioning took 12 years from 1957 (the beginning of work on Kestrel) to 1969 (the first production Harriers in the Air Force). At the same time, this aircraft had avionics at the Stone Age level, and later it was necessary to develop its marine modification, which also cost time and money. If the British took Kestrel from the start as a sea plane, at 12 they would not have been able to meet it.


Hero Falkland began in the era of black and white photo

A more recent example is the American Joint Strike Fighter program, which spawned the F-35. It began back in 1993, and she had previous studies. Only 13 years later, the F-35 was selected as the winner in the competition, but only in 2015 the first air force unit on these machines reached combat readiness, and the first F-35B air defense systems reached combat readiness only in 2018.

These are the real deadlines for creating new aircraft today.

How much does it cost in money? Leave America and focus on our financial realities. It is still known that about 57 billion rubles were spent on the Su-60. But, firstly, in this amount there is not a penny from the period 1986-2001, there are no expenses for the creation of NTZ, and there are only two flying aircraft in it, one MiG and one Su. Secondly, the various associated OCD, which were funded by the Ministry of Industry and Trade, were not taken into account. Today, we, apparently, can confidently say that the creation of a fundamentally new machine on the existing NTZ (let, for example, materials on the Yak-41/141 and “Product 201” be considered NTZ), can cost about 70-80 billion rubles. If it turns out that the existing NTZ is not sufficient (and this is already so in fact - otherwise, “on the instructions of the president”, the ROC would immediately begin to create the “vertical line”, but R&D would begin), then the amount should be increased, the terms too.

Let's just say - really, if you push hard and invest serious resources, get a ready SKVVP by 2040. Naturally, we are talking only about the first flying prototype.

But by the time the fifth generation is already obsolete. Today it is not clear exactly what the 6th generation fighter will be, while a number of domestic experts believe that it is impossible to realize the transition to a new level of combat capabilities, while remaining within the same machine and we should talk about a system of various manned and unmanned vehicles operating jointly. How to enter here the work on the new “vertical” is an open question, but the fact that the transition to the next generation is not cheap and more important than the “vertical” can be considered accomplished.

The conclusion from all this is simple: if now we “turn off the path” that our country embarked on in 1982, that is, from the path of creating full-fledged carrier forces, with normal aircraft carriers and planes with horizontal take-off and landing, then to create only one plane with with short or vertical take-off and vertical landing, it will take us at least 80 billion rubles and at least 20 years of time - and this is only up to the first prototypes, not up to the series.

And if you do not collapse? And if you do not turn off, then we suddenly find that the ship (deck) fighter in our series. It's about the MiG-29K.


In our country, a fully-fledged multi-functional ship fighter is mass-produced. In the photo - MiG-29K on the deck of the aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya" Indian Navy

At the mention of this plane, some start to frown, but let's call a spade a spade - this is a GOOD plane. Moreover, it is in service not only in our fleet, but also in the Indian Navy - and not the fact that the Indians will not buy it yet. And this despite the fact that they already have more MiGs than ours. But they have a choice.

What are its disadvantages? There are basically three of them.

The first is the old radar. Even the latest version of the Zhuk radar with AFAR does not fully satisfy the requirements of a modern war. The second problem is high landing speed. It is known that our pilots-decks even observed detachment of the retina from overload during landing. I must say that this is abnormal, this should not happen, and not only because of humanism, but also because it imposes restrictions on the maximum number of landings per day for an individual pilot and limits the possibilities for combat training.

The last problem is the long and laborious inter-flight service.

Potentially, in the future, if or when it comes to creating a catapult aircraft carrier, you will need a modification with a reinforced bow and a front landing gear that can withstand a catapult launch.

What do we have in this way?

Firstly, the plane is already there. We do not need 20 years of time and 80 billion money to create it. Secondly, the example of the F-35C, for which the Americans developed a new wing to improve landing characteristics, shows that the problem of high landing speed is solvable. Moreover, the Americans decided it in 4 years - just so much later relative to the machine for the Air Force deck option "C" came into operation.


Differences between the wings of the F-35C from other aircraft options.

Actually, when modifications to an airplane are limited to a glider, they usually last several years — the Chinese made their decked aircraft under an ejection launch in about the same time frame and they are now flying from their ground experimental catapults.


Chinese J-15 with reinforced nose strut for ejection launch

The problem of radar with AFAR can also be solved in five or six years, if you deal with it: at least, they have finally started investing in this issue. That is, a new radar may well appear on the new MiG, moreover, over the same five to six years. All this, of course, will also require money and time - but incomparably less than a fundamentally new aircraft, and most importantly - we repeat - there is no need to wait for new aircraft until there is a “new MiG” that can be dispensed with by those that are and are produced in series.

The service problem looks difficult to solve - but even our MiG is much better than the F-35 in this parameter, and secondly, the severity of this problem can be reduced to some extent on future modifications, although it will not be completely solved.

Thus, in terms of aircraft, Russia faces a choice of two ways.

First: to use a production car, which is in service with the fleets of the two countries, was used once in military operations, has a double combat training option, which is not very bad by any standards, although it does not reach the F-35C, and as soon as finances allow , make a new modification, which will be created in about 5 years.

Second: to invest fantastic money in the “vertical” project, which with a 100% probability will have no better avionics than other domestic aircraft by the time they are ready, will lag behind the West as much as our conventional planes, and all this for the sake of so that in twenty or more years of hard work we get an airplane inferior to what we can have a maximum of five years from now.

Common sense tells us that there really is no choice here, and those who try to present the matter in such a way that it does exist, commit treason or stupidity, looking at whom they are talking about.

For technological and financial reasons, the bet on serial equipment for us so far has no alternative character.

From which the second conclusion follows - the bet on an existing aircraft carrier, too, so far has no alternative character.

Kuznetsov and our near future


The propaganda of ideas such as “Aircraft carriers are outdated” and “Russia doesn’t need an aircraft carrier”, which was absolutely distraught by heat, has already dealt so hard a blow to the minds of our people that the fact of having an aircraft carrier in our fleet simply fell out of mass consciousness. The frenzied propaganda of the futility of American aircraft carriers played a cruel joke with us - our people are now confident in the futility of this class of ships in general, and the result was that the future of now Russian aircraft carriers has come into question. Our propaganda is indifferent to the Americans. Many people in Russia simply don’t remember that we, generally speaking, HAVE aircraft carrier forces, consisting of one aircraft carrier and two (!) Aviation regiments.

Another thing is that they are not operational. But for now.

Generally speaking, it is worth remembering that the first landing of a ship’s aircraft on a ship in our country was in 1972, the first combat use of ship’s ground attack aircraft in combat was 1980, and in the same year the Tavkr with Yaks was used to pressure a foreign country - successfully. It’s also worth remembering that at the time of the collapse of the USSR, the number of aircraft-carrying ships in our country was as follows: 4 in service, 1 in testing, and 2 in construction, which made our aircraft carrier firmly second in the world after the United States, there are no Britain and France nearby did not stand in those years.

If NATO is dropped, then five countries have Eurasia - two in China, one in service and one in completion in India, one in Russia and one in Thailand. The USSR or Russia was related to all of them, except for the Thai "Shakri Narubet." Our Kuznetsov and Chinese Liaoning are Soviet sisterships, Shandong is a further development of what is called the Kuznetsov-class in the West, Vikramadis is a former Baku / Admiral Gorshkov rebuilt already in post-Soviet Russia , and the Nevsky Design Bureau took an active part in the creation of the Indian Wikrant.

All Indian carrier-based combat aircraft made in our country, and the Chinese are the development of the Su-33.

Some, as many people think, “alien” to Russia in relation to aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft is just a hassle that has been induced from the outside, and nothing more. It is necessary to reset it already.


The pride of the Indian Navy is the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier, built in the USSR, rebuilt as an aircraft carrier in Russia, and Russian-made carrier-based fighter aircraft. But we still "don’t know how to be an aircraft carrier," of course, yes?

The fact that against such a background there are individuals who are quite seriously arguing that “aircraft carriers are not for us” and other similar things, looks strange for a healthy person.

Let's get back to reality.

Aircraft carriers become obsolete only when aviation becomes obsolete and not earlier. An aircraft carrier is an aerodrome for airplanes that can ensure their deployment where ground airfields are too far away. No nearby airfields? Need an aircraft carrier. Do you want to have an aircraft carrier? Refuse national interests where you do not have airfields NEAR.

And if there are not “interests” there, but rather real threats, then REFUSE THE NEUTRALIZATION OF THESE THREATS.

There are no other options and do not try to come up with them.

It’s almost impossible to fight without aviation even in very wild countries - at least if we have in mind the war with some sane goals, deadlines and reasonable losses. And airfields are far from everywhere.

These issues were discussed in more detail in the articles. “Coast Defense Carrier” и “Carrier issue. The fire at Kuznetsovo and the possible future of aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation ”. The first of them reflects the early views of the command of the Navy of the USSR and Russia on the use of aircraft carriers in the country's defense, the second reveals their importance in the current political situation, and at the same time describes in detail how to deal with Kuznetsov so that it becomes truly useful for the country ship, from changing approaches to combat training to improvement. And this is exactly what needs to be done first. It is such a set of measures that should be the first step towards the revival (namely, the revival, and not the creation!) Of our carrier forces.


First we must restore what we already have. For real

What's next? Next - build a new one. The bigger, the better. And here it is worth listening to the senior command staff of the Navy. Usually criticized (for the cause) in the case of aircraft carriers, our admirals responsible for shipbuilding are more right than ever.

Here is what, for example, the former deputy said. Navy Commander-in-Chief for Arms Vice Admiral V.I. Bursuk before his resignation:

“The fleet believes that from the point of view of the economic relationship“ price - quality ”, light aircraft carriers are not practical for Russia to build. It is preferable to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons, which allow you to carry more aircraft on board. "

Neither add nor take away. The larger the ship, the stronger its air group, the less it depends on the unrest at sea, the less accidents it has when moving planes on the deck and in the hangar, the easier it is for pilots to conduct combat work.

What if for organizational reasons such ships cannot be built? Then it is possible to study the issue of building an aircraft carrier in a class similar to the Indian Wickrant or French Charles de Gaulle, but with an important caveat - if you can create a ship with seaworthiness at least at the Kuznetsov level with less displacement. Approaches to this task were described in the article. “Aircraft carrier for Russia. Faster than you expect. ”.

And there is a clearly stipulated condition - if calculations and experiments on models show that it is not possible to provide the necessary seaworthiness on such a ship, then there are no options left, it is impossible to build such ships, and our country will have to take the “aircraft carrier barrier” for real.

This will not be the most difficult barrier that we took, even close, you just need to get together and do it. And this will not be the most costly of our barriers, we have mastered more expensive events, and not so long ago.

Financial issue


The last myth left to debunk is that by betting on using “large” UDCs or light aircraft carriers as carriers, you can save at least on ships.

For an adequate assessment of investments, one thing must be clearly understood - we are not interested in the ship itself, but in what it gives. For example, for a URO ship, its missile salvo is important. And for the carrier forces, it is important how many sorties they can provide in a TOTAL unit per time. Roughly speaking, we are not buying an aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers, but plane departures per hour, taking into account the unrest at sea.

So, for example, the same Falklands showed that for light British aircraft carriers and their planes even 20 sorties per day is almost an unattainable value. That means the hundreds of millions (billions at current prices) of pounds that the British cost to build three defective Invincible ships, they could provide a theoretical limit of 60 sorties per day for a short period of time, but rather 45-51.

First, we will estimate how many sorties can be provided by our current aircraft carrier, which we use as a “starting point” - Kuznetsov.

Unfortunately, in practice, our naval aviation did not fly at maximum takeoff and landing performance - we simply never had the right number of pilots who could fly from the deck. Before the Syrian campaign, the situation began to be rectified - the deployment of the 100th okiap began, but neither he nor the naval aviation, which had previously been in the naval aviation of the 279th, had reached the Syrian operation, and the aircraft carrier, which had already overdue all conceivable repair terms, was even less ready for a real war. As, however, and his crew.

But all this is fixable, if you work, and there is hope that when the ship nevertheless goes out of repair, naval aviation will be able to rehabilitate itself. In the meantime, we have a theory.

First, we will take it for granted that, due to the need not to exceed the physical load on pilots, and also because of the need to provide inter-flight service to the entire air group in cramped ship conditions, we cannot provide more than two flights per day. In fact, two is not the limit, but for now we use this assumption.

Kuznetsov's hangar makes it easy to place up to 24 MiG-29s and several helicopters of the search and rescue service, apparently 6.

The deck of the ship allows you to place on it up to 13 combat aircraft of the Su-33 type, in the case of MiGs, most likely, it will be the same. We can assume that the deck allows you to hold up to 12 MiGs and one or two MSS helicopters on it.

A logical approach is obtained in which the maximum number of combat groups sent “in one lift” is 12 aircraft. Relatively speaking, we place on the deck 1 "strike" as the Americans say, out of 12 cars, refueled and suspended weapons, in the hangar - the second, all served, just without fuel and weapons.

Then comes the rise of the first group into the air.

How long does it take?

Setting the aircraft to the starting position with well-trained personnel is unlikely to differ from the speed with which the Americans roll their planes on a catapult, that is, about 4 minutes on average. But there is some opportunity to accelerate.

The fact is that when lifting a group to strike, at least the first three aircraft can take off “conveyor” - three cars are at the starting positions, and three more behind the lifted gas bumpers with engines already running. In this case, the first three starts, for example, with an interval of 30 seconds between the planes, which gives us three planes in the air in the first 1,5 minutes, for the next two we get those who stood behind the gas strippers, this is another 2 minutes for all three cars , plus another one and a half for take-off of the second three, so after 5 minutes we have 6 aircraft in the air, and taking into account the required 4 to roll out the first aircraft to launch, we get 6 cars in 9 minutes.


Placing the next in line for the start of aircraft for gas strippers

Then the situation becomes more complicated - you can no longer keep the queue behind the gas chambers, there are already airplanes in the air, if necessary, to ensure an emergency landing, you need to clear the landing zone on the deck as quickly as possible, so the planes will be fed to the launch from the technical positions and after taking off the first two triples we have 4 minutes to exit to the starting position for each troika and 1,5 minutes to take off. Total 5,5. Since our battle group is 12 cars, and the first two triples are already in the air, the other two will take off in 11 minutes. Plus to the first nine we have 20 minutes for 12 cars. After that, they must be "reduced" in the air into a single system and sent to the target. Suppose this takes another 10 minutes.

Total half an hour.

How much time will it take for the aircraft to complete a combat mission? If you don’t fall into fanaticism and act like Americans, then for the maximum allowable combat radius in a real war, you can take 500-550 kilometers. Suppose that the aircraft will fly to the target at a speed of 850 km / h, and will perform the same flight at the same speed. Then the group will return in about 1 hour and 20 minutes. Then she will need to be put on the deck. Thus, the aircraft carrier’s crew will have about 1 hour and 20 minutes to send the second group to strike. Adding here the 10 minutes that the group gathered in the air, we get an hour and a half.

Of these, 20 minutes the second group will need to take off after refueling and suspension of weapons, respectively, to rise from the hangar 12 aircraft, their placement on deck, refueling and suspension of weapons is 1 hour and 10 minutes.

Kuznetsov has two lifts, each of which can simultaneously lift 2 aircraft. At the same time, it is not required to occupy them at the moment of lifting the air group, so the rise of the first four planes from the hangar can be carried out while preparing for the take-off of the first group. Then the lifts are blocked, the planes just stand.

Accordingly, after taking off the last aircraft in the first group, 4 aircraft from the next group will already be on deck, and another 8 in the hangar. Refueling and suspending weapons for four aircraft, and raising eight more from the hangar (these are two lifting and lowering aircraft), which also need to be refueled and armed, do not look unrealistic in one hour, although they go “butt”, like in general, as a whole, takeoff according to the described scheme.

In total, at the maximum pace, in 1 hour 40 minutes you can try to raise 24 cars for a strike, provided that they were prepared for the departure in advance, half were in technical positions, refueling and with suspended weapons, and of the remaining 4 cars were on locked lifts , four more in the hangar ready to be served on the lifts, four behind them, the ASP are ready to be served on the deck.

Immediately after this, the landing of the first group should begin, its placement in technical positions, fuel drain, removal of unused weapons, and cleaning of aircraft in the hangar. For this, the crew of the ship will have the same hour and a half. Is it real?

Watch the landing animation. The man who made this video, many years ago, participated in the creation of domestic ship planes for Kuznetsov.


The video shows landing of 9 aircraft, but the deck is not empty, one of the starting positions is occupied by a fighter ready for take-off, one technical position is also occupied, and stops on the lifts are not made. Theoretically, there is no reason to believe that 12 cars cannot be put on a completely empty deck in the same mode. To land them at a 60-second interval, thus, it will take about 12 minutes without taking into account the time of approach to the glide path of the first aircraft and without taking into account possible misses by the cable or cable breaks.

At the same time, the impact on a 550-kilometer radius in theory leaves enough fuel to fit the entire group, although also without special reserves. On the other hand, we make an approximate estimate “on the fingers”, and if later it turns out that for the declared number of air groups the exact combat radius should be no more than 450 km, then this makes little difference.

Thus, after landing the first group, the crew will be required to drain fuel from the aircraft in about an hour and 18 minutes, remove unused TSA, and in groups of 4 cars lower the aircraft into the hangar, and then immediately proceed to take the next air group.

What does this indicative estimate show? It shows that when flying out to strike with large forces, the maximum number of strike groups will be about 12 vehicles. If it’s less, then not by much, most likely not less than 10. And in half a day the ship will easily send into battle and take back two such groups, that is, almost all of its aircraft. Taking as a limit two sorties per day per pilot, we get approximately 48 sorties per day, two per plane. It looks quite realistic.

Of course, when performing air defense tasks, or when working in small groups, on 2-4 aircraft, or in any other circumstances, the statistics will be different.

For example, the possibility of an almost continuous ascent of the entire air group while working on a short combat radius is theoretically justified, although this is possible only when deviating from the current safety standards, for example, while in the hangar there will inevitably be refueling aircraft with suspended weapons, and the lifts will work in the moment of aircraft lifting into the air.

In addition, there will be no way to quickly interrupt the take-off of an air group if a plane that previously took off suddenly needs a landing, for example, due to a technical malfunction. But we know an approximate figure for a landmark - 48 sorties a day. If the pilot can be sent into battle three times with a knock, then more, but this is already under serious question.

Why do we need this criterion?

Then, what if we theorize about new aircraft carriers, then their ability to raise aircraft should not be less.

And also because it is important for us not only to know with what capacity a ship can provide aircraft lift, we also need to understand the relationship between the capabilities of promising ships and their costs. How many sorties per day for a billion rubles can we do with one or another development option of the Russian aircraft carrier forces, that’s what’s important.

And here the supporters of the concept of "UDC instead of an aircraft carrier" will have to "make room" a lot.

First about the prices.

How much can one really save on UDC or a similarly sized vertical carrier carrier if you build it, and not an aircraft carrier?

Let's compare.

Imagine that the Navy built something like the Italian “Kavur” - 10 VTOL aircraft in a hangar, you can optionally carry it (instead of aviation) Tanks, a little less than 30 kilotons of displacement. To the Italians such a ship stood at a little over 1,5 billion dollars. We, taking into account the fact that we can not buy components on the world market, will get up at about 2.


Station wagon. And an aircraft carrier for 10 aircraft, and a helicopter carrier for a battalion of lightly armed assault troops, and a carrier of two boats for a foot landing company and a ferry for transporting equipment from port to port. It remains only to imagine a war where exactly this is needed

Well, or 140 billion rubles. This is quite logical, because the “small” UDCs of project 23900 that are unable to carry aircraft will cost about “from 50 billion”, and for them most likely there is a ready-made power plant, electronic weapons there will be many times easier and much more.

What do we have for 140 billion? Assuming that our “vertical” will be able to perform the same number of sorties per day as the MiG-29K from Kuznetsov, we get about 20 sorties.

But Kuznetsov has 48. We need something comparable. Therefore, we must build another “Russian Cavour”. And now we have the opportunity to complete 40 sorties. For 280 billion rubles.

However, here it is also necessary to add the cost of OCD for airplanes, because the development of vertical lines costs money. Accordingly, another 280 billion is added to 80 billion, and roundly our project rises to us 360 billion.

But the trouble is the price of a catapult aircraft carrier. With the same air group as Kuznetsov’s, with the same range in terms of sorties (approximately), under an upgraded serial fighter, but — attention — with the possibility in the future to place on it AWACS aircraft, even Chinese, purchased, and made on their basis transport aircraft.

As a result, for the same money we get opportunities that are never realized at Russian Cavour, and potentially, albeit not a big, but real superiority in the number of sorties per day.

After that, the differences begin. For a catapult aircraft carrier, we need one crew, and for two “Kavuros” two are almost the same. This is money.

The infrastructure for basing is needed in double size, the tankers for providing fuel - in double size, and this is also money. Tanker - 3-4 billion minimum. Take it out.

At the same time, the technical risks of the second option are unbelievable, the aircraft may not work out, and it may take a long time to lay down ships until it can fly.

And wait 20 years, if not more.

But you can look at the situation differently.

Suppose, in Russia, they built a 70000-ton nuclear carrier for, for example, 500 billion rubles - as objects for the Sochi Olympics. Did the Olympics in Sochi bust you?

What will the fleet get in terms of the number of departures from such a ship? Based on the Americans, one can say that 100-120 a day without tension, since there will be more air groups than 24 aircraft.

How many “Russian Kavurov” do we need to work out the same way? Five six.

And this is already in the money 700-840 billion for the ships themselves and 80 for the creation of a missile defense system. Almost a trillion. And then the difference will begin to pile up on crews, moorings, supply tankers and everything else. For the same effect that one large ship will give.


And much more severe weather restrictions - remember about small ships on the pitching.

In general, everything is like the English - one to one. It makes no difference, right up to the fire on the aircraft carrier being repaired. We just need to do something different from what they did at one time. We need to do the opposite.

Conclusion


At present, our carrier forces, consisting of an aircraft carrier cruiser (in fact it’s been an aircraft carrier for a long time, the Granites can’t fly from this ship for a long time, and they don’t need it on it) the Admiral Kuznetsov, as well as the 100th and 279th separate naval aviation regiments are not combat ready. The regiments have insufficient training and have not yet reached the required level of combat readiness, and the ship is under repair, complicated by the unavailability of the dock necessary for its completion.

Nevertheless, this state of affairs is far from catastrophic - no later than 2025 the aircraft carrier will be back in service, and regiments, if the information on organizational conclusions following the results of the Syrian operation is correct, will be more or less able to carry out their mission.

The starting point in the further evolution of these forces should be to bring Kuznetsov, its crew and the aircraft operating from it to the maximum possible combat readiness. In addition, the problem of basing both this ship and the air regiments must finally be solved, since Severomorsk-3 is absolutely unsuitable as a base for ship (deck) aviation.

In the future, it is necessary to find opportunities to implement the provisions of the "Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period until 2030" regarding the creation of a marine aircraft carrier complex. Although the development of such has not even begun yet, but if you focus on the statements of Vice Admiral Bursuk and other senior naval officers responsible for shipbuilding, then this should be a large ship with a nuclear power plant.

In case the creation of such a ship is not possible in the foreseeable future, it is worth exploring the possibility of building an aircraft carrier with a gas turbine power plant, and a displacement of 40 thousand tons, but only on the condition that it is possible to come up with such a hull form that would ensure acceptable seaworthiness for such a ship.

Otherwise, it makes no sense to build it and in any case, you need to look for the opportunity to get a normal ship for the fleet - right up to its joint construction with another country.

And here are ideas that are actively being promoted now in the press that UDC can be used instead of an aircraft carrier, that you can quickly create a plane with short or vertical take-off and vertical landing and replace normal aircraft carrier forces with an ersatz from a landing ship and air defense missile system, or even limit yourself Helicopters are malicious. Moreover, there are examples when in the past such ideas were deliberately thrown from abroad. The fact that neither the Navy nor the VKS do not feel any enthusiasm for research on the subject of SQUWP is very indicative - they simply do not need it. And it’s not necessary not because they don’t understand something, but because it really isn’t necessary.

Taking into account the fact that behind the idea of ​​replacing an aircraft carrier with a UDC, with which horribly individual figures in the "near fleet" begin to loom, it is worthwhile to once again focus on the fact that our country does not need defective aircraft carriers and their similarities for a lot of money. Our country needs a moderate-priced fleet with maximum return on every ruble invested.

And normal aircraft carrier forces in the long run meet this requirement much better than crazy projects of aircraft with obscure prospects and "ships for the poor."
Author:
Articles from this series:
Defective aircraft carriers and their strange planes. Falklands and Harriers
Defective aircraft carriers and their price to society
Defective aircraft carriers and attempts to replace them. UDC, Izumo and Queen Elizabeth
366 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Demagogue
    Demagogue 2 June 2020 18: 15 New
    +1
    I did not see any new arguments in this article. We still need UDC, Yak-141m2, too. I will remind those who are against ATSS that they are needed to support the landing force in the first place, and not for strike operations at sea. The Americans, having full-fledged aircraft carriers, in the bay nevertheless allocated a fishing rod for Harrier work along the coast. No ka-52 aircraft will not replace. They have a small radius and are vulnerable to the most primitive air defense. Better a light aircraft carrier than none. Then there will be money, it will be seen.
    1. andranick
      andranick 2 June 2020 18: 43 New
      12
      The author convinced me that VTOL is evil. So be it. But tell me, do we decide to project power at a great distance from our shores? Yes, and in depth is not so far? If so, if Russia needs an expeditionary force with deployment from the sea coast, then yes, aircraft carriers are needed, and as much as possible, together with UDC. And if the projection of force will go deeper into the mainland, where to stick aircraft carriers ?! And why did the author decide that Russia directly needs a projection of force in general, and carried out by naval forces and means in particular ?! Maybe it made sense to talk about an aircraft carrier, but about an escort, and I doubt its necessity.
      P.S. Прошу специалистов поправить если что. Просто накипело, достало уже это бесконечно "нам нужна очередная вундервафля" без обоснования нахрена она нужна и почему именно такая.
      1. Tiksi-3
        Tiksi-3 2 June 2020 19: 01 New
        -7
        Quote: andranick
        But tell me, do we decide to project power at a great distance from our shores?

        the answer you know is Syria ... another 50 years + 25 years
        1. andranick
          andranick 2 June 2020 19: 13 New
          +4
          I know Syria. And there you need an aircraft carrier?
          1. Tiksi-3
            Tiksi-3 2 June 2020 19: 18 New
            0
            Quote: andranick
            I know Syria. And there you need an aircraft carrier?

            do you need tanks there? negative belay
            you boorishly wrote nonsense! - quote
            Quote: andranick
            But tell me do we decide to project power far away from its shores?

            I answered the question ...... and you started: do you need aircraft carriers, and does it make sense in tanks with a Strategic Missile Forces .... why do we need 5th generation aircraft when it's quite 4 ++ ..... and it all comes from your phrase -
            Quote: andranick
            And there you need an aircraft carrier?

            only an air wing can guaranteed cover from the destruction of our strategic nuclear submarines, when they are deployed !! learn the theory !!
            1. andranick
              andranick 2 June 2020 19: 23 New
              0
              Dmitry, you don’t need to be rude, if you think that I wrote nonsense, please be kind enough to explain yourself and not to throw phrases. All judgments about tanks and Strategic Rocket Forces are a figment of your imagination, I don’t know what inspired.
              And tell me, what strategic nuclear submarines are you going to cover in the Syrian region with an aircraft carrier formation?
              Quote: andranick
              I know Syria. And there you need an aircraft carrier?

              Quote: Tiksi-3
              Quote: andranick
              And there you need an aircraft carrier?
              only an air wing can guaranteed cover from the destruction of our strategic nuclear submarines, when they are deployed !! learn the theory !!
              1. Tiksi-3
                Tiksi-3 2 June 2020 19: 37 New
                -6
                Quote: andranick
                kindly explain

                belay everything wrote to you !! ... you ask a question and know the answer to it - this is trolling!
                Quote: andranick
                All judgments about tanks and Strategic Missile Forces - a figment of your imagination

                все ваши "умозаключения про авиафлот" -
                Quote: andranick
                figment of your imagination, I do not know what inspired.

                Quote: andranick
                And tell me, what strategic nuclear submarines are you going to cover in the Syrian region with an aircraft carrier formation?

                firstly, these are your problems, that you understood my post as if the nuclear submarines were needed in the Mediterranean! ... I didn’t write this, I wrote you the answer to -
                Quote: andranick
                need an aircraft carrier?

                An aircraft carrier is needed and not one!
                1. andranick
                  andranick 2 June 2020 19: 41 New
                  0
                  Quote: Tiksi-3
                  First of all, it’s your problems, that you understood my post as if the nuclear submarines were needed in the Mediterranean! ... I didn’t write this

                  Well, as it were, the development of dialogue involves. It was about Syria, and there was no need to pull phrases out of context.
                  Quote: Tiksi-3
                  the answer you know is Syria ... another 50 years + 25 years

                  Quote: andranick
                  I know Syria. And there you need an aircraft carrier?

                  Quote: Tiksi-3
                  Quote: andranick
                  And there you need an aircraft carrier?

                  only an air wing can guaranteed cover from the destruction of our strategic nuclear submarines, when they are deployed !! learn the theory !!
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 3 June 2020 14: 16 New
                    13
                    Quote: andranick
                    Well, as it were, the development of dialogue involves.

                    Let me wedge into your not very well-established dialogue. hi
                    Quote: andranick
                    I know Syria. And there you need an aircraft carrier?

                    Андрей , авианосцы нам нужны не столько в Сирии(точнее - в Восточном Средиземноморье или Средиземном море вообще) , а для прикрытия районов боевого развёртывания наших РПКСН , так называемых "бастионов" . Прикрытия в первую очередь от ПРОТИВОЛОДОЧНОЙ авиации противника - главного врага наших подводных ракетоносцев . То есть на ТОФ и СФ . Базовой авиацией прикрытие осуществить крайне сложно - огромные расстояния , то есть авиация прикрытия будет постоянно запаздывать и в реальной боевой обстановке скорей всего опоздает и не выполнит БЗ . То есть авианосцы нам нужны для обеспечения ПВО в конкретных морских акваториях .
                    On normal (!) Airplanes, with a normal (!) Combat radius and the possibility of prolonged patrolling / air watch in a given area.
                    Basic aviation is extremely difficult or almost impossible to do.
                    It is a fact .
                    And this problem must be solved.
                    Теперь о Сирии и "дальних берегах" . Как бы кому не казалось , но Россия - великая держава у которой есть свои интересы за её рубежами . И эти интересы надо защищать .
                    Protect by demonstrating the strength of weapons and their capabilities, otherwise you can forget about your interests abroad.
                    Where do we have such interests?
                    Firstly the Mediterranean. And this is not only Syria, but also Egypt, Libya, Algeria. In addition, our state corporations and Russian business generally have considerable interests in Africa. These interests must also be protected.
                    Where else ?
                    Latin America . The same Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua (recently, together with China, work began on the construction of the transoceanic canal, with better throughput than Panama yes ) And some time ago, Argentina and Brazil really wanted to be friends with us ... but there the Anglo-Saxons made coups with the liquidation of the presidents ... a fast-moving type of cancer (as happened with Chavez).
                    In Venezuela, we have very big interests (and plans) and they need to be protected. Venezuela WANTS to have our naval base, and preferably two - a naval base and an air base, as in Syria.
                    And for this, Russia needs a Fleet. And for the combat stability of the fleet on long hikes, air cover is required - that is, an aircraft carrier. In this case, the aircraft carrier is not only a carrier of fighters on its deck, but also a carrier of AWACS aircraft, which provides control of air and surface space for hundreds of kilometers around.
                    A light aircraft carrier cannot be a carrier of AWACS aircraft, in principle, medium (according to VI) with a big stretch and limitations ... So the very order of the tasks facing the Fleet requires the presence of large aircraft-carrying ships - from 45 tons (average ) up to 000 tons and above.
                    What should be their quantity?
                    From 4 to 6 on two fleets (Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet). Of course, with the escort ships laid for such ships. yes
                    Is the Russian state capable of such (including financially)?
                    With such a government and the Central Bank - no. request
                    Но сегодня уникальный момент истории ... и похоже вменяемая часть руководства Страны пытается им воспользоваться . А именно - изменить экономическую парадигму - с фискальной на инвестиционную . И начать вливать в экономику деньги(вместо их откачки в офшоры и "ценные бумаги" своих врагов) .
                    And pouring money into the economy can be done in different ways.
                    You can build roads and new enterprises (there would be buyers for the products of these enterprises), raise salaries for state employees and material assistance to the population.
                    And it is possible by pouring money into large-scale defense orders.
                    Yes Yes . In the United States, they have always done this and have pulled the economy out of the crisis more than once.
                    Such orders will create a host of new high-tech jobs. Each workplace in shipbuilding creates a trailer with 8 - 10 jobs for subcontractors and contractors. And in military shipbuilding - and even more. All this money poured into the defense order will remain in the country, will be circulated in its circulatory / financial system, revitalizing the economy yes . It will spill out through wages to the consumer market and stimulate producers of consumer goods, trade and the services market.
                    The more money poured into the economy, the healthier it will be, and if in the process of such an infusion Russia also builds itself a powerful Navy. smile
                    Moreover, the aircraft carrier. bully
                    And an option - no burden on the budget. smile
                    Thanks to the investment issue in this noble (and the construction of the Navy and the security of the motherland, of course - a good deed) business.
                    Moreover, the money poured into the economy through investments (equity investments, not an overseas uncle, who will then take everything back with interest), the money will sharply increase the tax return to the budget yes and make the economy even healthier.
                    Our economy is not monetized by 50-60%, so such injections only normalize the blood circulation of finances in her body. yes And lead to its rapid and healthy growth.
                    Similar remarkable examples have already been in our history. For example, the history of the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway in 8 (!!! EIGHT) years. hi When all the money for its construction was printed ... it led to a literally explosive economic growth (which was somewhat overshadowed by the unsuccessful war with Japan and the first Russian revolution). And of course, the legendary and unique in the history of the Stalin industrialization.
                    Do you know where Stalin got the money for Industrialization?
                    He PRINTED them.
                    And in 10 years he won back the Economy, which brought the USSR to the advanced countries, ensured Victory in the war and incredibly fast recovery after it.
                    In his speech at the congress, summing up the results of the first five-year plan, Stalin said so: We printed this money. And they built factories, factories, dams, railways, cities, Science ... This money received its security created material values. And the ruble has become one of the hardest currencies.
                    ... Russia again has a chance (the hegemon is on fire and he is not up to us) to repeat the example of its great ancestors.
                    And it seems that something has moved in this direction.
                    bully hi
                    1. andranick
                      andranick 4 June 2020 09: 20 New
                      0
                      bayard, не могу не согласиться с такой точкой зрения. Более того, я ее разделяю, но только в том случае, если определено, что наша цель - построение морской державы. Тогда и шести авианосных соединений мало. Я - ярый противник обретения чего-нибудь ради чего-нибудь, а затем придумывания как это "что-нибудь" применять. Сначала цель, а уж потом определение облика и количества средств достижения цели. Сейчас цель появления авианосца - "шоб було", ибо одиночный авианосец - ни-о-чем. Единственное возможное объяснение - поддержание компетенций в строительстве крупнотоннажных кораблей/судов, ну и да, "пилите, шура, пилите!" СССР и, как преемница его конструкторской мысли - РФ, всегда славилась, как сейчас модно говорить, "асимметричными" ответами, т.е. малыми средствами обнулять супер-пупер-вундервафли потенциальных друзей.
                      My position is first a strong rear, and only then - a projection of force. For this, aircraft carriers are not needed, but, IMHO, technology, communications to the lower level, increased situational awareness are needed, in the fleet - destroyers and RTOs (I will keep silent about the submarine, I don’t have my opinion)
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 4 June 2020 12: 06 New
                        +4
                        There is simply nowhere to build an aircraft carrier and no one - competencies for tasks of this level have not yet been restored. An intermediate step may, and will be, the construction of the UDC. This will give some experience.
                        Строить авианосец можно на 2-х ССЗ в России - на с трудом оживающем "Заливе" , и "Звезда" на Большом камне , который ещё не достроен . Так что никто коней гнать и при желании не сможет - пока работа над проектом\проектами , подготовка производства , персонала , отбор подрядчиков .
                        Quote: andranick
                        if it is determined that our goal is to build a sea power. Then, six aircraft carrier formations are few.

                        It is quite enough, if we keep in mind the construction of another 4-6 UDC.
                        China is now building the fleet at a rate 4 times higher (in terms of tonnage per year) than the United States, which ... which may soon not be on the map.
                        This is a very real possibility.
                        And then what ?
                        Do you think China will be better as a new hegemon?
                        I am sure that for us - the white race - worse.
                        And you have to be ready for everything.
                        By yourself.
                        Is the modern leadership of Russia able to assess the degree of threats and competently work to prevent them?
                        At the moment - not sure.
                        Although some time ago there was hope.
                        However, Russia is a wonderland.
                        Let us hope for a miracle, for Hope always dies last.
                        hi
                      2. ycuce234-san
                        ycuce234-san 4 June 2020 19: 30 New
                        -2
                        This will give some experience.


                        Самый важный опыт из необходимых - устойчиво научиться судостроению на деньги иностранных заказчиков. Поэтому нужно сначала строить то за что готовы заплатить деньги немедлено и вперед а не то, что хочется и строить быстро, чтобы иметь оборот и технологические компетенции. Заодно можно бесплатно проверять различные кораблестроительные идеи, вплоть до бредовых, на "мышах-добровольцах". Собственные авики - это, отнюдь, не вопрос жизни и смерти, поэтому их нужно клёпать для иностранцев.
                      3. 3danimal
                        3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 02 New
                        0
                        About the United States, which may not be on the map. Are you seriously? Because of the BLM pandemic and riots?
                      4. bayard
                        bayard 21 July 2020 02: 37 New
                        -1
                        Пандемия и безпорядки , это всё следствия глубочайшего раскола элит в США . Всё это отнюдь не стихия негритянского "протеста" и разгул фантастического вируса - это инструменты глобального передела мира , трансформации .
                        If Trump holds out, the United States will no longer be as strong and united as before. After the presidential elections, a civil war is very likely there, which will leave no stone unturned from the States. And most likely they will not become a single state.
                        And even if by some miracle Trump manages to hold on to all this ... there will be financial reform, massive bankruptcies, and the cancellation of debt obligations. It will definitely not be up to the fleet. On the contrary, the United States will close its overseas bases and scale back its presence.
                        Who will take their place?
                        England's dreams are hardly realistic.
                        But China is another matter.
                        And this is a problem for everyone.
                        So it would be better if the United States still lived and fought with the red dragon, you see, and we would start thinking with our heads.
                        And there is no one else - Europe does not count.
                        Was blown away.
                        China and has serious views on it.
                      5. 3danimal
                        3danimal 21 July 2020 03: 24 New
                        +3
                        You know, it looks like the work of some of our conspiracy theorists. In which, in fact, there is a hope that developed and richer countries will emerge from the "competition" by themselves. But also defeatism, because it is understood that there is no other option to enter higher positions (in the economy in particular).
                      6. bayard
                        bayard 21 July 2020 04: 12 New
                        -1
                        This is realism. Getting out of the control of supranational structures, getting rid of the dictatorship of the Central Bank and its headquarters in London and New York, is possible only at the moment of the weakening / split of the unity of the Western world. Attempts to do this have previously failed.
                        And that's not the point.
                        The United States is no longer pulling the role of hegemon, Europe is a dead nag, China is rapidly rising and it is no longer possible to maintain a balance of power (not even in the short term).
                        But it's still all with a pitchfork on the water. What the Russian leadership is ready for is not clear. request
                      7. 3danimal
                        3danimal 21 July 2020 04: 43 New
                        +2
                        The point is not in the dictatorship of the "invisible hand", but in the course chosen by the leadership and the elite of Russia. Will our economic situation improve due to problems in the US? Will hydrocarbons stop being the main source of budget revenues?
      2. ancient
        ancient 2 June 2020 19: 45 New
        -3
        Quote: Tiksi-3
        An aircraft carrier is needed and not one!

        Так что же вы ...."обнулённые" за 20 лет "царствования" не построили ни одного...раз он так вам по зарез.."нужён"? request
        Денюжков нема? А перечислить состав свежеко "имперского яхт =флот" ...друзей его величества? wassat
        Оказывается им больше.."нужнее", чем ваши.."мифические авианосцы" wassat
      3. Doctor
        Doctor 2 June 2020 20: 31 New
        -6
        An aircraft carrier is needed and not one!

        Do you have a car?
      4. LeonidL
        LeonidL 3 June 2020 02: 22 New
        -2
        Построить авианосец и не один можно быстро и дешево из бумаги - пусть плавают на страх врагам. Настоящие авианосцы должны пройти долгий путь от компьютерного дизайна, до сборки на стапелях, спуска на воду ... к этому времени уже должны быть сформированы экипажи, начато их обучение по заведованиям, по специальностям, построены самолеты и вертолеты авиагрупп, заложены суда вспомогательного флота для снабжения и, увы, спасения, буксировки, начата постройка полноценного эскорта ... опять таки резкое увеличение набора в ВМ училища, школы мичманов и т д Построена инфраструктура для базирования (это всегдашняя проблема) - причалы, склады, береговые казармы, классы... магазины и базы, клубы и Дома офицеров флота ...бани. И насчет того будут ли востребованы АВ в будущем огромные сомнения (их нет лишь у автора), гиперзвук и новешие технологии возможно обнулят все вложенное, а вложить придется огромные деньги и остановить практически все остальное вм судостроение, переоснащение сухопутной армии. Да и принцип "масло-пушки" никто не отменял. Вам же первому захочется бутыльброда с маслом? А авианосец на хлеб не намажешь ... Да и кризисы, пандомии ... Лучше всеже не витать в эмпириях, а спустится на землю.
        1. pmkemcity
          pmkemcity 3 June 2020 07: 18 New
          -7
          Quote: LeonidL
          ... baths.

          Вот-вот! Взять такого автора, да в баньку в 21-ом отряде, да постричь на голо, а потом "машку" в руки и сто метров коридора, а после приборки построение на верхней палубе при минус 20-ти, да с оркестром, да с прохождением, да с песней "Нам нужны такие корабли на море", и все это два-три раза (палуба то о-го-го). Ну а уже ночью, можно на цыпочках, чтобы "уставшего" от техобслуживания дядю летчика не разбудить, в "Ленинскую комнату", плакаты про Сирию рейсфедером выводить... За пару часов, под утро он столько самолето-вылетов во сне совершит, что по подъему первым в гальюне топливо сольет.
        2. Alexandra
          Alexandra 3 June 2020 14: 13 New
          +3
          Quote: LeonidL
          It’s possible to build an aircraft carrier and not one quickly and cheaply out of paper - let the enemies swim in fear. Real aircraft carriers must go a long way from computer design, to assembly on stocks, launching ...


          Первый в мире атомный авианосец "Энтерпрайз" - закладка 4 февраля 1958 года, ввод в эксплуатацию 25 ноября 1961 года. Видимо дело в том что тогда ни компьютерного дизайна ни "миллениалов" ещё не было.
        3. max702
          max702 3 June 2020 17: 55 New
          +1
          Согласен с вами, нет целей для авианесущего флота у нашей страны,у всех одна отговорка надо АУГ чтобы прикрыть РПКСН..На кой городить "нормальный" флот чтоб прикрывать РПКСН? Everything and everything ultimately rests on denyuzhku .. That’s the stated goal 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 expenses .. We will include here the cost of developing an SSBN, missiles, developing a full-fledged AUG (because you can protect FIGs without an aircraft carrier), add the cost of an air wing with AWACS, drones, etc. infrastructure to all these toys, and let's estimate the contents of this in the right form and condition .. And what time will 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 can other guarantees provide these guarantees? Are there any other ways and tools? It turns out there is! And his name is Strategic Rocket Forces .. With all due respect to naval missiles, silos of silos will cover them like a bull to a sheep, as well as operational readiness and combat stability .. Our country is called not Singapore and not Monaco and not Liechtenstein, but Russia, it is simply impossible to destroy silos scattered over 1/7 of the world's land. In a mass strike, it is the silos that will be fired back within 3-5 minutes, bringing light and warmth to the partners .. And this heat is enough for everyone and everything .. And there is also Poplar and Yars, they will also add a twinkle .. 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? The globe is not a spherical horse in a vacuum, but a very real geographic formation on this basis based on the geographical position of countries and opponents, and we must proceed .. But really, where can we send the AUG at least for some sane purpose? What kind of country is this? let's say somewhere in Africa or Latin America .. That scenario looms so, a storm of menacing threat began to us (what and where, what could threaten us?) In some country. Our reaction was adjusted in a few weeks (not earlier, really months) by the AUG and with the help of aviation they showed the mother Kuzkin to the adversary! After either they sailed away or organized a base there .. The real scenario is not it? Hollywood is resting .. But in fact it will be so, the special forces will land secretly in a couple of days, then the airborne forces will arrive and destroy the military infrastructure, and BTA transporters will sit on the captured airdrome with all the necessary things, and at that time troop transports that will deliver the heaviest will be loaded in our ports arguments and the bulk of consumables .. And where is the place AUG? Type cover the convoy along the route? But why the AUG is it necessary? Who can drown this convoy?
          RS: It’s a pity you can’t put cons on articles to express your attitude to many crazy articles ..
          ррс: Отмена минусов статьям равноценна отмене пункта на выборах" Против всех"..демократичненько так..
        4. 3danimal
          3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 08 New
          0
          A large-scale attack on an aircraft carrier and modern anti-ship missiles can disable it. The problem is in target designation (this is a rapidly moving unit of ships), concentration of forces in a remote region (and it will not come close) and the consequences of such an attack for the aggressor.
          Hypersonic missiles will also appear as weapons for carrier-based attack aircraft, which will expand their capabilities too.
    2. LeonidL
      LeonidL 3 June 2020 02: 13 New
      +1
      Andrei, you’re right, there was already an aircraft carrier there (well, almost an aircraft carrier), the planes flew mainly from the ground, and their contribution is minimal, they lost two fighters, broke the finishers and left proudly. There are no complaints against sailors or flyers - they flew and walked on what happened. But the effect is just the opposite.
  2. ancient
    ancient 2 June 2020 19: 40 New
    -2
    Quote: Tiksi-3
    only an air wing can guaranteed cover from the destruction of our strategic nuclear submarines, when they are deployed !! learn the theory !!

    "Стратегов" от уничтожения прикрывают..."нестратеги"(учите теорию wink ), and aviation (if any) can cover only the deployment area, but ... thereby unmasking it .... wassat
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 2 June 2020 21: 00 New
      +5
      Quote: ancient
      can cover only the deployment area, but ... thereby unmasking it

      Do you believe that these areas are unknown to someone?
      Quote: ancient
      "Стратегов" от уничтожения прикрывают..."нестратеги"

      And they too. The fleet must be universal.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 June 2020 10: 03 New
      +6
      Quote: ancient
      and aviation (if any) can cover only the deployment area, but ... thereby unmasking it ...

      More precisely, aviation covers naval forces that provide anti-aircraft defense and air defense on approaches to the deployment area.
      In the absence of AB, the maximum distance of ship groups from the nearest coastal air base is no more than 300-350 km (and this is subject to the presence of AWACS).

      А насчёт демаскировки... "бастион" советского времени прикрывал часть Баренцева моря, Белое море и Печорское море. И где-то за этим бастионом были АРПКСН. smile
  3. Bez 310
    Bez 310 2 June 2020 20: 27 New
    -8
    Quote: Tiksi-3
    only an air wing can guaranteed cover from the destruction of our strategic nuclear submarines, when they are deployed !! learn the theory !!

    Could you give a little more detail about the theory?
    Ну, про прикрытие "авиакрылом" наших "стратегов АПЛ"...
    I would like to learn this question a little, otherwise I, apparently,
    lagged behind all these innovations.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 June 2020 10: 12 New
      +7
      Quote: Bez 310
      Could you give a little more detail about the theory?
      Ну, про прикрытие "авиакрылом" наших "стратегов АПЛ"...

      Там просто выпущено одно звено: авиация должна обеспечить ПВО корабельных групп, которые развёрнуты перед позиционными районами (на рубеже Медвежьего, а то и Шпицбергена). В общем, очередной "бастион" - главной проблемой которого как раз и является то, что северный фланг "бастиона" без АВ остаётся без прикрытия с воздуха. Ибо береговая авиация просто не успевает усилить дежурные силы, работающие на расстоянии 600-650 км от ближайшей авиабазы - время подхода авиации противника (от момента обнаружения) меньше, чем время подхода резервов с берегового аэродрома. А без усиления дежурные силы будут быстро снесены группой расчистки воздуха.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 3 June 2020 12: 23 New
        -6
        Все это напоминает "псевдовоенный" набор слов,
        senseless and merciless.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 June 2020 15: 11 New
          +5
          Quote: Bez 310
          Все это напоминает "псевдовоенный" набор слов,
          senseless and merciless.

          If in plain language, then without a carrier, a fleet better than 300-350 km from the nearest airfield should not meddle. For it is impossible to constantly keep an air regiment in the air at such a distance from the coast (more precisely, too costly - you need three regiments on the coast + airfields for them), and less forces cannot repel a raid.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 3 June 2020 15: 24 New
            -5
            So we don’t have any surface fleet, so ...,
            set of individual ships not related to a common
            challenge. And the global tasks of the surface fleet
            no ... So, we can do without aircraft carriers.
            А стоящие у берега "Петр Великий" и "Иван Грен" пусть
            coastal air defense protects. Sadness with this fleet ...
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 3 June 2020 15: 26 New
              +2
              Quote: Bez 310
              So we don’t have any surface fleet, so ...,
              set of individual ships not related to a common
              challenge.

              If we decide to cost AB, then by the time the fleet takes it, the surface fleet should appear. smile
              Quote: Bez 310
              And the global tasks of the surface fleet
              no...

              What about the traditional resource section?
            2. Bez 310
              Bez 310 3 June 2020 15: 37 New
              -3
              Excuse me, but I simply don’t believe in our surface fleet.
              Ничего у нас не будет, кроме платформ по применению "Калибров".
              И "боевой ледокол" будет наводить страх и ужас на врага.
              The submarine fleet is a separate conversation, and in a completely different way.
            3. 3danimal
              3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 17 New
              0
              The very paradigm of resources, as the main value, is flawed and embedded in the consciousness of Russians by the ruling group.
              How many resources does Japan have? Are there any countries among the top five or ten economies in the world whose main income comes from the sale of hydrocarbons and other minerals?
              You can become developed and rich only if you have advanced production of high value added. Resources now, just can be bought without problems (which is what the Japanese do). And the presence of "own" resources only slightly simplifies life.
  4. alexmach
    alexmach 3 June 2020 12: 34 New
    0
    Could you give a little more detail about the theory?

    Can. Tiksi is certainly rude, well, it’s difficult to call the theory of articles and discussions on a popular resource strictly speaking, but here’s a popular article by the same author as above with discussions on the need or not need of aircraft carriers for Russia. There, and about aircraft carriers and about strategists and how they relate to pictures and theoretical calculations.
    https://topwar.ru/150467-avianosec-beregovoj-oborony.html

    And yes, here's another one.
    https://topwar.ru/163939-stroim-flot-oshibochnye-idei-nepravilnye-koncepcii.html
    In the article “Building a Fleet. Erroneous ideas, wrong concepts ”, an example of reflection of a strike on surface ships by the forces of a coastal fighter aviation regiment from a duty on earth was examined ...


    Well, and in pursuit, here are also given a brief discussion of Alexander about the need for an aircraft carrier
    https://topwar.ru/165946-avianosnyj-vopros-pozhar-na-kuznecove-i-vozmozhnoe-buduschee-avianoscev-v-rf.html
  • Alexander Mironovsky
    Alexander Mironovsky 2 June 2020 22: 17 New
    0
    And what can be guaranteed to cover up one aircraft carrier if such a tear goes?
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 3 June 2020 02: 25 New
      0
      He is an adversary, too, with eyes and ears — how it begins to boil on the shore, as soon as the tugs choke pulling something into the sea, and something else is removed from the barrels ... There is more than enough time for decision-making ... I'm afraid that it will go through already and late and no one ... And is it necessary? What is the difference (God forbid) where the bullet is from - why run to the Atlantic when, in principle, it is possible from the berths or from the port?
    2. Alexandra
      Alexandra 3 June 2020 14: 22 New
      +1
      The author overestimated the price tag, so this is about one. The British know that they need to build two at the same time. Moreover, the construction contract was so cunningly drafted that it was cheaper to build two than to stop building one by paying a fine. And thoughts such that two is too much for poor Britain appeared in the process. They wanted to sell the second one, then finish building the helicopter carrier.
  • Looking for
    Looking for 3 June 2020 15: 48 New
    -1
    в советско-российском военном лексиконе нет такого понятия-авиакрыло.А есть оно у "шестерок".Запада.специализирующихся т.н " военном блудословии"
  • ancient
    ancient 2 June 2020 19: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Tiksi-3
    the answer you know is Syria ... another 50 years + 25 years

    It is possible, but how will you cover it and with what? and provide?
    1. Tiksi-3
      Tiksi-3 2 June 2020 19: 39 New
      -1
      Quote: ancient
      but how are you going to cover it?

      Kuzya one came, one worked, one left ???
      1. ancient
        ancient 2 June 2020 19: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: Tiksi-3
        Kuzya one came, one worked, one left ???

        Эту АУГ во главе с "Кузнецовым", КУГ (слабенькая такая) с одной "Тики" и 3-4 "Бёрками"....направит её,эту АУГ на дно.....как два пальца обо.....ежели "чего"
        1. Ivanchester
          Ivanchester 2 June 2020 22: 13 New
          0
          And what weapons can this KUG attack our AUG? wink
        2. bayard
          bayard 3 June 2020 14: 36 New
          +4
          Quote: ancient
          Эту АУГ во главе с "Кузнецовым", КУГ (слабенькая такая) с одной "Тики" и 3-4 "Бёрками"....направит её,эту АУГ на дно.....как два пальца обо.....ежели "чего"

          Они заклюют её "Гарпунами" ?
          And from what distance?
          А если в ответ на такой залп из под воды , даже не полный , но залп "Гранитов" или "Вулканов" ? От батона 949 ?
          And he must have accompanied.
          Но состояние "Кузи" было "полуинвалидным" , тут споров быть не может . Не в тонусе был авианосец явно . hi
          1. Ivanchester
            Ivanchester 3 June 2020 17: 38 New
            +3

            Они заклюют её "Гарпунами" ?
            And from what distance?


            Not the fact that even such an option will be available to them. Ticonderoge with Harpoons are no longer in service. On the later episodes of Burke, they also were not installed. So, perhaps all hope would be exclusively on artillery. laughing
            А если в ответ на такой залп из под воды , даже не полный , но залп "Гранитов" или "Вулканов" От батона 949


            Или от "Петра Великого". Он там тоже был.
            Но состояние "Кузи" было "полуинвалидным" , тут споров быть не может . Не в тонусе был авианосец явно.


            Definitely. But even in this state with a single AWACS helicopter, he would have provided our AUG with a significant advantage over any hypothetical KUG from destroyers and cruisers of the URA.
          2. max702
            max702 3 June 2020 18: 01 New
            0
            Quote: bayard
            А если в ответ на такой залп из под воды , даже не полный , но залп "Гранитов" или "Вулканов" ? От батона 949 ?

            Uh, why then AUG? If the loaf itself would decide everything? What will the AUG do? What benefit?
            1. bayard
              bayard 3 June 2020 18: 11 New
              +4
              Quote: max702
              Uh, why then AUG? If the loaf itself would decide everything? What will the AUG do? What benefit?

              Если против вас совершается агрессия надводными кораблями противника , а в вашем боевом ордере есть корабли(именно корабли , ибо "Пётр Великий" тоже имеет 20 таких ТЯЖЕЛЫХ ракет) , то к чему гонять на риск авиацию ?
              That's what the rocket is for the ship to sink.
              "А чем АУГ то заниматься будет ?"
              Разведка(вертолётом ДРЛО) и вскрытие ордера противника , вскрытие и своевременное обнаружение стартовавших КР "Гарпун" и наведение на них истребителей палубной авиации .
              Interception of missiles.
              The attack on the enemy’s ships will, of course, be carried out by heavy anti-ship missiles, but the additional reconnaissance of the enemy’s ships after the strike and the KILLING of them if necessary by VP missiles and aerial bombs ... This is all for her - carrier-based aviation. bully yes hi
              Here is such a benefit from it - AWACS and air defense in the far / middle zone.
              Home . smile
              1. max702
                max702 3 June 2020 18: 20 New
                -2
                Оппа у вас и носитель надводный тяжелых ПКР неожиданно появился.. Дык с этого и начинать надо было! Простите ,а для вертолета ДРЛО АУГ необходима? А что за противник такой которого необходимо долбить всей этой машинерией? Ордер кого мы вскрывать будем? США, Китай, Англия Франция? Кто еще то? Чем кончаться такие разборки думаю говорить не надо? И смысл в такой фантастической гипотетической ситуации? Ресурсы то будем тратить реальные , а не придуманные в отличии от "таких" задач..
                1. bayard
                  bayard 3 June 2020 18: 30 New
                  +1
                  Quote: max702
                  And what kind of enemy is such that it is necessary to hammer it with all this machinery?

                  Не паясничайте Максим , враг у нас один , он же вероятный противник , а остальное\остальные - вещи сопутствующие . Вот под ЭТОГО врага вся эта "машинерия" и затачивалась .
                  By the beast and the stag.
                  Quote: max702
                  Oppa and the surface carrier of heavy anti-ship missiles suddenly appeared .. So, we had to start from there!

                  What to begin with if we are considering a real military campaign, with a well-known composition of pennants.
                  Quote: max702
                  Excuse me, but is it necessary for a helicopter AWACS AUG?

                  And where do you put him, if there should be at least TWO of them (there were 2 of them)?
                  On the BOD?
                  On a nuclear cruiser?
                  And where anti-submarine helicopters?
                  What will provide the PLO?
                  Quote: max702
                  Who will we open the order? USA, China, England France?

                  All. yes
                  And Turkey too.
                  That's what it is - radar and radio intelligence. It is ALWAYS conducted. smile
                  And the resources have already been spent. Just a campaign of the ships from the training was retrained in combat and disposed of old ammunition.
                2. max702
                  max702 12 June 2020 18: 30 New
                  0
                  And where do you put him, if there should be at least TWO of them (there were 2 of them)?
                  On the BOD?
                  On a nuclear cruiser?

                  On Petra it is. Three anti-submarine Ka-27 helicopters are based on the cruiser. Male We are considering a real military campaign It’s quite a turntable on modern frigates and you can put AWACS and PLO .. The funny thing is that all these are invented battles which will never happen .. Nuclear powers in full growth at sea do not fight, 75 years of peace is proof of that .. Is this all in machinery? Navy amuse the industrialists for bread with caviar? Is it expensive?
                3. bayard
                  bayard 12 June 2020 19: 39 New
                  0
                  Quote: max702
                  75 years of peace is a confirmation of this ..

                  Over the years of this world, so many wars have taken place ... and continue to this day. And they did not whip on the sea because there was something to answer, what to oppose.
                  The USSR had many (very many) interests overseas, and it was impossible to defend these interests without a fleet.
                  This is also Comrade Stalin knew.
                  And he built.
                  Fleet.
                  Recall plans for the construction of the ocean fleet of the late 30s (!)?
                  Quote: max702
                  . The point in all this machinery?

                  And you think without it - MACHINERY, someone will take you seriously?
                  And give you 75 years of peace?
                  The world is bought by efforts on its own defense.
                  And we are nowhere without a fleet.
                  A huge fleet of tankers and gas carriers is being built now.
                  What shall we cover?
                  How is security on the seas secured?
                  Machinery!
                  And trained personnel.
                  The construction of the fleet develops industry, science, infrastructure, and creates jobs. Through investments in the construction of the fleet, huge finances are flowing into all related sectors of the economy, science, education, and I am not afraid of this word - culture.
                  For there is also a culture of production. lol
                  Quote: max702
                  On Petra it is. Three anti-submarine Ka-27 helicopters are based on the cruiser.

                  Да , есть , и размещены очень плотно . Не уверен , что при размещении там 2-х вертолётов ДРЛО там ещё кто-нибудь поместится - они "покоренастей" противолодочников будут .
                  But even if there are three, then IT IS INSTEAD.
                  Hindus put AWACS helicopters on their frigates, but again at the expense of anti-submarine defense.
                  Our PLO fleet cannot be neglected.
                  Quote: max702
                  The funny thing is that all this is an imaginary battle which will never happen .. Nuclear powers in full growth at sea do not fight

                  Because they do not fight, that is what to answer with. Nevertheless, no one neglects the fleets.
                4. max702
                  max702 13 June 2020 21: 02 New
                  0
                  Опять двадцать пять .. Не воюют потому что не флота Ого Го , а потому что ЯО и СЯС.. ВСЕ! Остальные флота по большому счету инерция времен ВОВ да и то у одного гегемона с дивизионам подельников по НАТО.. Остальные так, фигу соседу показать да пиратам не дать разгуляться.. Флот времен 30х это гос преступление и Сталин во время ВОВ это прекрасно осознал, а флот времен позднего СССР мягко говоря больше занимался эскортированием дармовой помощи людоедам и прочим "товарищам" только вот толку от этого СССР было ноль , а вот вреда выше крыши.. Триллионы рублей были вбуханы во все ЭТО ,а отдачи никакой! Долги многомиллиардные оным до сих пор списываем. Ресурсы можно было потратить гораздо рациональней например внутри страны в той же нищей РСФСР мест приложения сил и средств воистину бесконечно..Но нет морские брызги и кортик на боку , да сытый людоед или барбудос гораздо важнее чем живущий в бараке житель РСФСР..Ей богу лучше бы деньги вбуханные во флот в космос вложили там хоть какой то выхлоп в виде хай тека..Сегодня слава богу понимание этого идиотизма есть и от океанских левиафанов отбрыкиваются как могут строя то что нам надо , а не то что хотят "морские волки".
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 23 New
      0
      Very soon, some of the Mk-41 cells will be equipped with the LRASM anti-ship missiles, and everything is moving towards this. And this is a modern and very dangerous missile.
      In addition, information appears about the resumption of production of the Tomahawk in the version of the anti-ship missile system (with a modern GOS).
      Many Granites are already unfit for action, the warranty periods have expired, and new ones are not being produced.
      And yes, a group of modern rank 1 ships is a danger to our aforementioned mini-AUG.
      1. bayard
        bayard 21 July 2020 03: 06 New
        0
        Для дозвукового "Томагавка" и
        Quote: 3danimal
        "LRASM"

        the same problem remains as in the 80s - during the time it flies to the ship, the ship can go far and have to scour the snake, sniffing it out with its seeker.
        But when these missiles appear, they will pose a threat.
        Quote: 3danimal
        Many Granites are already unfit for action, the warranty periods have expired, and new ones are not being produced.

        Проходят техобслуживание и продлевают срок эксплуатации , кроме того , значительное количество его носителей сняты с дежурств и ждут ремонта и модернизации("батоны" , "Пётр Великий") , а модернизируют их под "Ониксы" и "Цирконы" - этим два часа до цели лететь не придётся .
        So our anti-ship missiles were the best and have remained, but the number of their carriers is not encouraging yet. However, in a couple of years it will be more fun.
        Quote: 3danimal
        And yes, a group of modern rank 1 ships is a danger to our aforementioned mini-AUG.

        Of course it does.
        They have guns.
        У некоторых есть "Гарпуны".
        And under water, the MAPL will probably accompany.
        And yet, they can go to ram ... Or please the enemy with a salvo of missiles at a straight range (quite a regular use of missiles in a real combat situation).
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 21 July 2020 03: 28 New
          +2
          SM-6s can be launched beyond the horizon as a mini-anti-ship missile.
          We will see how it will be, but new anti-ship missiles will appear. But not against us, against China, which is building a modern and large fleet at a pace beyond our reach.
          1. bayard
            bayard 21 July 2020 04: 13 New
            0
            Let them take care of each other.
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 21 July 2020 04: 45 New
            +2
            The main thing is not to go under the distribution smile
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 3 June 2020 14: 56 New
    +2
    Посмотрите чем будут прикрывать и обеспечивать авианосцы типа "Куин Элизабет" англичане. На сегодня в составе Королевских ВМС из БНК основных классов шесть эсминцев ПВО типа "Дэринг" (тип 45) и 13 фрегатов типа 23. И этими 19-ю БНК они собираются прикрыть два авианосца, пять ДВКД/ДТД, четыре войсковых транспорта типа "ро-ро", шесть флотских танкеров, один корабль комплексного снабжения, два транспорта вооружения и одно неофициальное госпитальное судно "Аргус" - и того в сумме 21 авианесущих, десантных и вспомогательных единиц океанской зоны на 19 эскортных БНК дальней морской и океанской зоны.
    1. max702
      max702 3 June 2020 18: 03 New
      +2
      The Royal Navy has long been part of the U.S. Navy as well as other NATO members .. Falklands were a lesson so as not to blather about some kind of independence there ..
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra 3 June 2020 18: 43 New
        0
        In 1982, the Royal Navy was already part of the US Navy, or not? And as far as I remember burning and sinking in the Falkland War, the ships of the Navy of Her Majesty had to completely independently. For some political reasons, the overseas overlord did not even send a frigate to help. Since then, they are very worried about this:

        https://lenta.ru/news/2005/02/18/navy

        By 2013, the British Navy should receive two new aircraft carriers, however, due to funding difficulties, the implementation of these projects may be delayed. Both programs cost three billion pounds.

        "Обладать всего десятком крупных надводных кораблей, готовых к участию в боевых действиях, нереально. На самом деле этой стране необходимы 30 надводных кораблей, чтобы не только соответствовать требованиям мирного времени, но и быть готовыми к непредвиденным обстоятельствам, аналогичным войне на Фолклендах... Между тем, финансирование, которое получает флот, не позволяет нам иметь 30 фрегатов и эсминцев, особенно в условиях, когда наибольший приоритет получают программы строительства авианосцев, кораблей-амфибий и другие проекты", - сказал адмирал.

        Уэст подчеркнул, что отказаться от авианосцев в пользу строительства кораблей других классов также невозможно. "Вы не можете создать эффективную боевую группу без авианосца, и это то, с чем согласны абсолютно все, - заявил он.


        В отличие от "просвещённых мореплавателей" в далекой России хватает тех, кто уверен что обойтись без авианосца можно, что могут существовать эффективные КУГ без авианосцев.

        This is evident from the fact that the Russian Navy is still not part of the Navy of some kind of powerful power, and in which case it will definitely fight completely independently?
        1. max702
          max702 12 June 2020 18: 13 New
          0
          Именно фолкленды и были показательной поркой для всех "не следующих курсом партии"....
          США там были исключительно как гарант невмешательства СССР( в СССР не особо и хотели вмешиваться но болели за аргов) и предоставили бриташке действовать самой прекрасно понимая что те облажаются..там по большому счету все решила небоеспособность арговских боеприпасов и непоставка оплаченных "экзосетов".. Не будь этих мягко говоря небоевых факторов бриташка бы все, и пришлось бы применять ЯО приказ на это у капитанов АПЛ был ..
          And about fighting at sea .. There will be nothing serious as long as there is a Strategic Missile Forces .. They are a guarantee of peaceful navigation and the absence of naval battles on a larger scale.
  • K-612-O
    K-612-O 3 June 2020 08: 14 New
    -2
    The aircraft carrier is there to hell, through Armenia and Iran it is closer to overtake airplanes, less than 1000 km. And the capabilities of the ground airfield will never be compared with Avik.
  • ancient
    ancient 2 June 2020 19: 11 New
    +2
    Quote: andranick
    Просто накипело, достало уже это бесконечно "нам нужна очередная вундервафля" без обоснования нахрена она нужна и почему именно такая.

    good drinks soldier
    Quote: andranick
    If so, if Russia needs an expeditionary force with deployment from the sea coast

    Сначала нужен ФЛОТ ( экспедиционный в том числе), что бы прикрывать "экспедиционный корпус", который будет "десантироваться на побережье противника.(его пока то же нет)."
    Ну и "направление главного удара" wassat ....какую из стран НАТ'ы мы будем.."оккупировать" lol
    1. andranick
      andranick 2 June 2020 19: 19 New
      +5
      Well, yes, and I am the same! Why does everyone forget that an aircraft carrier is not only 70 thousand tons of displacement, but ten times more escort. And no one wonders WHERE TO BE BASED such a connection? Recall that under the two unfortunate Mistral they created a very specific infrastructure.
      I agree with UDC, maybe it is needed as a change in the generation of the BDK.
    2. LeonidL
      LeonidL 3 June 2020 02: 28 New
      +3
      В предыдущих изысканиях автор четко определил задачи: "минировать Балтику" "Захватить Северную Норвегию и Шпицберген!" Ура-ура-ура! На абордаж! Клавиатуру к бою, диванные адмиралы!
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 3 June 2020 00: 21 New
    -1
    поддерживаю! "проекция силы"= пустое слово, нужна возможность 1 оборонять СВОЮ ТЕРРИТОРИЮ 2 наносить удары возмездия по противнику, значит экспедиционные корпуса, а с ними и авианосцы (всех видов) и УДК просто не нужны от слова вообще, да и нет на это ресурсов
  • alexmach
    alexmach 3 June 2020 10: 48 New
    0
    PS I ask specialists to correct if that

    I am far from an expert, but look at the map of Russia, see how long it is for land borders and what is sea. On it you will see the answer to your question.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 4 June 2020 08: 30 New
      0
      You would have considered the length of the sea borders of Great Britain, exactly many times less than that of Russia.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 4 June 2020 08: 32 New
        0
        Exactly? And if, taking into account all the remaining overseas territories?
        And the question is after. And what does the UK have to do with it? Whose fleet are we discussing?
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 4 June 2020 08: 48 New
          +1
          And now let's think a bit, maybe it's not a matter of some abstract length of the sea borders, but the presence of overseas territories. Moreover, it was their loss in the postwar years that led to the catastrophic reduction of the British fleet.
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 4 June 2020 09: 19 New
            0
            Ok, and how is Russia with overseas territories? With those supplied along the North Sea Route? And the next question is what to do with the defense of its continental territory from threats from the sea?
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 4 June 2020 11: 05 New
              +1
              How can the North Sea path be attacked? The range of naval weapons does not exceed the range of land, and one regiment on the MiG-29K is weaker than 5 regiments on the Su-35 for less money.
              1. alexmach
                alexmach 4 June 2020 12: 33 New
                -1
                How the SevMor path can be attacked

                Well, at least the submarine fleet.
                Or someone will go there accompanied by icebreakers.

                The range of naval weapons does not exceed the range of land, and one regiment on the MiG-29K is weaker than 5 regiments on the Su-35


                The range does not exceed, but mobility? Well, the partners of these marine weapons are simply abundant. That's all about planes. it's hard to argue.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 4 June 2020 14: 38 New
                  +1
                  How will an aircraft carrier from a submarine help you? Here's a huge ground-based anti-submarine will help.

                  Мобильность имеет значение при свободе выбора цели для атаки и необходимости для противника преследовать. При этом очень сложно получить что-то от мобильности, если противника банально намного больше, а в конфликте, скажем АУГ и полков на Су-35 за те же деньги, численность, очевидно будет на стороне последних, причем кратно. При этом автор тут в красках расписывал, как целую эскадрилью будут поднимать с корабля. Ну так наземные самолеты взлетают и массируются намного быстрее. И эскадрилья "суперхорнетов", которую полчаса поднимали, имеет все шансы наткнуться сразу на полк, взлетевший разом по тревоге. При этом тот же Дальний восток довольно компактен именно в плане территорий, которые надо прикрывать.
    2. andranick
      andranick 4 June 2020 09: 32 New
      0
      Yes, not so many of those boundaries. North? Partially. West? Baltic, chtol ?! South with straits ?! Only the Pacific coast remains. Everything else is blocked by coastal means and ocean the fleet is not needed there.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 4 June 2020 08: 27 New
    +1
    The author was going to project it in the Kaliningrad region. He was not told that it was easier to get there by land.
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 June 2020 19: 46 New
      +1
      Is there a common border with the rest of the Russian Federation?
      1. Andrey.AN
        Andrey.AN 5 June 2020 12: 44 New
        0
        Aircraft carriers are more likely a political force, only aviation can cover bloodless allies from air strikes, if you want allies - a system of aircraft carriers.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 5 June 2020 19: 42 New
          -1
          which allies? where did you see them? "Russia has only two allies - its army and navy" so that Russia does not need an aircraft carrier, you need to cover your territory and develop mbr, aviation and apl
          1. Andrey.AN
            Andrey.AN 6 June 2020 11: 33 New
            -1
            I wouldn’t bend, in any direction, the opportunity to bail out a partner for the partnership is useful, a couple of aircraft carriers will not hurt, a dozen are not needed, otherwise you won’t disregard the allies.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 10 July 2020 18: 47 New
        0
        В случае войны в Калининградской области т. н. суверенитет трибалтийских "государств" даже не будет рассматриваться. Им просто прикажу из Москвы, а в случае маловероятного отказа ликвидируют. Про НАТО не надо, т. к. война с ним уже будет идти, никто другой в Калининград влезть не может.
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 July 2020 21: 31 New
          +1
          There is no need to equate Poland with all of NATO. If Poland attacks someone, then this is Poland’s business. The 4th article of the contract is not binding.
          If an NATO member not participating in the war is attacked, the situation will be completely different there.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 30 New
          0
          Tell us how the Baltic countries are being liquidated? Nuclear weapons? Will they arrange a blitz krieg? But at the same time, you will have to fight and destroy the US units (albeit symbolic) located there.
  • ancient
    ancient 2 June 2020 19: 07 New
    +3
    Quote: Demagogue
    We still need UDC, Yak-141m2, too.

    Что собираетесь .."захватывать" с моря? Чем собираетесь прикрывать эти УДК? "Як-141М2" это.... wassat
    Разве, что мультик "соорудить"?
    Quote: Demagogue
    what they need to support the landing in the first place

    Что бы что-то "поддерживать" надо это "что-то"..иметь? Или вы батальоном морской пехоты собираетесь ..."плацдармы ...заваёвывать"?
    Quote: Demagogue
    No ka-52 aircraft will not replace. They have a small radius and are vulnerable to the most primitive air defense.

    Вот одна "трезвая" мысль" drinks Из которой следует вывод ,что и УДК...."на фиг...не нужны", а только БДК wink
    1. Demagogue
      Demagogue 2 June 2020 19: 17 New
      -1
      УДК...."на фиг...не нужны", а только БДК


      And if you develop a thought, then we will sail on rafts.

      Aug even with udk covers any enemy mug without air cover. Swvp with afar is essentially a mini drill. Plus dril helicopters can be placed there. Having even a weak aircraft carrier is much better than not having it at all. Without an aircraft carrier, the ships are blind, they cannot see beyond the radio horizon. It is 35 km.
      1. ancient
        ancient 2 June 2020 19: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: Demagogue
        And if you develop a thought, then we will sail on rafts.

        Exclusively out of persistent pragmatism wink
        Quote: Demagogue
        Aug even with udk covers any enemy kug without air cover

        100% good
        Quote: Demagogue
        Swvp with afar is essentially a mini drill.

        Да пусть сделают хоть ОДИН серийный АФАР,хоть на.."что-нибудь" wassat
        Quote: Demagogue
        Plus dril helicopters can be placed there.

        Это слабое "уговаривание себя" (дальностьобнаружения очень маленькая") wink
        Quote: Demagogue
        Having even a weak aircraft carrier is much better than not having it at all.

        Я об этом писал, но к нему нужен "ордер прикрытия"...а "хде" он...правильно в..... lol
        Quote: Demagogue
        Without an aircraft carrier, the ships are blind, they cannot see beyond the radio horizon.

        The composition of the KUG necessarily includes the AWACS ship (in a threatening direction) (I agree about 35 km ... depending on the height of the antenna, it may be a couple of kilometers more) wink
        1. Demagogue
          Demagogue 2 June 2020 20: 18 New
          -5
          Да пусть сделают хоть ОДИН серийный АФАР,хоть на.."что-нибудь" wassat


          They did it to Gorshkov. I think soon.

          дальностьобнаружения очень маленькая"


          Merlin has a horizon of 240 km, not the worst option. Plus swvp with afar.

          And it’s not a problem to warrant Gorshkovs.
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 3 June 2020 00: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Demagogue
            And it’s not a problem to warrant Gorshkovs.
            ?! Вот как ? По десять-двенадцать лет на каждый ?! Чё-то медленно там, - "со струганием пока" .... ?!
            1. Demagogue
              Demagogue 3 June 2020 09: 47 New
              -6
              Do you blame me for this?)))) There are so many emotions.
              For two udk us escorts under construction and already built will be quite enough.
              1. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl 5 June 2020 00: 50 New
                0
                Quote: Demagogue
                Do you blame me for this ?.
                A) - not at all. B) - you flatter yourself (!) .
                Quote: Demagogue
                For two udk us escorts under construction and already built will be quite enough.
                A) - we have not built escorts. B) - to create normal and full-fledged escorts - KPUG (even mortgaged fr. 22350, given that then they will be "размазаны по флотам"), at least - LITTLE !!! hi
                1. Demagogue
                  Demagogue 5 June 2020 07: 46 New
                  -2
                  You saddled the position of righteous anger, I look)) But I never wrote anywhere that I was delighted with our shipbuilding program.

                  Вы не учитываете главный нбанс. Только авианесущий корабль в современных условиях представляет реальную силу. Поэтому удк/легкий авианосец при всех недостатках это движение в правильном направлении. Нам нужны хоть какие-то "линейные корабли". Понятно, что ни с кем серьезным за пределами наших крепостей наша ауг сражаться не в состоянии. Работать по берегу против слаботехнологичного противника разве что или в составе коалиции.
                  Of course, we will not collect augs like the British in Falkland, but all sorts of 1155, 956, Ustinov, in addition to six plus Gorshkov enough. Corvettes will be added here. A little, but better than nothing.
                  1. Nemchinov Vl
                    Nemchinov Vl 5 June 2020 15: 30 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Demagogue
                    Of course, we will not collect augs like the British in Falkland, but all sorts of 1155, 956, Ustinov, in addition to six plus Gorshkov enough.
                    !? but alas .. from the 1155s on the SF frozen there are already THREE without power plants (!)... Из 956-х, по факту остался один "Быстрый" (715), на ТОФе, и тот (ограниченно дееспособный наверняка, ибо давно далеко не ходил) (!). About the speed of receipt of 22350 in the Navy ... well, I already said above (!). Yes, not funny. It's unfortunate ... So what are you going to build a normal KPUG from ?!. Talking about corvettes?! ... well, not funny.
                    1. Demagogue
                      Demagogue 5 June 2020 19: 04 New
                      -2
                      Ustinov, three Gorshkov, three corvettes and one udk. Plus several apl and auxiliary. We don’t have drills with afar and there’s no aircraft, so all one thing far from the coast of the aug will not go away. As a coast defense group, this is something. Aviation is not there either. The drlo and plo are much higher priority ships, but will not be soon. There is even no need for awareness. The drummer stealth is also incomprehensible. There is no fleet as such.
                    2. Nemchinov Vl
                      Nemchinov Vl 5 June 2020 21: 08 New
                      0
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      There is no fleet as such.
                      Duck and I about it !
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      Ustinov, three Gorshkov, (?) three corvettes and one udk.
                      Stop, stop, stop (!). belay
                      Давайте по порядку. Как говорится - "мухи отдельно, котлеты отдельно" (!). smile
                      По Северному: "Устинов", и пока two 22350 (с натяжкой, ибо "Касатонов", ещё не передан (!) ...) and three corvettes on the Federation Council, you lied (!)they just aren't there (!), как и УДК...!! Прикажете включить "Кулакова", и на исходе своего ресурса "Североморск" ?... и "Петра Великого" ?!
                      По ТОФу: "Варяг", "Пантелеев", "Трибуц", "Виноградов" , - прикажете свистать всех в одну (единственно возможную) КПУГ ?! Про корветы не пишите, пожалуйста (!), - this is not funny ... From grief and hopelessness, I understand you, but not funny .... recourse
                      And anyway, if -
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      We don’t have drills with afar and there’s no aircraft, so all one thing far from the coast of the aug will not go away. As a coast defense group, this is something.
                      then the truth is I have a question (!), and whether then, right now - UDC or AB ?! They have no KPUG to make up of anything, no AWACS aircraft, for AB, no ?! как в комедии - "за двумя зайцами", говаривал герой Голохвастов, - "ТАК ЗА ЧЕМ ЖЕ ?" . ?! request
                    3. Demagogue
                      Demagogue 5 June 2020 21: 53 New
                      -2
                      In professional sports in North America, the creation of a champion squad is compared to a puzzle. We will have udk, there will be another piece to Gorshkov. We must also take into account the miniaturization of technology as a trend: maybe in 10 years we will have a UAV with afar with the possibility of launching from a fishing rod, or maybe a swarm of kamikaze drones. Perhaps the Americans will sell us f35. Life is such a thing. Enemies today, and tomorrow together
                      Having made China's friendship. The presence of the platform opens up various options for its application.

                      By aug: build udk six years, and after six years more ships will go into operation. Three pots on
                      North will definitely be.
                    4. Nemchinov Vl
                      Nemchinov Vl 5 June 2020 23: 16 New
                      0
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      By aug: build udk years six,
                      oh my god Andrey (!)Well, I beg you (!), Oh please .... ?!
                      Frigate 22350 (VI 5400 tons), - built in the country for at least 10-12 years !!, In a country in which ships of a similar class (SKR pr. 1135 with a series of about 21 pieces) were built in a maximum of 3 years (!). Now the UDC (VI 25000 tons), and the country had no experience in building (!)you really expect for 6-7 years ???. belay honestly believe, or do you know the prerequisites for that?! ....
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      and in six years more ships will go into operation. Three Gorshkovs in the north will definitely be.
                      yes but how many 1155's, out of five so far remaining and mercilessly spending their motor resources ZAMUT without GEM ??. Да и последний 956-й "Быстрый", наверное 6 лет DO NOT EXPERIENCE (!).... Возможно выйдет "Лазарев", но на ремонт (in its place) может стать не только "Пётр Великий", но и "Варяг" к тому времени / will fit in / .... What do you think, according to BNK of the first rank, in six years ... +4 / -5 ... or what ?! winked
                    5. Demagogue
                      Demagogue 6 June 2020 09: 03 New
                      -1
                      If we take the sane, well-designed project of Mistral, then we can actually launch it in six years. The sections we quickly riveted for the Mistral. If you redo the project twice a year, then yes, those same years. 12. But yes, our boots will begin to offer a bridge sheathed with 250 mm armor and other fresh ideas. Vikramadity has been doing for 8 years.




                      According to the Soviet backlog of shipbuilding, my opinion is that they are currently completely outdated with military value. They had to be cut, and all the resources for construction
                      Potty throw
                      and udk.
  • Avior
    Avior 2 June 2020 22: 03 New
    +4
    The composition of the KUG necessarily includes the ship AWACS (in a threatening direction)

    And what is it? 40 km AWACS?
    Or are you talking about a radar picket? He does not replace the AWAC.
    The British used it from hopelessness.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 35 New
    +1
    There are AWACS helicopters, but they are "myopic" (they see the ship from a maximum of 250 km), have a very short flight range (5 times
    less than E-2), low speed (2-3 times, in comparison with E-2) and more vulnerable.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 2 June 2020 20: 14 New
    +5
    Quote: Demagogue
    Aug even with udk covers any enemy mug without air cover.

    Why? The KMG is quite capable of repelling two air attacks of 6 aircraft each, with VTOL in each.

    Quote: Demagogue
    Swvp with afar essentially a mini drlo

    And a mobile beacon. Because cannot watch for several hours at a great distance.
    1. Demagogue
      Demagogue 2 June 2020 20: 53 New
      -3
      Why? The KMG is quite capable of repelling two air attacks of 6 aircraft each, with VTOL in each.


      What does it mean to reflect? They can’t bring down carriers, maximum rockets. The carriers will return as many times as necessary and finish off.
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 2 June 2020 21: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: Demagogue
        The carriers will return as many times as necessary and finish off.

        Do not have time. KUG attacks AUG earlier.
        1. Demagogue
          Demagogue 2 June 2020 21: 11 New
          -2
          Do not have time. KUG attacks AUG earlier.


          Will your mug take off? She has a detection radius of 35 km, and aug have hundreds.
          1. SVD68
            SVD68 2 June 2020 21: 33 New
            0
            And the planes will not return to Aug?
            1. Demagogue
              Demagogue 2 June 2020 21: 38 New
              0
              Yes, for the radio horizon to the dead zone of the Kug radar. At a height of maximum, the scout will go, who will discover the bug immediately down and back. Even if the planes would leave at altitude, how can I get it? What you assume where aug is not identical to capturing a target. And for this you are welcome to 35 km.
          2. K-612-O
            K-612-O 3 June 2020 08: 21 New
            +1
            Explain then why the anti-ship missiles have ranges greater than the combat radius of the decks? Of course, you did not hear anything about the GAS, satellites and the GAB, especially about the sub-melting.
            "Иван Васильевич, когда вы говорите, такое впечатление, что вы бредите" (с)
            1. Demagogue
              Demagogue 3 June 2020 09: 43 New
              +4
              You are raving. Do not understand that the ball is round ... What class are you in?
              Cr can be launched at stationary targets over long distances. But on mobile you need tsu. School physics.
              Neither satellites nor gus will give you tsu in real time. All one purpose is to reconnoiter aviation. A plane with the WWII is the main means of warfare at sea. But apparently not everyone has realized.
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 39 New
              0
              A reliable control center for a maneuvering and rapidly moving AUG can only be provided by a reconnaissance aircraft. The USSR had a Tu-95RTs for this. The suicide bomber, in case of conflict, but could try to complete the task.
              The range of large anti-ship missiles was calculated precisely on the assistance of the Tu-95RTs. In general, it increases the tactical flexibility of the application.
        2. Avior
          Avior 2 June 2020 22: 12 New
          +4
          first you need to know where aug
          then determine the situation around the aug- whether the anti-ship missiles will fly to an extraneous target
          thirdly, to ensure that the RCC did not go into traps
          fourthly, how can I find out, hit or not?
          This is not possible without aviation.
          and aug has it, he will keep his distance.
  • Looking for
    Looking for 3 June 2020 15: 54 New
    0
    Users are pretty. Whose avatar names. Corresponds to their psychology.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 4 June 2020 08: 31 New
    0
    What is the truth? And air defense systems with a range of up to 400 km are aware that they appear to see nothing? Are helicopters up to date?
    1. Demagogue
      Demagogue 4 June 2020 10: 46 New
      0
      Of course, of course. Therefore, the Americans have a drill aircraft with afar, capable of pointing sm6 missiles behind the horizon. The firing range of these missiles for 400 km.
      Any stationary passive air defense system is doomed without the support of drills and fighters.
      And would you even google something before asking questions ... naive.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 4 June 2020 11: 05 New
        0
        Comparing this plane with Avax or A-50 is just ridiculous.
        1. Demagogue
          Demagogue 4 June 2020 11: 47 New
          -1
          If you're talking about e-2, then absolutely right. Both Sentry and A-50 Avaxes are hopelessly outdated with their Doppler radars. They cannot induce anything. On e-2 is already afar. Part of the radar power can be used to direct missiles.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 4 June 2020 12: 04 New
            0
            How can you carry such game, a more powerful radar is perfectly placed on a large plane, which simply will not fit into the deck, as well as the necessary personnel.
            1. Demagogue
              Demagogue 4 June 2020 14: 08 New
              0
              Your game is just. Without knowledge, try to reason.

              Sentry's most super-duper latest version has a detection distance of slightly less than the latest E-2. You won’t even find the exact information. The Americans invested little money only in the limited modernization of their Sentry park. While they are suitable for a number of operations, until we have radar with afar in commercial quantities, and then against the low-tech enemy.

              Your biggest mistake is that you think that more powerful is better. This is not true. The essence of afar is precisely in the possibility of scanning not with one powerful one, but with many weak rays. This allows the lpi mode (hereinafter google ourselves), when the target is scanned by several weak rays at different frequencies simultaneously. Carefully, so that the spa does not even understand that the enemy’s radar is working. For drills, it’s vital to avoid detection. Detection range does not suffer. Scanning speed is much higher. They scan a lot of rays, not just one.

              Sentry and A50 have powerful radars, but Doppler. One beam scans. Powerful, but one. And when he irradiates a plane with radar from afar, he begins to give conflicting data at its frequency. And he cannot weed out inaccurate. Some radar modules work on distortion. And the exact location is distorted. Doppler is an antediluvian, even Pfar is already 80s technology.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 4 June 2020 14: 30 New
                0
                Once again, in the context of the medium we are talking only about weight and size characteristics, not generations. The capabilities of a single-generation AWACS aircraft based on a large transporter will always be higher than those based on a deck car.

                And just do not need about lpi for a long time known to all anti-aircraft gunners of the world, as a mode with a pseudo-random frequency change. Otherwise, it turns out, as with Mask, in which the repetition of the Soviet achievement turned into almost a flight to the moon.
                1. Demagogue
                  Demagogue 4 June 2020 18: 09 New
                  -1
                  So is the miniaturization of military equipment in full swing. A small e-2 gets a radar more effective than a doppler on a huge Boeing. This is a much lower maintenance cost. And the e-2 capacities are enough with a margin for now. And they will buy e-7 instead of e-3 by 2035, when we and China will already have a lot of afar and stealth stations. One of the weaknesses of Doppler is the inability to effectively spot stealth. But you didn’t compare e-7 with e-2. And with a50 and e-3, and they are outdated.
                  And for lpi - right there it is implemented as part of a single radar. This is all the beauty.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 44 New
      0
      Let me remind you how the curvature of the Earth previously interfered with the tracking of the aforementioned air defense systems for low-flying KR in Syria. Attacking air groups will also fly hiding behind the radio horizon.
  • avg
    avg 2 June 2020 19: 18 New
    0
    Quote: Demagogue
    Then there will be money, it will be seen.

    The only way. Of course, no one will give up any good weapons. But, first of all, you need to measure your capabilities and desires. If you just imagine that we are now starting to build an aircraft carrier, then several other vital programs will immediately drop out. As an example, we take only the problem of the SSBN entering the position areas - there aren’t enough minesweepers, MPCs, anti-submarine aircraft, we are behind with diesel-electric submarines. And there are a lot of such problems and they all need to be addressed. And yet, you always need to remember that the basis of everything is constant, high combat readiness and in any case it must be given priority.
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 3 June 2020 13: 32 New
    0
    At the same time, to provide helicopter landing and solve the problem of direct aviation support (NAP) by KVVP aircraft is obtained only at UDC with a displacement of 40 thousand tons (American). The UDC with a displacement of up to 30 thousand tons cannot solve these two problems simultaneously. Therefore, the UDK landing task is assigned to attack helicopters with a displacement of up to 30 thousand tons. UDC of project 23900 have a total displacement of less than 30 thousand tons.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 02 New
      0
      And much less.
  • timokhin-aa
    3 June 2020 21: 01 New
    0
    The question is financing priorities. Today, such a fleet as the United States cannot afford even the USA itself. Accordingly, we must choose. I agree with the usefulness of UDC that before VTOL, their time will come no earlier than we have nowhere to put money, before that we will have to pay something more urgent.
    1. Demagogue
      Demagogue 3 June 2020 21: 32 New
      -2
      VTOL we all have to do one thing. That's for sure. Having made the yak141m2, we get the gdp technology. This money will not be lost. A pile of metal like Kuzi will disappear. We are simply not able to service such complex mechanisms. We have already discussed this.
      We essentially do not need an ocean fleet, and it is too heavy. We need light aircraft carriers for operations in the fortresses. No more. To us, airplanes and helicopters are much more priority than an aircraft carrier. Many other holes.
      1. timokhin-aa
        10 June 2020 20: 21 New
        +1
        Лёгкие авианосцы бесполезны, как и действия "в крепостях" - это уже пройденные этапы.
        СВВП в списке приоритетов на самом последнем месте, он в принципе не особбо нужен, у тех же американцев, если не считать их недавних экспериментов с Ф-35 этих "вертикалок" не более 6 единиц на УДК. И не просто так.
        1. Demagogue
          Demagogue 10 June 2020 21: 49 New
          0
          6 units of staff for shore work. Udk has no wing, all f35 are ascribed. They can ascribe 6, or they can 14.
          SVVP technology is the future. There will be jet drones svvp. So far, such https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/11/camcopter-vtol-uav-fully-integrated-to-french-navy-lhd-dixmude/

          Miniaturization of technology is needed. We cannot win with a big av. It is necessary to build swarms of drones, etc. Asymmetrically.
          1. timokhin-aa
            11 June 2020 23: 36 New
            0
            Regarding VTOL, it’s just your conviction.
            Practice does not confirm it yet.
            1. Demagogue
              Demagogue 12 June 2020 05: 42 New
              0


              "Скажите, а погромы будут? - Будуть, будуть."))
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 51 New
          0
          But really, what are the preconditions that our economy will grow so strongly that funds will appear for a large fleet? The same China is building it because it is actively trading in manufactured goods (not in hydrocarbons through pipelines). - To control the sea routes. But he also has a budget 10 times more than the Russian Federation. Will it turn out that we will come to the state of the USSR at the end of the 80s?
          1. timokhin-aa
            21 July 2020 09: 16 New
            +1
            A series of RTO projects 21631 and 22800 - 100 billion in 2014 prices.
            Patrol ships 22160 - 36 billion in 2015 prices.
            Corvette 20386 - in the final will reach 40 billion approximately.
            Проект СПА "Посейдон" с носителями - в финале выйдет около 200 миллиардов.

            Half of this money has already been spent. And these are only four sawing projects useless for the country.

            And if all these are raised? The drawings of ekranoplanes alone have taken half a yard over the past ten years - to pictures.

            For comparison, to build another Kuznetsov, only normal, not fragile, is somewhere around 300-350 billion.

            The whole tragedy lies in the fact that we had and still have money for a normal fleet. They only spend them on the wrong and wrong places, mainly because of the lobbying opportunities of the industrial and the personal foolishness of individual military leaders.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 21 July 2020 15: 35 New
              +1
              I agree that money is spent irrationally.
              But first you need to create an infrastructure for the construction and maintenance of such ships. We need a floating dock. And an analogue of Newport-News Shipbuilding.
              We have not even been able to build (there is no capacity and / or technology) a version of the late PD-50. request
              By the way, what's wrong with 20380?
              1. timokhin-aa
                21 July 2020 21: 15 New
                +1
                The dry dock is already under construction, the floating dock is already needed, for the same submarines or nuclear cruisers.
                You can order a floating dock from the Chinese, transporting is only a problem, but not insoluble.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 21 July 2020 22: 36 New
                  +1
                  The question is: why can't you build a floating dock yourself, but only order from Norway, China? No suitable shipyards?
                  But this is a kind of test for the readiness of building and maintaining large ships.
                  Where is the dock being built? In Primorye?
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    22 July 2020 12: 11 New
                    +1
                    You can build a floating dock, but what's the point?

                    The dry dock is being built at the 35th plant near Kuzya. Of two small ones.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 22 July 2020 23: 08 New
                      +1
                      I thought it was about what is being built in the Big Stone. The dimensions will allow you to build any ships.
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      23 July 2020 11: 41 New
                      +1
                      There, too, but there, in front of the dock, the pool is not deep.
  • Dimmedroll
    Dimmedroll 2 June 2020 18: 35 New
    +2
    To be honest, I don’t really understand, Yaroslavna’s crying over aircraft carriers. Let’s honestly say how we will bring them to the ocean? After all, all our naval bases are essentially closed in inland waters. Therefore, I do not really understand the question raised by the author. In my opinion. Today, Russia simply does not need an aircraft carrier fleet. With whom and where is Russia going to fight? Our doctrine does not imply the existence of expeditionary forces. But the aircraft carriers are still offensive units. We need to build up the fleet of the middle and distant sea zone, and while this does not make sense, there are no aircraft carriers.
    1. ancient
      ancient 2 June 2020 18: 59 New
      -3
      Quote: Dimmedroll
      To be honest, I don’t quite understand Yaroslavna’s crying over aircraft carriers

      Frankly, I’m the same .. didn’t like the author’s conclusions.
      Quote - "...Сколько времени у самолётов уйдёт на выполнение боевой задачи? Если не ударяться в фанатизм и действовать как американцы, то за предельно допустимый в реальной войне боевой радиус можно принять 500-550 километров."
      In the good old days, when there was a normal Air Force and a more or less normal Fleet ... when calculating the conduct of a database against AUG and AUS, they always took the reach of carrier-based aircraft (strike) of 1200 km, maneuvering aUG and AUS at the turn of 800 km from our territory.
      Where did 500 km come from.
      The speed of flight to the target is mainly 650 km / h at low altitude, back yes ... 850 km / h
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 June 2020 10: 17 New
        +3
        Quote: ancient
        In the good old days, when there was a normal Air Force and a more or less normal Fleet ... when calculating the conduct of a database against AUG and AUS, they always took the reach of carrier-based aircraft (strike) of 1200 km, maneuvering aUG and AUS at the turn of 800 km from our territory.

        Well, yes ... at the same times in the ZVO they wrote that one of typical The tasks of the AUG adversary is to strike at the AUG potential adversary at a distance of 600 miles.
      2. timokhin-aa
        4 June 2020 19: 48 New
        0
        The ACS always took the line of sight of carrier-based aviation (strike) of 1200 km, the maneuvering of the ACG and ACS at the turn of 800 km from our territory.
        Where did 500 km come from.


        500 km from American chudks. The combat radius of the F-18, even with the PTB, does not reach 1200 km with a serious combat load, if that.
    2. ancient
      ancient 2 June 2020 19: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: Dimmedroll
      Let’s honestly say how we will bring them to the ocean?

      Ну один то можно иметь в Средиземном море, правда на прикрытие его нужно будет собрать все действующие силы флота (современные) имеющиеся в данный момент в строю ну и ВМБ для "тех.обслуживания".
      Yes ... well, the aircraft carrier must be nuclear.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 58 New
        0
        You can have it, but where to build it (if 70 thousand tons) and service it? We didn't have a clone of Newport News, by any chance? smile
    3. Alexandra
      Alexandra 3 June 2020 15: 14 New
      0
      Our doctrine does not imply the existence of expeditionary forces. But the aircraft carriers are still offensive units.


      What a cry? Our doctrine provides for the creation of marine aircraft systems. The author is simply worried that this will be a repetition of a mistake with Ustinovsky SKVVP carriers.
    4. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 02 New
      0
      Let’s honestly say how we will bring them to the ocean? After all, all our naval bases are essentially closed in inland waters.


      USSR Navy solved this problem, google OPESK.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 21 July 2020 01: 00 New
        0
        Expensive and remember, it was a kind of kamikaze fleet. Who will not be supported within a reasonable time frame.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 July 2020 09: 10 New
          +1
          At the first blow from our side, this was not even a kamikaze fleet in the Soviet version. Although in the end ours would have lost, but the Americans could have, let's say, not win.
          Now everything can be done much smarter and even cheaper.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 21 July 2020 23: 12 New
            +1
            Cheaper due to what? And what's the point of keeping a fleet there? Because the USSR did this?
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 July 2020 12: 13 New
              +1
              Cheaper due to the fact that now they do not build a separate ship for each task (except for MRK and minesweepers). And also due to the fact that now an incomparably greater salary is provided from one ship than the USSR could.

              OPESK is an example of what can be deployed in advance. The USSR kept its forces in the ocean all the time, it is not necessary for us, it is obligatory for us to be ready to deploy quickly in a threatened period.
    5. 3danimal
      3danimal 21 July 2020 00: 56 New
      0
      I agree about the closedness of naval bases and the feasibility of aircraft carriers to the existing needs, capabilities and doctrine.
      But the aircraft carrier is not a purely offensive unit. It's just a very powerful warship with tremendous tactical flexibility in weapons (strike aircraft). And everyone who has it gains an advantage.
      True, not everyone can afford it and technical and infrastructural capabilities.
  • antivirus
    antivirus 2 June 2020 18: 39 New
    0
    that in Russia there is a lobby, albeit weak (and hidden), puzzled by the issues of depriving our country of at least some significant carrier forces,

    -Был ли НСХрущев родоначальником "ракетомании"?- не он один-вот и противник( сколько их?) авианосцев.
    -ищите "ракетчиков" а не УДКашников.
    ---степь против моря: "мой трон седло, моя на поле слава..."- не в морях
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 June 2020 10: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: antivirus
      -ищите "ракетчиков" а не УДКашников.

      И УДК-шников тоже. Устинов и Амелько пытались занять "Стапель 0" именно УДК, сделав такими образом невозможной постройку 1143.5.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 3 June 2020 10: 39 New
        0
        I'm talking about dr. I still want to break ---- the price of 1 km of highway and 1 ticket to a pioneer camp how much did it cost?
        in addition to military lobbyists, there are also pioneers. Pressed-bones and other humanities.
        there was no net division of the military budget between the different in the General Staff and the Defense Ministry.
        to distract diesel generators from agricultural and northerners (oil and gas industry) and so on and so on for 10 positions. Is diamond mining more profitable than cutting the budget on a / b? - You can immediately make friends with the wives of the masters of the world, without an arms race
        1. timokhin-aa
          3 June 2020 21: 03 New
          0
          Your speech connectivity is lost somewhere.
          1. antivirus
            antivirus 3 June 2020 21: 12 New
            0
            I am not a poet, and the question of aircraft carriers is not solved by you either.
            specification of dual-use products how would you do?
            Вы все и всё обсуждаете -"надо-ненадо-возможно", а я про сколько оторвать от с\хоз и северов( резерв эл.пит) и тп ПЕРВООЧЕРЕДНЫХ ЗАДАЧ ВЫТАСКИВАНИЯ ОГРОМНОЙ СТРАНЫ из посткрепостничества( ведь колхозы в 1930 году не прибавили дорог и элеваторов и др приблуды в сельск местности) в индустриальную эпоху. мы этот этап так и не прошли полностью-- просто разрушили "село" и малые города.
            Берете на себя ответственность за жизнь 100 млн чел( своих, родных) с 5 авианосцами ( по 70 тыс тонн) и без канализации и др "цивилизации", тк "не целесообразно" и так много великого "видится из высоких кабинетов" хоть Кудрина , хоть Рогозина.
            kindergartens are not for them;
            and not to you?

            and the production of diamonds and oil eventually won the USSR
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 21 July 2020 01: 02 New
              +1
              The problem is correctly identified good
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 2 June 2020 18: 50 New
    +1
    Товарищ Тимохин, а не могли бы вы назвать "другую страну " с которой Россия совместно будет строить авианосец? Разве только Монголия, или Эритрея, а все остальные страны мира по команде из сшы даже за хорошее бабло и через губу не плюнут! Нам нужно будет как следует напрячься, и самим для себя строить авианосцы!
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 21 July 2020 01: 07 New
      +1
      But didn't we (in captivity of the concept of confrontation that remained from the Union, although there were no ideological contradictions left) ourselves tried to spoil relations? At every corner who just did not shout, but we are against, but we can. It was painful for many to realize that we are no longer a superpower (we have to learn from the British, they did a good job), and since they were at enmity with the United States during her time, then we also need to.
      As if it will automatically raise them to their level (and in the top 5 economies of the planet, as one politician promised smile )
  • Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 2 June 2020 18: 53 New
    +2
    There are not many options, for uninterrupted service Kuznetsov at least needs a pair that is compatible for the Kuznetsov air group, it is more reliable and cheaper, that means with a springboard, ... etc.
  • Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 2 June 2020 19: 09 New
    +1
    The air group, of course, also needs to be modernized, the engines replaced with new ones with UVT, avionics. And all will be well.
  • Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 2 June 2020 19: 19 New
    13
    ПД-50 утонул во время доковой операции из-за коррозии металла. "Адмирал Кузнецов" здесь не при делах. Обшивка башни не выдержала давление воды+произошло отключение питания, при этом насосы и так молотили, постоянно выкачивая из гнилого плавдока воду. Ввиду возраста башни плавдока превратились в решето и ПД-50 утонул. 38 лет без ремонта все таки ПД-50 прослужил + у его была родовая травма, которая связана с работой насосов. Из-за их неправильной работы в один из моментов испытаний ПД-50 в Швеции произошёл гидроудар по корпусу и ПД-50 «всплыл с вмятинами». Отмечено, что стальные листы ПД были буквально вдавлены внутрь, вследствие чего их пришлось в экстренном порядке «переваривать». Это было за несколько дней до передачи советским морякам. Повреждения ПД-50 получал и в ходе транспортировки в СССР, когда попадал в сильнейший шторм. Это тоже потребовало восстановления. Поэтому ПД-50 был обречён. Аналогичная ситуация была у украинцев на немецком трофейном плавдоке грузоподъемностью 60 тыс. тонн (для линкора"Тирпиц"), который в СССР имел номер 4М. "Построен он был в фашистской Германии в 1937 году на заводе Круппа. После войны док в виде трофея попал в Ленинград. Потом его понадобилось перегнать на новый завод. Док длиной 250м, шириной 50м и грузоподъемностью 60 тыс. тонн. Провели его на буксире вокруг Европы из Балтики в Черное море – это была супер-операция! Еще лет 45 на доке ремонтировали крупнотоннажные суда – крупповская сталь держалась. И только после более 65-ти лет эксплуатации, наконец, треснула. Док, высотой с 9-этажный дом затонул, опустился на дно, а верхушка торчит". Безжалостная эксплуатация плавдоков до состояния металлолома, и никакой конспирологии. О каких атомных авианосца может быть речь, если до сих пор не утилизирован тяжёлый атомный ракетный крейсер "Киров". С августа 2005 года «Киров» носовым бульбовым обтекателем погружается в грунт. Корпус корабля деформирован, подкилевой обтекатель ГАС и шахты лага негерметичны. И всем на это глубоко пофиг.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 04 New
      0
      Well, in general, I do not insist, however, sabotage cannot be ruled out, the dock was much younger than Kruppovsky
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 21 July 2020 01: 11 New
      +1
      I totally agree, very relevant and sobering.
      And as one of the conditions for the possibility of having an aircraft carrier fleet: you must first be able to build such floating docks yourself.
  • KrolikZanuda
    KrolikZanuda 2 June 2020 19: 35 New
    -3
    From the Olympics, the benefits were and are. From the presence of an aircraft carrier, the benefit is only in prestige, here we have a type.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 05 New
      0
      This is not pressed.
    2. Alex Rossky
      Alex Rossky 8 June 2020 13: 40 New
      0
      Could this benefit from the Olympics be concretized in a couple of phrases?
  • lucul
    lucul 2 June 2020 20: 00 New
    +9
    The Navy wants a large aircraft carrier, and the Navy is right about this.

    I support.
    The propaganda of ideas such as “Aircraft carriers are outdated” and “Russia doesn’t need an aircraft carrier”, which was absolutely distraught by heat, has already dealt so hard a blow to the minds of our people that the fact of having an aircraft carrier in our fleet simply fell out of mass consciousness. The frenzied propaganda of the futility of American aircraft carriers played a cruel joke with us - our people are now confident in the futility of this class of ships in general, and the result was that the future of now Russian aircraft carriers has come into question.

    For those who will not see trees in the forest - I explain on the fingers.
    What is the main advantage of American aircraft carriers? The ability to launch AWACS from the deck, the bright representative of their Grumman E-2 Hokai, here is a photo

    What is its main advantage? The aircraft provides maximum target detection at a distance of about 540 km (aircraft) and 258 km (cruise missiles) and can also monitor surface targets. The information received is transmitted to the Information Operations Center, located on the flagship of the aircraft carrier, as well as to fighters patrolling the airspace. E-2C, used as a command post, is capable of providing guidance to fighters, to carry out early warning of the appearance of enemy aircraft and to control escort fighters.
    Without an AWACS aircraft, an aircraft carrier is blind and deaf and stupid ..... This is the foundation and heart of an aircraft carrier. No light aircraft carrier, or even UDC, will be able to launch an AWACS aircraft.
    Let me remind you why the Japanese lost the battle for Midway. In the initial phase of the battle, the Japanese successfully repulsed all the attacks of American aviation and with great losses for them. But one group of bombers, led by 3rd-rank captain Clarence Wade McCluskey, lost the Japanese fleet, and searched for him for an hour. So, after successfully repelling the American raid, the Japanese decided to strike back, and for this they raised their bombers on the decks of the aircraft carriers, accordingly landing all the fighters, believing that there would be no more attacks. The key mistake of the Japanese in this battle was the landing of their reconnaissance aircraft, together with the fighters, which worked brilliantly before that, having timely discovered all the enemy squadrons. And the new one, in exchange, was not raised into the air. And at this moment, a group of captain McCluskey discovered the Japanese fleet and attacked him. And since there was no reconnaissance aircraft in the sky, the Japanese fleet was blind until the very attack of the Americans, what happened next - everyone already knows this.
    So, any light aircraft carrier or UDC, and with it the entire fleet, will be absolutely blind and deaf to the enemy’s attack, like the Japanese at the time. That is, the fleet, without an AWACS aircraft, is doomed to defeat in advance.
    That is, we can create a powerful fleet of UDC, light aircraft carriers and other ships, spend an incredible amount of the country's resources on this and lose it in the very first battle against aircraft carriers with AWACS aircraft. This will be the second Tsushima in advance.
    At the moment, with our superiority in missile weapons, the value of a large aircraft carrier is unchanged. To project power anywhere in the world, we need an AWACS aircraft on an aircraft carrier, the number of bombers on an aircraft carrier will not be critical, our other ships with cruise missiles such as Caliber can also replace bombers ....
    The ocean is actually huge and finding even an aircraft carrier in it is a very difficult task. And without an AWACS aircraft, finding an enemy fleet is like finding a needle in a haystack.
    Therefore, we need a full-fledged aircraft carrier capable of launching AWACS aircraft from the deck if we want to continue to be a full-fledged sea power.
    1. agond
      agond 2 June 2020 21: 08 New
      -5
      Создается впечатление,что кто то нам периодически подбрасывает идею о необходимости строительства авианосцев , как миниум двух,и полноценных , и это при том, что аргументов против было высказано не счесть. Однако авианосцы в мире существуют и их продолжают строить , тот же Китай,( правда у них длинное побережье и не замерзает) , а вот авианосцев ледокольного типа еще не придумали, но нам надо как то развивать свои ВМС и если есть такая "насущная" необходимость в авианесущих кораблях то лучше их делать для беспилотников, на порядки дешевле выйдет., так же следует продолжать работы по СВВП , так как они нужнее авианосцев.
    2. Avior
      Avior 2 June 2020 22: 15 New
      +3
      Therefore, we need a full-fledged aircraft carrier capable of launching AWACS aircraft from the deck

      the author does not want a full-fledged one, the author wants Kuznetsov.
      and on it the AWAC will still not be
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra 3 June 2020 15: 27 New
        +2
        И Як-44 и А-110 разработчики планировали сажать на Кузнецов".

        http://www.yak.ru/DOCS/yak-44.pdf

        "Вследствие некоторой переразмеренности, явившейся платой за трамплинный взлет, Як-44Э имел несколько большие габариты, чем самолет катапультного взлета с теми же показателями эффективности. Однако он неплохо вписывался на палубы корабля и не требовал заметного (с точки зрения эффективности всей корабельной авиагруппы) уменьшения числа истребителей."

        Разговор вообще не с того начат. Когда ВМФ оплатит ОКР по палубному РЛДН пригодному для базирования на "Кузнецове" и строительство перекрытого эллингом 400 метрового дока на "Балтийском заводе", можно уже и о проекте перспективного авианосца рассуждать.
        1. Avior
          Avior 3 June 2020 16: 18 New
          -2
          Yak44e began to do two times, and both times did not even make a prototype.
          Developers usually exaggerate the possibilities; they also need to advertise their products.
          1. Alexandra
            Alexandra 3 June 2020 16: 30 New
            +3
            Do you think that the developers of the Yak-44 were so versed in aerodynamics that their hopes that their Yak-44 could fly from the springboard would not be justified?

            Как показала практика совершенно сухопутный турбовинтовой KC-130F мог садиться на авианосец "Форрестол" без всякого аэрофинишера и взлетать без всякого трамплина и катапульты:

            https://youtu.be/uM5AI3YSV3M

            The maximum take-off weight and the maximum payload delivered to the aircraft carrier are indicated in the video.
            1. Avior
              Avior 3 June 2020 16: 34 New
              -2
              I also cited the video from s-130 more than once as an example of the fact that not every aircraft that, in principle, can take off from the deck, can really be used for this in a combat situation.
              they flew for an experiment in calm, warm weather, but it never occurred to anyone to really introduce it.
              1. Alexandra
                Alexandra 3 June 2020 16: 40 New
                +4
                Все упирается в размах крыла. У Як-44 размах крыла проекту был 25,7 м. У E-2С - 24,56 м. E-2C успешно летает с 42 тыс. тонного "Шарлья де Голля", что посадочная что полётная палуба которого меньше чем у "Кузнецова".
                1. Avior
                  Avior 3 June 2020 18: 26 New
                  -2
                  E2C takes off from the catapult.
                  1. Alexandra
                    Alexandra 3 June 2020 18: 55 New
                    +1
                    Those who are versed in aerodynamics can probably tell why the KC-130F could take off even without a springboard, and a catapult is required for the E-2C.

                    Be that as it may, a turboprop aircraft capable of taking off from the deck using a springboard is possible, moreover, on land this aircraft will demonstrate the characteristics of a UVP aircraft.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_STOL_aircraft
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 3 June 2020 19: 27 New
                      -2
                      even piston capable, in World War II they soared smile
                      1. Alexandra
                        Alexandra 3 June 2020 20: 30 New
                        0
                        But reactive, only with turbofan:

                        https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2572366C2/ru

                        "...На самолете установлены реактивные двигатели. Для сокращения дистанции разбега при использовании самолета с коротких ВПП или с авианосцев с трамплинным стартом двигатели (двигатель) могут быть снабжены форсажными камерами..."
      2. timokhin-aa
        3 June 2020 21: 06 New
        +2
        To begin with, the author wants to work out all the organizational issues at Kuznetsov, do not distort the meaning of what I wrote.
      3. Alex Rossky
        Alex Rossky 8 June 2020 13: 44 New
        0
        The author wants Kuznetsov in the ranks to gain skills in using the wing based on him.
    3. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 3 June 2020 00: 48 New
      0
      Quote: lucul
      The ocean is actually huge and finding even an aircraft carrier in it is a very difficult task
      and the option of detecting an AUG, a satellite, and subsequent reconnaissance, guidance to this area (according to satellite data) by aviation (type A-50 or TU 95 RC) is impossible, in principle, for a naval ship’s command center in this oceans ?!
      1. Avior
        Avior 3 June 2020 06: 26 New
        0
        In order for the A-50 to find an aircraft carrier in the ocean even in a given area, it must fly with the radar turned on, which means it will be visible for another 600-800 kilometers.
        What do you think will happen to an unarmed reconnaissance without any kind of cover in the event of military operations against the AUG in the area of ​​operation of carrier-based aircraft?
        And the A-50 still needs to fly at a distance of no more than 400 km from the aircraft carrier in order to detect it.
        1. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 5 June 2020 00: 42 New
          0
          Quote: Avior
          In order for the A-50 to find an aircraft carrier in the ocean even in a given area, it must fly with the radar turned on, which means it will be visible for another kilometers beyond +600.
          To whom? Aircraft carrier ?! ... and when compared with
          Quote: Avior
          And the A-50 still needs to fly at a distance of no more 400 km from the aircraft carrier to detect it.
          то по Вашему мнению, не А-50 (или по аналогии "Хокаю"), AWACS (reconnaissance-gunner) first visible ship (KUG), but rather ?! Are you sure that the situation is not the other way around ?! belay this is the first.
          А второе: может стоить три-четыре спутника - "Пиона" (добавить к "Лиане"), и это будет дешевле, для "обзорности океана на предмет обнаружения АУГ неприятеля"than to create your carrier formations (my assumption, if not a specialist)?! but this again, if the AWACS aircraft see earlier and further than their ships, respectively ... (although you have inspired some of the doubts about my early conviction that this is usually the case.) !! hi
          1. Avior
            Avior 5 June 2020 07: 19 New
            -2
            it will be visible to Hawkeye or Growler, and their location will not give you anything, they do not hang over the aircraft carrier.
            Moreover, the grower works in the PTR mode, and the aircraft carrier at the transition can be in radio silence mode. By the way, Hokai can work the same way.
            That is, the A-50 in order to detect an aircraft carrier, it is necessary to be at 400 km, at least it is a radio horizon at an altitude of 10 km.
            And keep in mind that in reality it will be necessary to find closer, some kind of supply tanker or roller can also give a large mark, which means that it is necessary to clarify the entire composition of the AUG, and therefore, come closer.
            But Hawkeye or Growler, extended 300 km from the aircraft carrier in the threatened direction, will detect a-50 radiation from a distance of 600-800 kilometers, that is, there will be another thousand kilometers to the aircraft carrier.
            About satellites - they are used for reconnaissance and everything that is not passive detects radiation there, which means that it will not detect anything in radio silence mode, besides, Americans have a lot of radar unification, the same navigation can stand on a minesweeper, on an aircraft carrier .
            The active ones have the problem that their radars are very low-power, so the noise immunity is not high, and they work in low orbits, in fact, in the reach of missile defense missiles of American destroyers.
            Так что насчёт обнаружения, это " гладко было на бумаге"
      2. frog
        frog 3 June 2020 20: 22 New
        0
        Если не сильно упираться в "найти АУГ у Антарктиды", то, может быть, можно ЗГРЛС типа "Волна" обойтись? Дешвле и проще приснопамятной "Дуги". На 3 ккм работает. Понятно, что нужна будет и доразведка и прочее, так ить "Волна" - не панацея, а только одно из комплекса средств.....
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 21 July 2020 01: 20 New
          +2
          Ok, but how to reconnoitre without having AWACS aircraft?
          And the ranges of these systems (which are strongly limited by the state of the ionosphere), which can be placed on a ship, are much more modest.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 June 2020 11: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: lucul
      So, after successfully repelling the American raid, the Japanese decided to strike back, and for this they raised their bombers on the decks of the aircraft carriers, accordingly landing all the fighters, believing that there would be no more attacks.

      С точностью до наоборот: ударная компонента сидела в ангарах, а палубы были заняты обслуживанием истребителей. Из-за непрекращающихся налётов американцев Нагумо был вынужден организовать конвейер перезарядки и дозаправки "Зеро", держа в воздухе до 42 истребителей и израсходовав на ПВО истребители прикрытия второй волны.
      Quote: lucul
      And since there was no reconnaissance aircraft in the sky, the Japanese fleet was blind until the very attack of the Americans, what happened next - everyone already knows this.

      При чём тут разведчик? Разведчики занимались обнаружением кораблей флота противника. А провал с ПВО 1 и 2 ДАВ был вызван тем, что все "Зеро" в погоне за фрагами стянулись на малые высоты, охотясь за торпедоносцами и пытаясь завалить "Уайлдкэты" Тэча. В результате, МакКласки и Лесли атаковали как на полигоне - и даже в этой ситуации МакКласки чуть не завалил атаку, устроив неразбериху с целеуказанием, из-за чего вся его группа поначалу ринулась бомбить одну цель.
      ИЧХ, как и с атакой Пёрл-Харбора, атака пикировщиков при Мидуэе была до этого разыграна на Средиземке. Только вместо англичан в Таранто на этот раз были немцы и "Илластриес". Итальянские торпедоносцы стянули CAP англичан на МВ и ПМВ, после чего на большой высоте подошли "штуки". CAP растратил БК и топливо на попытки сбить торперов, а спешно поднятый с палубы scramble не успел набрать высоту. И "штуки" отработали как на полигоне. smile
    5. Tavrik
      Tavrik 3 June 2020 20: 49 New
      0
      An alternative to deck-mounted AWACS can be a heavy UAV with various payloads, launched far from the coast and working in the interests of the shipboard group. Moreover, information from it can be taken directly on board the flagship.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 21 July 2020 01: 22 New
        +1
        It will be an unmanned A-50 request You are not planning to “look” at 500 km in all directions with cameras, are you?
    6. 3danimal
      3danimal 21 July 2020 01: 17 New
      0
      I agree with almost everything (except for such an advantage in the Caliber missiles, one can compare the number of the CD at least).
      But the question is: who will build, maintain and maintain all this? Have we already entered the top 5 (at least) world economies (as promised by one of the presidents)? Do we know how to build analogs of the commemorative PD-50 and have our own analogue of the Newport News shipyard? Everything should be in order and to the best of your ability.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 2 June 2020 20: 51 New
    -2
    The propaganda of ideas such as “Aircraft carriers are outdated” and “Russia doesn’t need an aircraft carrier”, which was absolutely distraught by heat, has already dealt so hard a blow to the minds of our people that the fact of having an aircraft carrier in our fleet simply fell out of mass consciousness.
    Автор решил нанести контрудар по сознанию людей под девизом "Авианосцы вечны" и "России не жить без авианосца". Очевидно автор считает, что как только авианосец построят, жизнь граждан России резко улучшится. Правда связь этих факторов не раскрывает, предлагает поверить на слово.
    1. timokhin-aa
      2 June 2020 21: 38 New
      +2
      Well, why juggle like that?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 2 June 2020 21: 59 New
        +1
        Well, what is the distortion? In what? Why, then, if not for upholding the interests of the people of Russia for its prosperity, do you need an aircraft carrier, the need of which you are already advocating for? However, for some reason, you do not particularly highlight the relationship between these two factors. As far as I know, there are countries that do not have aircraft carriers, while they feel great and live very well.
        1. Liam
          Liam 2 June 2020 22: 05 New
          +2
          Не просто авианосец,а определенный тип авианосца.Автор и его хамоватый коллега просто лоббист в инет кругах определенной группы ВПК проталкивающей свои "продукты".Пишет же не только на этом сайте.Ну и воюют с такими же апологетами других продуктов и кочуют с их войнами с сайта на сайт.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 2 June 2020 22: 11 New
            -4
            Я не думаю, что автор располагает ресурсами повлиять на решения такого уровня. А уж "общественное мнение" и писанина на всяческих ресурсах и подавно. Единственное, на кого влияют такие публикации - на местных хомячков, которые почему то считают , что наличие в стране авианосца как то положительно скажется на их позиции в пищевой цепочке.
            1. Liam
              Liam 2 June 2020 22: 15 New
              +1
              Есть мастера есть подмастерья.И у каждого своя аудитория.На фабрику троллей и прочие проекты манипуляции "общественным мнением" инета тратятся вполне реальные деньги вполне официальными лицами.Курочка по зернышку как грится
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 2 June 2020 22: 35 New
                -2
                Кстати, а кого Вы имеете ввиду под "хамоватым коллегой"?
                1. Liam
                  Liam 2 June 2020 22: 42 New
                  0
                  I don’t remember nickname. But often flashes of insults in discussions of articles of the author. Climov or what? Or something like that
                2. Liam
                  Liam 7 June 2020 23: 58 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Undecim
                  Кстати, а кого Вы имеете ввиду под "хамоватым коллегой"?

                  Here. I noticed again.

                  Offline
                  Fizik M
                  Today, 22: 31
                  0
                  The probable date of the official ceremony of the transfer of the APRKSN "Prince Vladimir"
                  Quote: 955535
                  It looks like you are downloading here

                  animal, I will specifically give a link to you, see in the comments (Vladimir Koshkin, choking in hysteria and diarrhea, is 955535)
                  https://mina030.livejournal.com/20128.html
                  дабы местным подводникам стало ясно что ты за "шпец" lol
                  Well, animal, here, too, are you going to tear apart the tee for 855M for UHMW?
        2. Alexandra
          Alexandra 3 June 2020 15: 39 New
          0
          How many modern great powers without aircraft carriers in their military fleets do you know? I do not know any:

          https://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-needs-to-become-a-great-power-again-11589387398

          The recipe for improving the life of the people of Russia by dividing Russia into many small cozy countries was not invented in Russia.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 3 June 2020 17: 43 New
            -1
            How many modern great powers without aircraft carriers in their military fleets do you know? I do not know any:
            Среди условий, определяющих относится держава к "великим" или нет, наличие авианосцев отсутствует.
            1. Alexandra
              Alexandra 3 June 2020 18: 26 New
              +1
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power

              "Пространственное измерение

              All states have geographic coverage of interests, actions, or projected power. This is decisive factor distinguishing a great power from a regional power. По определению сфера охвата региональной державы ограничивается ее регионом. Было высказано мнение о том, что великая держава должна обладать фактическим влиянием в рамках всей существующей международной системы. Арнольд Дж. Тойнби, например, отмечал, что "Великая держава может быть определена как политическая сила, оказывающая влияние, охватывающее самый широкий круг сообществ, в котором она действует. Великие державы 1914 года были "мировыми державами" потому что Западное сообщество недавно стало "всемирным" [24]

              Были высказаны и другие предположения о том, что великая держава должна обладать способностью участвовать во внерегиональных делах и что великая держава должна обладать внерегиональными интересами - два положения, которые часто тесно связаны."


              And so, a great power has both extra-regional interests and the ability to protect these interests, including by force.

              Next item:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection

              "Проецирование силы - это термин, используемый в военной и политической науке для обозначения способности государства развертывать и поддерживать силы за пределами своей территории.

              Эта способность является важнейшим элементом власти государства в международных отношениях. Можно сказать, что любое государство, способное направить свои вооруженные силы за пределы своей территории, обладает определенным уровнем способности к проецированию силы, но сам термин чаще всего используется в отношении вооруженных сил, имеющих всемирную досягаемость (или, по крайней мере, значительно более широкую, чем непосредственная территория государства). Даже государства обладающие значительными активами жесткой силы (например, большой постоянной армией) могут оказывать лишь ограниченное региональное влияние, если им не хватает средства для эффективного проектирования своей силы в глобальном масштабе..."
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 4 June 2020 01: 23 New
                -4
                Everything is clear with you. Another strategist on a Wikipedia scale.
                1. Alexandra
                  Alexandra 4 June 2020 11: 24 New
                  +3
                  During the conversation in Russian that you understand, I introduced you to the English-language definitions of the terms Great Power (great power) and power projection (power projection). Do not thank, I made it out of pure altruism.
                  1. Undecim
                    Undecim 4 June 2020 13: 01 New
                    0
                    Altruism is no stranger to me either, so I recommend trying art training as a response step.
              2. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl 6 June 2020 00: 48 New
                0
                Well, I think that the citizens of Singapore, Norway, or Finland consider themselves unhappy due to the fact that no one particularly calls their countries great, and there are no aircraft carriers in their fleets ?!
                1. Alexandra
                  Alexandra 6 June 2020 12: 58 New
                  0
                  Do you propose to divide Russia into many many small cozy countries inhabited by happy people?
        3. timokhin-aa
          3 June 2020 21: 08 New
          0
          So maybe we should - in general, let the sun go home? Will we be like Costa Rica, without an army?
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 4 June 2020 01: 30 New
            -4
            Here you are storming! Either an urgent carrier give you, then we will dismiss the army. Better go in for self-education.
            1. timokhin-aa
              4 June 2020 19: 52 New
              +2
              A fleet without aircraft carriers has extremely limited combat effectiveness. You mock at the idea that there should be aircraft carriers in it, so the idea for Russia to have a combat-ready Navy causes you internal protest.
              So my irony is quite the topic, isn't it?
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 4 June 2020 20: 08 New
                0
                По поводу "внутренних протестов" - это к местным хомячкам-турбопатриотам. И критикую я не саму идею наличия в составе ВМФ России полноценных авианосцев, а конкретно Вашу ажиотацию вокруг этой идеи и полное отсутствие понимания (хотя тут возникают серьезные сомнения) того, что при нынешнем состоянии экономики в целом и судостроения в частности, решить этот вопрос в каких то практически значимых масштабах нет никакой возможности.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  10 June 2020 20: 18 New
                  +1
                  Now may not be the right time to strike hard, but it is quite suitable for the promotion of healthy ideas.
                  Касательно экономики - на мегаторпеду "Посейдон", серию патрульных кораблей 22160, и две серии МРК ушла стоимость авианосца примерно на 40-45 килотонн.
                  Already gone, understand?
                  And the Sochi Olympics cost the nuclear carrier in the range of 80-90 kilotons with an air group.
                  I honestly say that I did not notice any gigantic tension for the economy precisely because of these expenses.
                  Regarding the industry, I already wrote about how to quickly build a variant of a gas turbine aircraft carrier, a new construction site should be built for the nuclear one.
                  Again - they built it on the Star, but there is far away, the Far East, and the basin is shallow.
                  The same for plant protection and it will be possible every six seven years to take one unit, even at the current technological level.
                  I have studied this question quite deeply, if that.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 21 July 2020 01: 24 New
      +2
      I agree about the impact on the lives of citizens.
      Kotor, without a radical economic growth, will deteriorate even further, under the burden of such "programs" of weapons. The goal of building communism around the world seems to be gone, so what will justify such expensive means?
  • iouris
    iouris 2 June 2020 21: 58 New
    +4
    Армия авиация и флот есть есть слепок с общества (Ф.Энгельс). А государство "полноценное", а флот "полноценный"? Кстати, благодаря творчеству тех юристов, которые "занимаются судопроизводством" флот вообще не имеет авианосцев. Формально, конечно, их есть...
  • Avior
    Avior 2 June 2020 22: 37 New
    +2
    The author, in my opinion, is repeated.
    And, sadly, it is repeated even where it is obviously wrong and all this has been discussed for a long time.
    In real combat operations, the number of sorties is determined by their need, and not the maximum possible.
    But this author considers real crashes for others.
    For Kuznetsov, theoretical. This is just not serious.
    Cavour deprived a dozen of the aircraft that he really has.
    But theoretically, Kuznetsov was so heavily loaded that they never existed.
    by takeoff speed.
    Given the fact that there are no AWACS on Kuznetsovo, it can be used as air defense only near its very shore.
    And for strike missions, speed is not so important.
    The Americans conducted tests of Nimitz - 1000 sorties in 4 days.
    and concluded - the weakest link in this is the maintenance staff, it is not enough to have more flights.
    With a price. In Cavour, the author also included repairs with modernization in the price.
    Hindus such repairs cost 2,4 billion papers with the presidents.
    That's what a normal Kuznetsov repair will cost.
    And the author has such stretches in almost every paragraph.
    Not very convincing, to be honest, it looks.
    And further. Kuznetsov- this is an aircraft carrier under VTOL aircraft, it was designed and built like this.
    Horizontal landing aircraft were provided there as an auxiliary function.
    1. Liam
      Liam 2 June 2020 22: 50 New
      +1
      You are absolutely right.
    2. Alexandra
      Alexandra 3 June 2020 15: 47 New
      0
      Hindus such repairs cost 2,4 billion papers with the presidents.


      Вы итальянский "Кавур" с индийским "Викрамадитья" попутали. Сейчас итальянцы достраивают 33 тыс. тонный "Триест". Ценник 1 млрд 171 млн евро. Построен он путём обмана итальянского парламента, в котором видимо тоже окопались противники авианосцев.

      https://ak-12.livejournal.com/62332.html

      1. Avior
        Avior 3 June 2020 18: 28 New
        -1
        I didn’t mislead anything.
        I just meant it, illustrating the possible cost of Kuznetsov, taking into account the repair and modernization, as he did with respect to Kavur.
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 3 June 2020 19: 04 New
          -3
          "Кавур" был введен в строй в 2009 г. Строительная стоимость 1 млрд. 390 млн. евро в ценах 2010 года. Инфляция евро с января 2010-го по декабрь 2019-го 14.2%.
      2. Liam
        Liam 3 June 2020 18: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: AlexanderA
        It was built by deceiving the Italian parliament

        This is newspaper nonsense.
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 3 June 2020 19: 20 New
          -1
          The Italian Navy dragged this ship through the Italian parliament as a DVKD with a total displacement of about 20 thousand tons. :)

          http://factmil.com/publ/strana/kitaj/zarubezhnye_strojashhiesja_i_perspektivnye_desantno_vertoljotnye_korabli_doki_2018/59-1-0-1353

          "В Италии фирма "Финкантьери" ведет работы по проектированию нового десантно-вертолетного корабля-дока.

          Согласно техническому заданию перспективный ДВКД (водоизмещение 20-22 тыс. т) должен иметь сплошную полетную палубу (около 4 500 м2) с островной надстройкой по правому борту, шестью вертолетными площадками и двумя подъемниками (один за надстройкой, другой в кормовой оконечности) авиационной техники. В ангаре предполагается разместить шесть вертолетов (максимально в составе авиагруппы может быть 12-15 единиц различного типа)."
          1. Liam
            Liam 3 June 2020 19: 28 New
            +1
            Listen. Why are you releasing these inarticulate articles for 2018 to me?. The construction of Trieste began in 2017. How do you think they started building without a project approved by all authorities (including Parliament) with all performance characteristics? And what would start building a project in 2017 when was you supposed to be ready on paper? Or do you think the aircraft carrier with a displacement of 33.000 tons is built on the knee and improvisations?
            Do not read Soviet newspapers at night)
            Here is an official document of the Parliament which approved the financing of this project with all TTX and not only. You can download and familiarize yourself with the whole document in PDF format.
            Programma pluriennale di A / R n. SMD 01/2014, relativo al
            programma navale per la tutela della capacità marittima
            of Defense
            Atto del governo 116
            Dossier n ° 122 - Schede di lettura
            November 11 2014
            Informazioni sugli atti di riferimento
            Atto del Governo: 116
            Titolo: Programma pluriennale di A / R n. SMD 01/2014, relativo al programma navale per la tutela
            della capacità marittima della Difesa
            Ministro competente: Ministro della difesa
            Norma di riferimento: D.Lgs. Mar 15, 2010, n. 66, art. 536, co. 3
            Date:
            assegnazione: 29 ottobre 2014
            termine per l'espressione del parere: 8 dicembre 2014
            Commissione competente: IV Difesa
            Rilievi di altre Commissioni: V Bilancio
            1. Alexandra
              Alexandra 3 June 2020 20: 17 New
              -1
              Listen. Why are you throwing off these slurred articles for 2018?


              Статью. Из официального печатного органа МО РФ журнала "Зарубежное военное обозрение" № 5 2018 г.

              Construction of Trieste began in 2017. How do you think, they began to build without a project approved by all authorities (including Parliament) with all the performance characteristics?


              Именно так. Официально (в представленных парламентариям документах) водоизмещение корабля для "гуманитарных операций" не озвучивалось. Неофициально парламентариев убедили в том что они голосуют вот за этот ДВКД:



              Скандальная "газетная чепуха" разразилась тогда, когда "всплыло" что и цена несколько другая, и корабль "несколько другой".

              Here is an official document of the Parliament which approved the financing of this project with all TTX and not only. You can download and familiarize yourself with the whole document in PDF format.
              Programma pluriennale di A / R n. SMD 01/2014, relativo al
              programma navale per la tutela della capacità marittima
              of Defense
              Atto del governo 116
              Dossier n ° 122 - Schede di lettura
              November 11 2014


              Here is the link to the document in PDF format:

              https://documenti.camera.it/leg17/dossier/pdf/DI0200.pdf

              На какой говорите странице документа "все ТТХ и не только"? На 5-й, на 6-й? Документ то смотрели? Процитируете из него длину, водоизмещение?

              Do not read Soviet newspapers at night)


              Professor? Immediately, I did not recognize.
              1. Liam
                Liam 3 June 2020 20: 46 New
                0
                Quote: AlexanderA

                Статью. Из официального печатного органа МО РФ журнала "Зарубежное военное обозрение" № 5 2018 г.

                Yeah. And Pravda is the official organ of the CPSU. This is the Soviet newspapers for the night.
                Quote: AlexanderA
                Скандальная "газетная чепуха" разразилась тогда, когда "всплыло" что и цена несколько другая, и корабль "несколько другой".

                Only in your fantasies and scandalous pacifists from a secondary semi-yellow Italian newspaper. In real life, all prices were immediately known and approved by the Parliament.

                Rome July 01 2015 19:03

                Fincantieri, uno dei primi gruppi cantieristici al mondo e operatore di riferimento nella navalmeccanica militare, e Finmeccanica, principale gruppo industriale italiano leader nel campo delle alte tecnologie, si sono aggiudicate il contratto per la coquiogifioglio gioppioglio LHD), prevista nell'ambito del piano di rinnovamento della flotta della Marina Militare.



                Il valore del contratto è pari a over 1,1 billion, di cui la quota di Fincantieri è pari a circa 853 milioni di euro, mentre quella di Finmeccanica ammonta a circa 273 milioni di euro. La consegna dell'unità è prevista nel 2022

                I’m translating it for scandalists. This is the announcement of the contract between the Moscow Region and Fincantieri and Finmeccanica (now Leonardo) dated July 2015 (immediately after Parliament approval). The contract price is 1,1 yards. Of which 853 million go to Fincantieri for the construction of the ship, and Leonardo- 273 million for equipping it with the necessary stuffing.
                Скандалисты из FQ запустили мульку про "обман" Парламента с суммой которая якобы была 800 лямов.Скромно"забыв" упомянуть про долю Леонардо которая шла отдельной строкой.И пошла гулять утка по "официальным" органам и их доверчивым читателям)
                Чепуху про обман парламента с ТТХ и суммой может проглотить только человек понятия не имеющий как работает система в демократической парламентской стране.Кто и откуда выделит "недостающие" сотни миллионов для оплаты "непредусмотренного" корабля без решения парламента и включения всех этих сумм в госбюджет и тд?)
                1. Alexandra
                  Alexandra 3 June 2020 21: 15 New
                  0
                  Yeah. And Pravda is the official organ of the CPSU. This is the Soviet newspapers for the night.


                  How old are you that you remember the official press organ of the Central Committee of the CPSU, but did the article of Captain 3rd Rank A. Shevchenko seem slurred? Maybe I'm trying in vain to reason with the old man?

                  Only in your fantasies and scandalous pacifists from a secondary semi-yellow Italian newspaper. In real life, all prices were immediately known and approved by the Parliament.


                  Money is sacred. When do you say the prices were known? The changed price, nothing can be done, was approved by the parliament.

                  But what is in the document:

                  https://documenti.camera.it/leg17/dossier/pdf/DI0200.pdf

                  парламентариям были представлены "все ТТХ" - это Ваши фантазии. Там даже цены не было.

                  The price was presented to parliamentarians in a document:

                  http://documenti.camera.it/Leg17/Dossier/Pdf/DI0215.Pdf

                  Per quanto riguarda, invece, il riparto del complessivo contributo pluriennale tra i richiamati quattro programs di acquisizione, il successivo articolo 2 dello schema di decreto definisce nel seguente modo i rispettivi costi di realizzazione:

                  1. sei pattugliatori polivalenti d'altura per la sorveglianza marittima tridimensionale (più quattro unità aggiuntive in opzione): euro 2.620.000.000;
                  2.una unità anfibia multiruolo: 844.000.000;
                  3. una unità d'altura di supporto logistico: 325.000.000;
                  4. 2 unità navali polifunzionali ad altissima velocità: 40.000.000.

                  Try to convince the audience that naive Italian parliamentarians voted NOT за 20 тыс. тонный ДВКД, а за 33 тыс. тонный УДК/АВМ для истребителей F-35B с ценником 844 млн. евро. Вдруг кто поверит. Есть же здесь люди которые не прочитали статью Тимохина и не в курсе сколько стоил "Кавур"? Или нет?

                  Скандалисты из FQ запцстили мульку про "обман" Парламента с суммой которая якобы была 800 лямов.Скромно"забыв" упомянуть про долю Леонардо которая шла отдельной строкой.И пошла гулять утка по "официальным" органам и их доверчивым читателям)


                  Re-read the quote above. However, you can study the entire document:

                  http://documenti.camera.it/Leg17/Dossier/Pdf/DI0215.Pdf

                  Suddenly there are shares of Fincantieri and Leonardo. In the end, you found the missing performance characteristics of the ship in DI0200.pdf. ;)
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 3 June 2020 22: 10 New
                    0
                    Quote: AlexanderA
                    Suddenly there are shares of Fincantieri and Leonardo

                    They will certainly be found. If Soviet newspapers are not read, but parliamentary documents.
                    ALLEGATO 3

                    Interrogazione n. 5-06174 Artini: Sugli oneri per la realizzazione dell'unità anfibia multiruolo (LHD) e gli eventuali cambiamenti del programma.....



                    Nello specifico, per l'Unità Anfibia Multiruolo è stata prevista l'integrazione di 282.295.487 mil euro - per una spesa complessiva di 1126 milioni di euro - che non ha comportato alcun incremento delle capacità originariamente previste dal requisito operativo della LHD.
                    http://documenti.camera.it/leg17/resoconti/commissioni/bollettini/xhtml/2015/07/30/04/leg.17.bol0493.data20150730.com04.html#data.20150730.com04.allegati.all00030
                    This is the parliamentary hearing of July 30, 2015. Do you want to translate the highlighted paragraph?)
                    1. Alexandra
                      Alexandra 4 June 2020 00: 01 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Liam
                      There will certainly be. If Soviet newspapers are not read, but parliamentary documents ...

                      che non ha comportato alcun incremento delle capacità originariamente previsite dal requisito operativo della LHD.

                      This is the parliamentary hearing of July 30, 2015. Do you want to translate the highlighted paragraph?)


                      Переводить не надо. Процитируйте пожалуйста появившийся до этих слушаний парламентский документ в котором были бы озвучены даже не "все ТТХ", а 33 тыс. тонное водоизмещение и 245 метровая длина будущего корабля по оказанию "гуманитарной помощи во время чрезвычайных ситуаций / стихийных бедствий" by fighter bombing F-35B. You saw such a document, right?
                    2. Alexandra
                      Alexandra 4 June 2020 00: 46 New
                      -1
                      Parliamentary Hearing July 30, 2015.

                      "5-06174 Artini: Об оплате строительства многоцелевого десантного корабля и о любых изменениях в программе.

                      Massimo ARTINI (Mixed-AL), illustrating the issue in the headline, he recalled that the total costs of the naval program were indicated in Government Act No. 116, considered by the Commission of Defense, which expressed its opinion on this matter on 4 December 2014. Subsequently, the draft inter-ministerial decree on the use of multi-year contributions related to the aforementioned naval program is mentioned in the government act. paragraph 128, indicated 844 млн as the specific cost of building one multi-purpose landing ship (LHD). The Commission, in its opinion on the aforementioned draft decree made on January 20, 2015, put forward some conditions, in particular, requesting additional information from the government. This information was conveyed in a letter from the Minister of Economic Development, and from this information it appears that the value of the contracts for the construction of a multi-purpose landing ship (LHD) is approximately 1 million. And, therefore, has increased significantly compared to the indicated. in act No. 126. In this regard, he requested clarification. He believes that the increase in construction costs is determined by the introduction of additional requirements that can be functional to make the landing craft in question suitable for F-35 basing.

                      Deputy Minister Gioacchino ALFANO will answer the question within the time frame specified in the appendix (see Appendix 3).

                      Massimo ARTINI (Mixed-AL) states that he is dissatisfied with the answer, not considering it plausible that the cost of creating a multi-purpose landing ship can be increased so that there are no additional requirements for its capabilities..."


                      Will you comment?
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 4 June 2020 01: 21 New
                        +1
                        What do you comment on? The deputy minister lucidly explained to the incomprehensible opposition deputy that 840 million (these are the ones that go to Fincantieri) is only the cost of the ship itself without filling and that in January 2015 the fleet decided what kind of stuffing he needed on this ship.
                        l'integrazione di 282.295.487 mil euro(these are the ones that go to Leonardo).
                        And what is the total cost of the ship:
                        per una spesa complessiva di 1126 milioni di euro. The contract between the Moscow Region and Fincantieri / Leonardo was signed in July 2015 precisely for this amount. Moreover, the Deputy Minister emphasized separately that ( che non ha comportato alcun incremento delle capacità originariamente previste dal requisito operativo della LHD) The performance characteristics of the ship did not undergo any changes as it was conceived and presented to parliament in such a way.
                        And I repeat this, 2015. The Parliament is up to date on all matters, meetings, hearings, parliamentary inquiries, opposition battles, everything as it should in parliamentary democracy.
                        И только гениальные обозреватели из советских газет в 2018 году,когда 3 года как вся эта инфа в публичном поле и корабль близок к спуску на воду-хавают котлету из скандальной газетки(от 2016 года) и кормят своих доверчивых читателей "сенсациями"
                      2. Alexandra
                        Alexandra 4 June 2020 11: 32 New
                        -1
                        Yes Yes, stupid непонятливые итальянские парламентарии. Бедному замминистра Альфано пришлось объяснять им почему 33 тыс. тонный F-35 авианосец НЕ стоит как 21,5 тыс. тонный французский "Мистраль", причём тщательно избегая упоминания индекса F-35! Спасибо за Ваш комментарий!:)))
            2. Liam
              Liam 3 June 2020 21: 00 New
              0
              Quote: AlexanderA
              Unofficially, the parliamentarians were convinced that they were voting for this DVKD:

              Who told you that this nameless conceptual project from the Fincantieri website is the one that was submitted to Parliament?
              Quote: AlexanderA
              На какой говорите странице документа "все ТТХ и не только"? На 5-й, на 6-й? Документ то смотрели?

              So say that Italian is unknown to you). There it is indicated where to look for TTX.Dossier n ° 122 - Schede di lettura
              1. Alexandra
                Alexandra 4 June 2020 01: 07 New
                0
                Who told you that this nameless conceptual project from the Fincantieri website is the one that was submitted to Parliament?


                And you read the text of the parliamentary hearings on July 30, 2015. Where Massimo Artini, a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Defense from the 5-Star Movement, is trying to get the deputy defense minister, Joacchino Alfano, to answer the question why the cost of UDC has risen, aren't the military gentlemen gathered to put on his deck? To which Alfano promises to give an answer later, by the time specified in Appendix 35. Artini, in turn, declares that he is dissatisfied with the answer and does not consider it plausible that the cost of building a landing ship can be significantly increased without additional requirements for its combat capabilities.

                Сегодня то что "Триест" строится как раз под F-35B, общеизвестно. А вот 30 июля 2015 г. замминистра обороны Альфано в этом не сознавался. Тащите ещё ссылка. Я угораю с этого цирка с не сознающимся замминистра обороны в итальянском парламенте. :))
                1. Liam
                  Liam 4 June 2020 01: 59 New
                  +1
                  I understand that the mechanisms of parliamentary democracy are a dark forest for you and seem outlandish, but these are your problems.
                  PySy. One of the quirks of democracy is that yesterday’s opposition periodically becomes power (this is also a curiosity for you). So, the then opposition member Artini, with his 5-star party, has already become the ruling party for 2 years. military programs including the Triest aircraft carrier in the form in which it is built and for any reason they have no questions about its performance characteristics)
                  ПыПыСы.Для развития вашего кругозора.Газета Il Fatto Quotidiano,которая и двинула в узкие массы эту мульку в 2016 году-" топит" за партию 5 звезд.
                  1. Alexandra
                    Alexandra 4 June 2020 02: 47 New
                    0
                    Since the discussion between Artini and Deputy Minister Joacchino Alfano on July 30, 2015, you have nothing to say. Have you decided to teach me the mechanisms of parliamentary democracy?

                    Факт состоит в том что на 30 июля 2015 года парламентарии лишь догадывались что под видом "корабля для гуманитарных операций" они профинансировали строительство корабля пригодного для базирования истребителей F-35B.

                    However, you can somehow translate in your own way:

                    ...Chiede pertanto chiarimenti a questo riguardo. Ritiene che l'aumento di costo di realizzazione dipenda dall'introduzione di varianti di requisito, che potrebbero essere funzionali a rendere le unità anfibie in questione idonee al trasporto degli F35.

                    Il sottosegretario Gioacchino ALFANO risponde all'interrogazione in titolo nei termini riportati in allegato (vedi allegato 3).

                      Massimo ARTINI (Misto-AL) si dichiara insoddisfatto della risposta, non ritenendo plausibile che il costo per la realizzazione dell'unità anfibia multiruolo possa essere aumentato in modo così rilevante senza che a fronte di ciò siano stati previsti diversi o ulteriori requisiti quanto a capacità operativa. Aggiunge che, anche per quanto riguarda i pattugliatori di altura, le valutazioni di costo del programma navale sembrano fare riferimento ai livelli base di dotazione dei medesimi pattugliatori. È quindi probabile che, per implementare le prestazioni, i costi effettivi siano destinati a crescere. Non comprende, quindi, a fronte di questo prevedibile aumento di costi, per quali ragioni sia stata programmata la realizzazione di ben sette unità navali, vale a dire una in più rispetto a quanto indicato dal programma navale, che prevedeva l'acquisto di sei mezzi, più quattro opzionali.

                    In line with your ideas about parliamentary democracy.

                    Для развития вашего кругозора.Газета Il Fatto Quotidiano,которая и двинула в узкие массы эту мульку в 2016 году-" топит" за партию 5 звезд


                    To develop your horizons, at the time of July 30, 2015 (I specified) Artini was no longer a member of the 5 star movement.

                    https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_Artini

                    However, this is not important.
              2. Alexandra
                Alexandra 4 June 2020 01: 39 New
                0
                Quote: Liam
                Who told you that this nameless conceptual project from the Fincantieri website is the one that was submitted to Parliament?


                Так других концептуальных проектов нового ДК на сайте Fincantieri и не было. По этому парламентарии не догадывались что на самом деле они голосуют за 33 тыс. тонный "гуманитарный" F-35B авианосец.

                So say that Italian is unknown to you). There it is indicated where to look for TTX. Dossier n ° 122 - Schede di lettura


                Glad you know. Give a direct link to the document. Or didn’t you find him?
                1. Liam
                  Liam 4 June 2020 01: 49 New
                  +1
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  So there were no other conceptual projects of the new recreation center on the Fincantieri website

                  Вы где то там про возраст спрашивали.Взрослому человеку должно быть понятно что авианосцы не строятся копируя концептуальные слайды на сайте компании.Авианосцы строятся по проектам сделанными на основании требований заказчика,в данном случае МО Италии.Понимаете разницу? Не МО "покупает" рисунок с сайта компании ,а компания делает корабль с ТТХ нужными заказчикам.А МО заказало тот реальный корабль который спущен уже на воду ,а не ваш рисунок.Это ваши проблемы(и советских газет) что реальность отличается от ваших фантазий на тему
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  Give a direct link to the document. Or didn’t you find him?

                  No, of course. The project of a real aircraft carrier is not a document that is published in the public domain. Therefore, it was not included in the public part of the decision. Only members of parliamentary decision-making commissions have access. It's still not a kilo of potatoes to buy on the market
                  1. Alexandra
                    Alexandra 4 June 2020 02: 21 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Liam
                    You asked about age somewhere. An adult should understand that aircraft carriers are not built by copying conceptual slides on the company's website. Aircraft carriers are built according to projects made on the basis of customer requirements, in this case the Italian Ministry of Defense. Do you understand the difference?


                    Well, honestly, the parliamentary hearings on July 30, 2015. Massimo Artini, a member of the Parliamentary Defense Commission, notes that the price of the future UDC has risen significantly and is asking Deputy Defense Minister Alfano about the F-35 base ... and the latter does not admit.

                    You probably understand Italian, but there is no English, since you could not translate F35 in the text:

                    Chiede pertanto chiarimenti a questo riguardo. Ritiene che l'aumento di costo di realizzazione dipenda dall'introduzione di varianti di requisito, che potrebbero essere funzionali a rendere le unità anfibie in questione idonee al trasporto degli F35.

                    No, of course. The draft of a real aircraft carrier is not a document that is published in the public domain. Therefore, it was not included in the public part of the decision. Only members of parliamentary decision-making commissions have access.


                    Ещё раз убеждаюсь что Ваше заявление о том что парламентариям были представлены "все ТТХ" - это Ваша фантазия основанная на Ваших иллюзиях о том как работают институты итальянской демократии. Даже не член, а вице-президент (с 24 июля 2015 г.) парламентской комиссии по обороне Массимо Артини 30 июля 2015 года не знал точно что парламентарии проголосовали за корабль пригодный для базирования истребителей F-35B, хотя уже догадывался об этом.
                    1. Liam
                      Liam 4 June 2020 18: 42 New
                      +2
                      ))). Aren't you tired of pulling the owl on the globe yet?)
                      In the Italian parliament, there are 1000 people. So the opposition deputy Artini (expelled even from the populist party of 5 stars, who was gathering parliamentarians literally from the street) did not understand something (or pretended because he had to be re-elected to the position in the commission and portrayed violent activity) , does not mean that the rest are not up to date. They then had no questions.
                      So the correct headline for Soviet newspapers should be - MP Artini was not aware of the performance characteristics and the full cost of the Trieste aircraft carrier.
        2. Liam
          Liam 3 June 2020 21: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: AlexanderA
          must have a continuous flight deck (about 4 m500

          It confirms once again that Soviet newspapers cannot be read at night. They are stingy even with a decent translator. 4.500 square meters is not the size of the flight deck.
          Dotata di ampie aree di imbarco carico all'interno (circa 4500 mq tra bacino-garage e hangar-garage)
          https://www.leonardocompany.com/it/press-release-detail/-/detail/lhd-for-italian-navy
          The actual area of ​​the flight deck of Trieste:
          L'unità presenta un ponte di volo di 230 × 36 m, coprendo così un'area di circa 7400 m²
          1. Alexandra
            Alexandra 4 June 2020 01: 29 New
            -1
            Quote: Liam
            It confirms once again that Soviet newspapers cannot be read at night. They are stingy even with a decent translator. 4.500 square meters is not the size of the flight deck.


            У того проекта 190 метрового ДВКД водоизмещением 20 тыс. тонн что долго выдавали за будущий "Триест" площадь полётной палубы как раз была ~4500 м2 (у 22,5 тыс. тонного 199 метрового "Мистраля" площадь полётной палубы 5200 м2). От площади занимаемой островной надстройкой и прочих архитектурных особенностей зависит. Вот скажем там в новой части полётной палубы рисовали АУ (прямо по заветам Горшкова, только 76 мм).

            1. Liam
              Liam 4 June 2020 01: 37 New
              -1
              You are paid a salary in this Soviet newspaper that you so passionately come up with excuses for their jambs with calculations taken from the ceiling?). 4500 squares is the area of ​​the cargo inner deck of Trieste and not the flight.
              1. Alexandra
                Alexandra 4 June 2020 11: 13 New
                -1
                I correctly guess that you are trying to convince those present that the deputies of the Italian parliament are stupid for free? :)

                По Вашей версии у депутатов якобы были "все ТТХ", но замминистра обороны Джоаккино Альфано приходилось рассказывать им почему ЭТО не стоит как французский "Мистраль"! :)

                And not in expressions: "Потому что у нашего корабля водоизмещение будет в полтора раза больше, у него ГТУ обеспечивающая ход 25 узлов, ЗРК зональной ПВО, и он предназначен для базирования F-35B", and the expressions: "Французские корабли типа Mistral строились с начала 2000-х годов, это проект из 90-х годов. Технологическая эволюция последних 15 лет не может сделать эти корабли сравнимыми с нашим будущим LHD, который будет соответствовать современному уровню техники. Кроме того, производство трех единиц одного типа для военно-морского флота Франции и еще двух единиц для военно-морского флота России способствовало сокращению производственных затрат благодаря созданию эффекта масштаба" - against the modern background of the 33-ton F-35B aircraft carrier under construction, the then, from the summer of 2015, Alfano’s demagogy looks simply gorgeous! :)

                И да, 4500 м2 - это суммарная площадь ангарной, десантной палубы и стапель-палубы док-камеры "Триеста". Если Вы не в курсе то у близкого по водоизмещению "Хуан Карлоса I" суммарная площадь всех этих палуб ~5400-5500 м2 (по разным источникам), но у него суммарная площадь второй десантной (трансформируемой в авиационный ангар) палубы и вертолётного ангара ~3000 м2, чего явно не наблюдается у "Триеста", площадь авиационного ангара которого ~2000 м2. Кроме того у "Триеста" имеется и десантная (танковая) палуба сходная по площади десантной (танковой) палубой "Хуан Карлоса I", плюс сходная по площади c "Хуан Карлосовской" стапель-палуба док-камеры, что и даёт в сумме 4500 м2.

                Oh well, thanks for the fun exchange of views! :)
  • timokhin-aa
    3 June 2020 21: 15 New
    +2
    In real combat operations, the number of sorties is determined by their need, and not the maximum possible.


    The option when the need exceeds the possibilities you consider even theoretically impossible?

    Cavour deprived a dozen of the aircraft that he really has.
    But theoretically, Kuznetsov was so heavily loaded that they never existed.


    How many F-35 will fit into Kavour's hangar, not just end-to-end in area, but so that it can be rolled onto the lift?
    Kuznetsov has 24 aircraft that fit, if anything, and there is room for several turntables.

    Given the fact that there are no AWACS on Kuznetsovo, it can be used as air defense only near its very shore.


    And by the way, by the way - I can throw three ways to provide AWACS for Kuznetsov on the move. True, I will voice only two of them on air, the third our stupid MO declassified, but IMHO in vain and I won’t talk about it out loud.
    So it goes.

    That's what a normal Kuznetsov repair will cost.


    Не более 100 ярдов будет стоить тотальное обновление "Кузнецова" до последней гайки. Но его не обязательно в таком объёме делать.

    And the author has such stretches in almost every paragraph.
    Not very convincing, to be honest, it looks.


    No, you have it.

    And further. Kuznetsov- this is an aircraft carrier under VTOL aircraft, it was designed and built like this.


    It is not true.
  • vVvAD
    vVvAD 2 June 2020 22: 50 New
    0
    Alexander, Thanks for the interesting and detailed article, I always read you with pleasure.

    I wanted to make a few remarks:
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Thus, we have a complex of the following events ...

    Indeed, the well-known technology: the truth is replaced by many other options - and let the object of influence choose which one is prettier, all the same, all the same are false.

    And let me disagree with you regarding this:
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    "According to Deputy Prime Minister Yu. Borisov, Russia is developing a vertical takeoff and draft aircraft."

    Quote: timokhin-aa
    So far, it is known that the “development” of the SKVVP does not really really go well: this is not an experimental development (OCD), the result of which should be a real plane. ... It remains only to wish success to sailors and pilots in disrupting this undertaking, this project really will not be of any use.

    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And it’s worthwhile to finish off the idea of ​​the usefulness of a hypothetical domestic “vertical line” completely.

    In the first I see nothing wrong with that. It seems to me that the experience gained in the production of the Yak-38 and Yak-41 should not be wasted. Another thing is that SKVVP and their carriers should not represent the main route. Rather, it is an alternative with its own specifics - like the Ka-52 - for the Mi-28, as the 6P67 and 6P68 - for the AK-12 and AK-15, etc.
    For example, it can be a chain of research with a minimum of research and development and working out individual solutions or the production of full-fledged demonstrators that improve the indicators of the Navy that are interesting until the outcome is something that suits the IMF and fits into its development plans. The bottom line is that, along with pre-fabricated airfields for the Air Force, the Navy must also have emergency options. Yes, this is ersatz. But sometimes having at least something in reserve is better than nothing. In addition, who knows: maybe the development of vertical take-off technologies will someday lead to the emergence of a new class of aircraft, making a revolution. For example, VTOL AWACS - and then everything will turn upside down. A wide range of R&D in various directions up to ekranoplans (I remember your article where you scattered them to smithereens - but I don’t even call for building military ekranoplans do not understand why right now) is the key to success in the future, because you can not predict in advance which of them will lead to a future breakthrough. In this regard, I recall an interesting concept of an assault jet helicopter from Kamov Design Bureau.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    In case the creation of such a ship is not possible in the foreseeable future, it is worth exploring the possibility of building an aircraft carrier with a gas turbine power plant, and a displacement of 40 thousand tons, but only on the condition that it is possible to come up with such a hull form that would ensure acceptable seaworthiness for such a ship.

    Встретилась интересная статья статья об эскизном проекте такого рода с множеством перепечаток, суть: КГНЦ, "Ламантин", полукатамаран. В одной из Ваших недавних статей цикла я просил Вас прокомментировать, что Вы думаете по этому поводу.

    And here you are in vain:
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    ... until its joint construction with another country.

    Китай в нас не нуждается, опережает нас в этом вопросе и едва ли поделится с нами опытом, как мы не делимся технологиями по авиадвигателям, системам ПВО и пр., даже несмотря на оказываемую ему помощь в построении собственной СПРН. Индия тоже строит свой "Викрант", да она толком в собственных организационных вопросах при сотрудничестве с другими странами подчас разобраться не может. Примеры тому - бесконечные тендеры и некрасивая история с FGFA. Авианосец в совместном производстве с ней может затянуться надолго...Западные страны исключаем по понятным причинам. +держим в уме опыт SuperJet с откровенно вредительским французским двигателем (что ж для себя они лучше-то делают?!) Собственно, больше приемлемых вариантов нет.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 22 New
      +3
      For example, it can be a chain of research with a minimum of research and development and working out individual solutions or the production of full-fledged demonstrators that improve the indicators of the Navy that are interesting until the outcome is something that suits the IMF and fits into its development plans. The bottom line is that, along with prefabricated airfields for the Air Force, the Navy must also have emergency options. Yes, this is ersatz. But sometimes having at least something in reserve is better than nothing.


      Well, the VKS and the Navy do not believe this is all. And I understand them. I would also feel sorry for the money.

      КГНЦ, "Ламантин", полукатамаран. В одной из Ваших недавних статей цикла я просил Вас прокомментировать, что Вы думаете по этому поводу.


      I am not a specialist in hydrodynamics and cannot comment on the profitability / non-profitability of such a housing. In general, I am very wary of unconventional buildings because of their incomprehensible prospects with docking. I can’t say anything for sure yet.

      China does not need us, is ahead of us in this matter and is unlikely to share our experience with us, as we do not share technologies on aircraft engines, air defense systems, etc., even despite the assistance provided to him in building our own SPRN


      В Китае продать русским оружие это идея фикс, вроде как "ну вот теперь мы точно взрослые", у них их 054 проект ездит на все наши выставки как "СКР пр.054Э". Так, к слову.
      1. vVvAD
        vVvAD 5 June 2020 10: 49 New
        0
        Thanks for the reply.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        В Китае продать русским оружие это идея фикс, вроде как "ну вот теперь мы точно взрослые", у них их 054 проект ездит на все наши выставки как "СКР пр.054Э". Так, к слову.

        That is a frigate. And the aircraft carrier, if they will be delivered in fact, will most likely be in the Mistral format, but without the transfer of critical technologies (the example of China’s reaction to doping Belarus’s missiles delivered for Polonaise is very indicative). Not sure if this suits us.
        But you can discuss any desired options - the level of relationships allows.
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 June 2020 20: 41 New
          0
          У нас проблема - негде корпус собирать, остальное мы без них сможем. Нужно только "корыто".
  • 911sx
    911sx 3 June 2020 00: 07 New
    +3
    Once again, Alexander Timokhin proved with convincing evidence which aircraft carrier and its air wing Russia needs. The patriotism and perseverance of the author deserve respect. Moreover, he accurately described the fuss around Kuznetsov (death of the floating dock, fire, lack of timely repairs, underfunding, bullying in the media ...). Since our Avik is so far across the throat (plus they are throwing up the ideas of the Free Air Navigation System), this should definitely make it clear that Russia needs a carrier fleet. Until yesterday, I had a pretty good attitude towards Murakhovsky. Yesterday I read his article on the topic raised by Alexander ... It seems that he is at the headquarters of the State Department. It is unlikely that I will continue to take Murakhovsky seriously. You know, this topic has become like litmus paper for me. Regarding the price of an aircraft carrier, the author proved on fingers that it is actually cheaper and more efficient. I’ll only add. If there is an aircraft carrier, destroyers and cruisers are not needed in large quantities. And if it is absent from the fleet, first-order combat units will be required many times more, and most importantly, the combat stability of such a fleet will be scanty compared to aug with aircraft and drills. In the USSR, there was a strong Navy, with powerful ships, and even they (having TAVKRs with vertical lines YAK 38) were powerless against the AUG of Americans - this is a fact. And if I had normal aircraft carriers instead of TAVKRs, with normal (for example, MIG 23) airplanes, I would not envy the Americans. I know what reproach I run into - they say I propose to organize socialist competition with the US Navy, no, I do not propose. We do not need ten aircraft carriers for nothing, and 67 Arly Berkov is the same. But the fleet, which has aircraft carriers in its composition, is a force, a force with which all and especially those who have them in abundance will be reckoned with. Such a fleet, even a relatively small one (an example of an AUG aircraft carrier, three or four Gorshkovs, two multi-purpose nuclear submarines, supply vessels) can solve a considerable range of problems.
    1. agond
      agond 3 June 2020 00: 53 New
      -3
      On the issue of inferiority in aircraft carriers and where it comes from, the answer is simple, if the plane is too big it means the aircraft carrier is small and it’s very expensive to increase its size, so you need to reduce the size of the aircraft in other words to create a new plane, it’s again expensive, and naturally this small plane will lose land analogs, and if you leave it as it is, inferiority arises. I think in the current situation it would be more correct to think about small aircraft carriers for drones than to dream of large and full-fledged ships.
      1. vVvAD
        vVvAD 5 June 2020 11: 20 New
        0
        Quote: agond
        It seems that in the current situation it would be more correct to think about small aircraft carriers for drones than to dream of large and full-fledged ships.

        And how will they, these very UAVs, ensure air supremacy and protection of warrant ships from the aircraft of a potential enemy? There is so far only a leading pilot - if possible in principle. And this is already burying the very idea.
        Ок, БПЛА давят количеством, не взирая на потери - дешёвые, одноразовые, полуавтономный рой. В таком случае речь о корабле-арсенале. Но, во-первых, технологии ИИ для вменяемого применения роя в автономном режиме на случай потери внешней связи только разрабатываются, что у нас, что у "вероятных" (Вы, ведь, согласитесь, что атакуемый постарается заглушить каналы связи БПЛА с управляющим центром, так и друг с другом). А, во-вторых, опять встаёт вопрос как минимум первичного целеуказания. А желательно, всё-таки ситуационной осведомлённости и контроля в режиме реального времени. А то, знаете ли, "Акелла промахнулся" в подобной ситуации будет стоить дороже, чем просто суммарная стоимость этих БПЛА.
    2. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 6 June 2020 01: 17 New
      0
      Quote: 911sx
      In the presence of an aircraft carrier not needed in large quantities destroyers and cruisers.
      dear Yuri, but alas ... There are practically no destroyers or cruisers left, crying not even in large quantities ... what (!)
      Quote: 911sx
      Such a fleet, even a relatively small one (an example of an AUG aircraft carrier, three or four Gorshkovs, two multi-purpose submarines, supply vessels) can solve a considerable range of problems.
      belay well, then wait until you get at least three or four Gorshkov each of two multipurpose boats in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, and only then about the aircraft carriers ...
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 3 June 2020 00: 24 New
    -2
    Quote: Undecim

    Автор решил нанести контрудар по сознанию людей под девизом "Авианосцы вечны" и "России не жить без авианосца". Очевидно автор считает, что как только авианосец построят, жизнь граждан России резко улучшится. Правда связь этих факторов не раскрывает, предлагает поверить на слово.
    that's right, it is
  • Boris ⁣ Shaver
    Boris ⁣ Shaver 3 June 2020 01: 37 New
    +3
    the third most powerful and influential country

    It’s like if you put young Tyson and Muhammad Ali with a first-grader and kindergarteners in the same room, and then say that the first-grader is the third most powerful there. It may be purely technically true, but too loudly said.
  • LeonidL
    LeonidL 3 June 2020 02: 07 New
    -3
    "В настоящее время наши авианосные силы, состоящие из авианесущего крейсера (по факту уже давно просто авианосца" - АВ который не может выйти в море и на котором, естественно, невозможно обучать два полка морской авианосной авиации.
    "«Граниты» с этого корабля уже давно не могут летать, да и не нужны они на нём" - Здравая мысль и давно уже востребованное решение. Но ... убрать "Граниты" - это не на мадельке ведь, это конструктивные и весьма дорогостоящие мероприятия.
    "«Адмирал Кузнецов», а также 100-го и 279-го отдельных корабельных авиационных полков, не боеспособны." - Это очевидно и в доказательстве не нуждается.
    "Полки имеют недостаточную подготовку и пока не достигли нужного уровня боеготовности, а корабль находится в ремонте, осложнённом неготовностью дока, необходимого для его завершения." - Так сказать "наша песня хороша начинай с начала" - В этом никто не сомневается.
    С тем, что полноценный авианосец лучше авианесущего крейсера и его "хотят иметь, а лучше пять - шесть", то тут стоит вернуться на грешную землю и вспомнить классическое "Выпьем за то, чтобы наши желания совпадали с нашими возможностями".
    В чем поспудная идея цикла? "Нормальный авианосец хорошо, неполноценный плохо" - никто и не спорит. Это у автора как "бой с тенью". Но вот посыл начали строить УДК - не нужно строить УДК, а вот давайте сначала восстановим "Кузнецова", потом построим три-четыре, а лучше пять-шесть полноценных авианосцев ..." Да все это на основе "исследований" на страницах "ВО" человеком без военно-морского образования ...
    Suppose that this was implemented in 15 years, huge investments were made, infrastructure was built to base, if not five, but one each on the Northern Fleet and the TF (it is clear that they will not be in the Baltic and the Black Sea). So what, is it enough for the mythical achievement of superiority on the sea-haul? Everything will end, as always - in scrap metal.
    В послецусимские времена был такой автор скандальных статей ( за Флот) Португалов - обвинявший во всех смертных грехах военно-морское ведомство. Его отличали особая резскость суждений и весьма слабое знание предмета своих обличений (т е флота, что очевидно без образования и службы) ... Все это с апломбом, непогрешимостью ... Часто результаты его потуг получились комические. (По книге К Назаренко "Флот и власть в России").
    1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
      Boris ⁣ Shaver 3 June 2020 10: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: LeonidL
      все это на основе "исследований" на страницах "ВО" человеком без военно-морского образования

      У меня знакомая, журналист экономичечкого профиля одного из федеральных каналов, рассказывала как-то про попадающихся спикеров, с кем приходится общаться, делая репортажи. Они, почему-то, многие уверены, что на канале просто не может не быть журналистов, специалистов в их, конкретно, направлении: "как, у вас нет специалиста по зерну?!", "у вас нет специалистов по микробиологии?!", "и что, у вас по забою скота нет нормальных специалистов?!".
  • Niko
    Niko 3 June 2020 09: 34 New
    +1
    Логичное завершение серии статей.Позиция автора ясна с самого начала и несомненно имеет право на существование с чем-то я спорил(хотя со многим и согласен) .Удивляет,я бы даже сказал ПОРАЖАЕТ стиль написания(я не о подбирании только подходящих под мнение автора цифр и их интерпритации,эттим страдают практически все) Я имею ввиду сам стиль и "пыл"с которым автор пишет, похоже он действительно верит что сегодня утром за утренним кофе Владимир Владимирович прочтет эту статью и проникнувшись верой автора примется за дело- пойдет по стопам Петра 1го . Или автор искренне верит что сейчас большинство на сайте проголосует ЗА и заказ на удк из предыдущей статьи,на этом же сайте тут же уйдет в корзину..... Поразительная самоуверенность
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra 3 June 2020 16: 05 New
      +1
      Автор плохо подбирает цифры, не в свою пользу. Сослался на "Кавур" за 1,5 млрд. евро, в то время как итальянцы сейчас достраивают "Триест", ещё большего водоизмещения (33 тыс. тонн), всего за 1 млрд. 171 млн. евро, то есть по цене полутора итальянских же фрегатов FREMM...

      And for the UDC of the project 23900 at ~ 50 billion rubles per unit, one can not worry. They are clearly suitable for basing only helicopters.
      1. timokhin-aa
        3 June 2020 21: 29 New
        +2
        About the complete unsuitability of the UDC as aircraft carriers was the previous part.
        Trieste, this is there.
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 3 June 2020 23: 47 New
          -1
          This is a consequence of the width of the shortened waterline (saving displacement). A normal UDC suitable for hosting fighter jets can be obtained with a displacement of more than 40 thousand tons. But if you can pay a little more, you can get not one, but two ships - a light multi-purpose aircraft carrier half catamaran with a displacement of 44 thousand tons + a helicopter-bearing UDC with a displacement of 25 thousand. Two ships are better than one. :)

          Жаль Александр Вы так и не написали статью по авианосцам-полукатамаранам от Крыловского центра. А ведь там как минимум два варианта предложено - "легкий" с 44 тыс. тонным водоизмещением, и более "серьёзный", водоизмещением 60 тыс. тонн (хотя второй широкая общественность не видела, только слышала о нём).
          1. timokhin-aa
            10 June 2020 20: 36 New
            0
            This is a consequence of the width of the shrunken waterline (saving displacement).


            Well, make it wider, there will be a speed of 15 knots, and I analyzed the speed factor in the last article of the cycle.

            It's a pity Alexander. You never wrote an article on semi-catamaran aircraft carriers


            I lack even rudimentary knowledge of hydrodynamics. Therefore, I did not touch them. On the other hand, cases with a non-standard form are higher than the price and sometimes there are problems with docking.

            Well, in the end, you yourself can write it, right?
            1. Alexandra
              Alexandra 12 June 2020 11: 20 New
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Well, make it wider, there will be a speed of 15 knots, and I analyzed the speed factor in the last article of the cycle.


              У "Идзумо" при сходной ширине по ватерлинии и 30 узлах хода ангар шире чем у "Кавура" и "Триеста",550х80 футов, (167,7x24,4 метра). Это конкретно итальянская "разруха в головах" с ангарами шириной 21 метр.



              "Кавур" изначально проектировался с док-камерой. Отказались на поздних этапах:

              "Флагманский корабль ВМС Италии, первоначально создававшийся как универсальный десантный корабль проекта UMPA (Unitа Maggiore Per Operazione Anfibe), но позже отнесенный к классу авианосцев и получивший обозначение NUM (Nuova Unitа Maggiore). Проект корабля разрабатывался с 1991 г. в качестве замены крейсера-вертолетоносца «Витторио Венето». Контракт на его постройку был заключен 22.11.2000 г. Первоначально АВ предполагалось назвать «Луиджи Эйнауди» или «Джузеппе Маззини». Заложен он был под именем «Андреа Дориа», но в ходе постройки переименован в «Кавур»."

              Well, in the end, you yourself can write it, right?


              У Вас хорошо, доходчиво получается. А то что с гидродинамикой там не так уж и плохо понятно исходя из заявленных для 44 тыс. т "лёгкого многоцелевого авианосца" 27-28 узлов при мощности ГЭУ 80 МВт.
            2. Alexandra
              Alexandra 12 June 2020 11: 35 New
              0
              Будущий "Кавур" на этапе проектирования, пока ещё был УДК, 1998 г.:
              1. timokhin-aa
                13 June 2020 11: 50 New
                0
                Castrated UDC
                1. Alexandra
                  Alexandra 13 June 2020 22: 45 New
                  0
                  The Spaniards certainly did better (two decks, a tank and a hangar / landing), but later.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    14 June 2020 13: 18 New
                    0
                    The main thing is not to confuse UDC with an aircraft carrier.
                    1. Alexandra
                      Alexandra 15 June 2020 13: 17 New
                      0
                      The enemy must know in person :)

                      http://aviapanorama.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/26.pdf
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        15 June 2020 20: 12 New
                        0
                        Continuous distortions. But I will not disassemble so many pages. Although I suspect that the destructive effect of this scribble was not small.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 3 June 2020 10: 01 New
    +3
    And normal aircraft carrier forces in the long run meet this requirement much better than crazy projects of aircraft with obscure prospects and "ships for the poor."

    Thanks to the author for the article. I fully support your opinion on the advantages of full-fledged aircraft carriers. However, one thing is not clear - why then so many countries, besides the Americans, have built and continue to build defective aircraft carriers. The French, British and Italians can’t be called stupid and poor .... And yet, why do Americans stubbornly not want to abandon F35 GDP variation?
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra 3 June 2020 16: 19 New
      +1
      Quote: Doccor18
      However, one thing is not clear - why then so many countries, besides the Americans, have built and continue to build defective aircraft carriers. The French, British and Italians are neither foolish nor poor ....


      Во первых они сегодня бедные. К примеру французам на то чтобы установить на "Мистрали" ЗРК VL MICA денег не хватило. А англичанам не хватило денег на то чтобы установить ПУ ПКР "Гарпун" на все эсминцы типа "Дэринг", распродают ДК, всерьёз думали над тем чтобы не достраивать/продать/достроить как вертолётоносец "Принца Уэльского".

      Во вторых свои палубные истребители "Рафаль-М" есть только у французов, но даже у них нет всего спектра технологий, на "Шарлье де Голле" американские паровые катапульты. Европейский проект электромагнитной катапульты загнулся на этапе демонстратора технологий.

      А если у тебя нет ни денег ни нужных технологий, строишь неполноценные корабли. Забавно что десяток F-35B для итальянского "Триеста" видимо обойдутся МО Италии дороже чем сам корабль.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 3 June 2020 16: 37 New
        +1
        Во первых они сегодня бедные. К примеру французам на то чтобы установить на "Мистрали" ЗРК VL MICA денег не хватило. А англичанам не хватило денег на то чтобы установить ПУ ПКР "Гарпун" на все эсминцы типа "Дэринг", распродают ДК, всерьёз думали над тем чтобы не достраивать/продать/достроить как вертолётоносец "Принца Уэльского".

        Yeah, and what are they only spending their annual 50 yards on?
        There are only 2-3 tanks left, one fighter for the whole of Europe can’t really redeem ... All for salaries or something ...
        But Brazil has the most unique budget. $ 26 billion a year for the army, but the army does not, almost none.
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra 3 June 2020 16: 50 New
          +1
          По статье "Военные расходы основных стран НАТО (2011)" можно получить некоторое представление о том как тратили десятилетие назад:

          http://factmil.com/publ/strana/velikobritanija/voennye_raskhody_osnovnykh_stran_nato_2011/9-1-0-208

          "Великобритания. Правительство страны в условиях снижения роста ВВП и растущего дефицита национального бюджета вынуждено пересматривать государственные расходы, в связи с чем разрабатываются долгосрочные планы по оптимизации финансирования министерств и ведомств..."

          "Франция. Правительство и руководство МО страны прилагают максимум усилий для уменьшения негативных последствий сокращения оборонных расходов за счет реализации недвижимости и использования свободных радиочастот..."

          А бразильцы как раз вертолётоносец "Оушен" у британцев и купили.)
    2. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 32 New
      +2
      They build or have aircraft carriers for normal aircraft, with an eye on their growth in size, and want to have more:
      USA, China, India, Russia, France.
      It has a normal-sized aircraft carrier, but with moderate capabilities due to the lack of catapults and finishers:
      United Kingdom:

      Trying to use any scrap and stuff it’s not clear what or UDC: Spain, Italy.
      By inertia has a toy aircraft carrier - Thailand.

      In my opinion, everything is obvious.
  • Lavrenty1937
    Lavrenty1937 3 June 2020 10: 23 New
    0
    FIRST. Any fleet must be balanced. This means that it must have aircraft carriers, including aircraft carriers. First of all, they should be used to increase the stability of the anti-aircraft forces and the PKKKS groups in the areas of application of the main efforts of the Navy: the Northwest Atlantic (SF) and the Eastern Pacific (Pacific Fleet). I don’t see a place for UDC. The ideal case is to have four heavy ABs here (two per fleet). And here I agree with the author of the article. But! These 4 ABs will be ready in 45 years !!! It may happen that by abandoning the “inferior aircraft carriers” we will save a couple of hundred billion rubles, but by 2050, when we only have one or two ABs, we will have time to lose the war and lose the country. What to do? I repeat - I am against the construction of the UDC. But the decision to build two UDCs has already been made. And they will be built. This drawback should be turned into an advantage - during their construction, the management should be convinced of the deployment of anti-submarine helicopters and AWACS helicopters on them and UDC should be used to increase the stability of the SSBN. Subsequently, they should abandon their construction for these purposes and build helicopter carriers for this. Thus, until we have at least a pair of AB (2045-2050 g.) UDC and helicopter carriers will at least somehow provide stability to the SSBN. SECOND. It is advisable to create a VTOL aircraft because, based on a UDC or a helicopter carrier, they will be able to protect the SSBN from enemy anti-submarine aircraft. In 40-45 years, when we will have four aircraft carriers, the UDC can be used as a means of delivery and landing. An economical option is also possible - two AB and two - four UDC (helicopter carrier).
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 3 June 2020 12: 30 New
    -2
    The article is just fire!
    But it does not take into account one small nuance - in the foreseeable future, we do not
    there will be no aircraft carrier, neither large, nor small, nor new, nor old.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 3 June 2020 21: 14 New
      -2
      "Неполноценные авианосцы не подходят для российского флота". Да они и полноценнные то особо не нужны.. Что бы бросить вызов Америке на море, нужно иметь примерно стольео же авианосцев, сколько у них, а это даже не ненаучная фантастика, а полный бред. Для задействрования же в локальных конфликтах, поддержания опыта и компетенций и неполноценных авианосцев вполне хватит.
    2. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 32 New
      0
      One go fix it.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 3 June 2020 22: 36 New
        -4
        Нет, не починят, "зуб даю"!
        1. timokhin-aa
          4 June 2020 19: 55 New
          +2
          "I give a tooth"


          and what in quotes?
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 4 June 2020 20: 14 New
            -3
            Yes, I myself did not understand ...
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 3 June 2020 12: 34 New
    +1
    An aircraft carrier is a fleet tool and the fleet certainly needs it.
  • d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 3 June 2020 15: 51 New
    -2
    Как много букв. "Создание истребителя пятого поколения стартовало в 1986 году..." - дальше читать не стал. Понятно, что ПАКФА подзадержался, но в прошлом веке его и близко не было.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 33 New
      +2
      "Истребитель-90" прошёл мимо Вас? ПАК ФА это ПОСЛЕДНЯЯ из программ пятого поколения в РФ, до него были другие, дошедшие до летающих прототипов.

      I even brought a photo, you just didn’t read further, rushed to express your valuable opinion.
    2. vVvAD
      vVvAD 5 June 2020 12: 31 New
      0
      The fifth generation fighter was launched in 1986.

      Even earlier. It was MiG 1.44 IFI.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Alexander Samoilov
    Alexander Samoilov 3 June 2020 17: 49 New
    0
    The author’s thought, despite the excessively large volume of the article, is extremely clear - a good aircraft carrier and horseradish planes are better than vice versa. And she, alas, is mistaken. It will be the air wing that will fight, and the ship will only runway. For 29 years of its existence, Russia has not built a single strike ship in the ocean zone. And to think that in a country incapable of launching a destroyer, an aircraft carrier may suddenly appear not just naively, but frankly stupid. Alteration for India of the Soviet TAVKR is not even near the creation of a full-fledged SAW from scratch. But the Yak-141 at the time the program was closed was almost ready for mass production. Moreover, on its basis, the Yak-201 project was created with a lowered radar signature and the placement of weapons inside the fuselage. Therefore, it is better to spend the five-year period and reasonable funds on the refinement of the existing VTOL aircraft than to take on the construction period for the aircraft carrier and whose final price is not known to anyone.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 36 New
      +3
      But the Yak-141 at the time the program was closed was almost ready for mass production.


      И чем он лучше МиГ-29К? И с чего бы он был "готов к серийному производству" испытания даже не заночены у него?

      Moreover, the Yak-201 project with a reduced


      Не Як-201, а "201", и не создан, а обсчитан и не полностью, это даже не проект был, а заготовка для НИР.

      Therefore, it is better to spend the five-year period and reasonable funds on the refinement of the existing VTOL


      No VTOL exists; you have been deceived. The Yak-141 is from a different era, now there are no contractors, the steel and alloy brands are different, GOSTs, part of the technology has been lost, new ones have appeared, etc.
      Bobby died.
      And the MiG-29K in the series.
      1. vVvAD
        vVvAD 5 June 2020 12: 35 New
        0
        The author is burning, just handsome!
        Sorry for the offtopic, could not resist.
      2. Alexander Samoilov
        Alexander Samoilov 10 June 2020 06: 17 New
        0
        "К концу 1991 года работы на Саратовском авиазаводе по подготовке mass production Як-41М были прекращены из-за отсутствия финансирования." По ТТХ он уступает Миг-29. Даже Ф-35 по ЛТХ уступает ему тоже. И? Это ВВП. Они всегда похуже "нормальных" самолетов. Но чтобы поднять в воздух четыре десятка "Хорнетов" с "Нимица" нужно 16 мин! Для решения задач ПВО это полный провал. С дозвуковыми ПКР, учитывая дальность обнаружения "Хокая", еще бороться можно но сверх, тем более гиперзвук, уже далеко за гранью возможностей. Есть документация и ЛЕТАЮЩИЙ образец. Если даже этого недостаточно для производства о каком НОВОМ авианосце можно вообще заикаться? Серийное производство китайской версии Миг-21 завершено всего 3 года назад. Может ими укомплектуем авианосец 21 века? laughing Today, the 4th generation is just rubbish, which is in service with even developed countries due to the high cost of the 5th. Modeling shows that 4 vs. 5 loses dry, even with the multiple superiority of the former. After a dozen years, the 6th will be rolled out. A half-century aircraft carrier to serve as normal (almost more). And it should be created for the aircraft, not vice versa. Any engineer will tell you this.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 38 New
      +1
      One does not interfere with the other, the need to have minesweepers does not contradict the need to learn how to manage Kuzya properly. To start.
      1. lelik613
        lelik613 4 June 2020 06: 37 New
        +1
        I agree. But if one isn’t something that can be handled humanly for 30 years, and even cannot be repaired, then why do they need a dozen Nimitsevs? Let’s match the results: Kuznetsov does not have a dock for repairs, there is no berth, there is nothing to create an AUG from, there are no new aircraft, there is no doctrine of the use of aircraft carriers. There are no spare parts for reasons of successful leadership of the state, and not only in Russia. And there is a desire to pinch off a small fraction of the next panama.
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 June 2020 20: 32 New
          +1
          But if one isn’t something that can be handled humanly for 30 years, and even cannot be repaired, then why do they need a dozen Nimitsevs?


          Firstly, no one talks about a dozen Nimitsevs, and secondly, Kuznetsov may well (and should) become a training ground for everything related to aircraft carrier forces.

          Let’s match the results: Kuznetsov has no dock for repair,


          Build

          no berth


          This is a shame, yes. But then again - you can decide, this is not a ship. The issue of scandal and political will.
          And, you came up with an idea - I’m scandal later, by the time Kuznetsov gets out of repair, I’ll probably arrange it, there are some resources.

          there’s nothing to create an AUG from


          Wait 2024.

          no new aircraft


          There is

          no new aircraft


          Not really. There is a well-developed Soviet and slowly and crookedly growing from it raw Russian.

          And there is a desire to pinch off a small share from another panama.


          This is a universal value, so everywhere.
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad 3 June 2020 19: 49 New
    +3
    Defective aircraft carriers are not suitable for the Russian fleet


    Well, everyone has their own concept of the usefulness or inferiority of aircraft carriers. For example, I consider a full-fledged aircraft carrier only TAVKR, capable of standing up for itself and supporting its group and not drowning proudly like a barge with fuel and aircraft.

    so for example the same falklands showed


    that a good RCC is able to turn even a huge ship into a pile of rubbish pumped on the waves.

    than crazy projects of aircraft with strange prospects and “ships for the poor”.


    there is nothing delusional in the projects of the aircraft, all the more so in the concept of an aircraft carrier proposed by the author, a floating airfield deprived of weapons, aircraft become that very unique striking force for the delivery of which aircraft carriers are being built.
    Aircraft have excellent and understandable prospects, in contrast to the dispute over the need for aircraft carriers.
    Что касается "кораблей для бедных" то если вы не в курсе то ни госбюджет России ни имеющиеся незадействованные мощности ОСК не позволяет строить "корабли для богатых" для нашего ВМФ.
    С плоским подоходным налогом Россия обречена строить "корабли для бедных" и нужно сказать спасибо нашим конструкторам "калибра" ведь только благодаря им удалось сделать МРК реальной силой.
    1. agond
      agond 3 June 2020 21: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: lelik613
      So you are on the wrong shore and in the wrong city looking for enemies. The industry has problems setting up production of frigates rhythmically, there are no minesweepers in sane numbers, PLO helicopters, whatever you need, there’s no

      А некоторые тут считают, что все это у нас есть, вот только нет авианосца. и очень настойчиво навязывают. мысль о их необходимости,, при этм очень вероятно , что не хватает не только "фрегатов, тральщиков в вменяемом количестве, вертолетов" , возможно где то не хватает даже полноценной еды на всех служащих, по крайне мере так было у нас в стройбате в 1978-80 годах ... старшина в беседе сообщил, что солдаты даже цингой у них заболели Тейково, местечко Грозилово. 1974г
      1. lelik613
        lelik613 4 June 2020 06: 47 New
        +1
        Что спорить? "Только некоторые тут" считают что армии церкви с мозаиками и диснейленда не хватает. Водрузить их на КУзю и враги помрут сразу. Вот только тягать его бурлаками придется...
    2. timokhin-aa
      3 June 2020 21: 39 New
      0
      For example, I consider a full-fledged aircraft carrier only TAVKR, capable of standing up for itself and supporting its grouping in a critical situation


      And how do you see this, if not a secret?
    3. Dart2027
      Dart2027 3 June 2020 23: 05 New
      0
      Quote: lopvlad
      auxiliary in a critical situation to stand up for themselves and support their group

      Which he does as his air group. Climbing into the front ranks is not his task.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 3 June 2020 21: 14 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    If in plain language, then without a carrier a fleet better than 300-350 km from the nearest airfield should not meddle. For it is impossible to constantly keep an air regiment in the air at such a distance from the coast (more precisely, too costly - you need three regiments on the coast + airfields for them),
    the problem is that you can’t keep the aircraft carrier there either, it is even more vulnerable than the coast-based aircraft there is nothing to guard it at all, now there is one old cruiser on the Northern Fleet (from all the time in Middle-earth, but sometimes returns) and three military infantry battalions, several missiles, and in Kamchatka, a couple of missile defense ships and one minesweeper, do you get excellent AOGs? ... Coast-based airplanes have a number of advantages 1 there are many of them and they can work in large groups, 2 they have a full combat load 3 they do not depend on sea weather, 4 they don’t drown on the first mine, because there are almost no minesweepers, and AB will immediately drown .... Some kind of misconception from the time of the great Russian aircraft on duty, there is no need for them to be on duty there, the headquarters receives information from satellites about the takeoffs and movements of the enemy and sends its planes towards enemy airplanes all the seas and wait for the enemy there ...
    1. ser56
      ser56 5 June 2020 13: 29 New
      +2
      Quote: vladimir1155
      info from satellites about takeoffs

      and over-the-horizon radars ...
  • ser56
    ser56 3 June 2020 21: 47 New
    +2
    The article is not bad, sharply polemical, even from the search for terrorists and enemies ... familiar ... bully
    However, the author has not proved the vital necessity of AB for the Russian Federation at present and the availability of finance for this ...
    Alas, we are not the USA / China in terms of size of economy and cannot simply print money like the USA ... request
    Well, I recommend to residents of Moscow to drive 150 km from the capitals and see how people live ... repeat
    Will he live better and safer if we build an AB or a couple? We pledged Ulyanosk and the USSR did not - the law is alarming ...
    I doubt that we are pulling at the expense of 146 million Strategic Missile Forces and VKS (well, we definitely need request ), ground forces, the Ministry of Emergencies, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Russian Guard (and these are needed), the Airborne Forces (are they needed?) and other and other ... and then there is the AB .... request It can wait about 10 years and build a Su-57, S-500, armata, frigates, UDC and so on ... and space needs to be developed .. maybe it’s better for the adversary’s aircraft from orbit? .
    maybe AB will not be needed in 10 years ... repeat
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 4 June 2020 18: 41 New
      -2
      wrote everything right
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 5 June 2020 08: 29 New
      +3
      There is such a thing.
      The aircraft carrier construction program for modern Russia will generate a lot of related programs and related orders. Starting from the casting of concrete blocks for the dock and base, and ending with the development of the BIUS aircraft wing. This will be a colossal scientific and technical work that will "do well" for many. And I'm not talking about oligarchs. It will be necessary to modernize, restore, and somewhere and re-create more than one production. Moreover, this program will require a large number of related programs and projects. The fact is that, for example, no one will create an AWACS aircraft from scratch if its series consists of 4 aircraft. Not a single design bureau will subscribe to such "happiness". This means that we need a comprehensive program of small aircraft AWACS, affecting both ground units and the Air Force. There is a creator for a series of tens or hundreds of cars.
      A military order is the traditional and easiest way to support industry by the state.
      1. ser56
        ser56 5 June 2020 13: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: abc_alex
        , которая "сделает хорошо" очень многим.

        who argues, but now they are building a bunch of atomic icebreakers, then AB, but there’s no money for medicine ... hi
    3. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 June 2020 16: 31 New
      0
      I can not agree in general
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 4 June 2020 09: 21 New
    -1
    And if there are not “interests” there, but rather real threats, then REFUSE THE NEUTRALIZATION OF THESE THREATS.


    It would be nice to understand that a tank division beyond 2000 km from our shores will not cross the sea across the sea, that is, the strength of the threat is inverse to the distance to it. If we cannot reach her, then the threat is also ours. This is as if obvious. 2 People with sticks on different banks of the river can only show indecent gestures to each other. Now, if one has a bow, and the other has a rifle. But, obviously, in the event of any conflict on Earth, we will be the side with the rifle.

    In addition, why did the author take it that without an aircraft carrier, the threat cannot be neutralized? For example, there are sea and air-based cruise missiles. Actually, the main reason that aircraft carriers did not particularly need the fleets was the appearance of alternatives, both in the form of long-range tactical aircraft and advanced missile weapons.

    So don’t threaten the Russian Federation by eating a banana in the South American pampas.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 4 June 2020 18: 42 New
      -2
      wrote everything right
    2. timokhin-aa
      4 June 2020 19: 58 New
      +1
      It would be nice to understand that a tank division beyond 2000 km from our shores will not cross the sea across the sea, that is, the strength of the threat is inverse to the distance to it. If we cannot reach her, then the threat is also ours. This is as if obvious.


      Cruise missile ship? The leader of the rebels, the Yumba-Yumba, on Amer’s money, is trying to overcome the diamond mines and genocide the Yumba-Yumba tribe serving the interests of the Russian Federation?
      No need to deal with simplification.
      1. ser56
        ser56 4 June 2020 20: 42 New
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        wring out diamond mines and genocide serving the interests of the Russian Federation tribe Yumba-Tumba?

        here is just better than UDC request
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 June 2020 20: 39 New
          0
          No, not enough planes or TSA.
  • Kwas
    Kwas 4 June 2020 09: 36 New
    +2
    Интересно почему народ, так рьяно считая деньги, не рассматривает гораздо более дешёвые альтернативные варианты. В первую очередь ввести в строй, стоящие на приколе систершипы "Петра Великого". Нам ведь не столько бомбить кого-то надо, сколько сделать так, чтобы ы кого не надо не бомбили. И вот представьте, кого они больше испугаются, более слабого авианосца, или крейсера с поддержкой (в том числе авиаразведкой, хотя бы и с берега), который их пардон, и завалить легко сможет, и авиакрыло сбить.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 4 June 2020 18: 47 New
      +1
      in general, the idea is good, they make Nakhimov, but the price of his return to duty was so high that they started cutting Lazarev. as Nakhimov is introduced, it’s possible to repair Petya right away (most likely only Tue), but the deadlines for the old people are 1164, or cancellation or Tue ... generally in 5 years, there will be one updated flagship cruiser Nakhimov in Russia, and the frigates are good .a other cruisers will soon become, and it is not necessary, frigates are more convenient and it turns out to make them more quantity.
      1. Kwas
        Kwas 5 June 2020 12: 28 New
        0
        Yes, Lazarev’s sorry. But something is not believed that the return of a ship without serious damage (such as a fire or explosion of a power supply warehouse) can be more expensive than building a new one. The case, the main mechanisms are expensive, and indeed not the fact that they are now able to do ...
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 5 June 2020 19: 32 New
          +1
          there is a cut, for example, someone declares a copper cable unsuitable, begins to destroy everything for dismantling, and gives the copper to buyers, the equipment is unique, it means we order each element again, up to the release of drawings lost 30 years ago, some of the equipment has collapsed from old age, some have become outdated , ..... this is a problem of large surface ships unnecessary to anyone, like a cruiser and an aircraft carrier with a udk. their little construction and repair is very costly. Frigates and small vessels are produced in series, and serial production is obtained, and then serial modernization. The modernization project 11 55, launched, let's see that we get a relatively many 8 pennants, maybe it will give them a second life. To repair a cruiser = money down the drain, forging one, 1164 is not suitable for modernization in its design, and the 1144 series was heaped up with a cut (and objective costs too) during the repair of Nakhimov, and so on.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 5 June 2020 08: 45 New
      +1
      Because as rightly noted above, classic strike ships are blind. With the length of the "arms" in hundreds and hundreds of kilometers, their myopia does not extend beyond 50 km. There is a problem of reconnaissance and target designation and it must be solved. The classic solution is radar in the sky. Or above the sky. Therefore, in my opinion, the composition of the shock component is not so important. The question is intelligence.
      As many authors correctly write, the US carrier has excellent reconnaissance capabilities if there is a carrier-based AWACS.
      Accordingly, for an effective "what shouldn't anyone be bombed" we at the moment lack exactly the eyes, not the fists. And "Eagles" will not help here.
      1. Kwas
        Kwas 5 June 2020 12: 33 New
        +1
        Correct if I'm wrong, but it always seemed to me that a coast-based AWACS plane is always an order of magnitude better. More weight, and therefore autonomy, speed, ceiling and everything else.
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex 5 June 2020 23: 32 New
          0
          In principle, yes, but not always the time that the aircraft can be on duty is enough to ensure a constant radar field around the ships. In addition, its own AWACS aircraft is more efficient, it can be lifted into the air here and now, and not wait until it arrives from the shore.
          In general, the Yak-44 program (443) also suggested ground-based options. It was supposed to create a ship and base anti-submarine, military transport, patrol base on its base ... And an AWACS aircraft for the ground forces.
    3. vVvAD
      vVvAD 5 June 2020 14: 28 New
      -1
      Quote: Kwas
      ... and bring down the wing.

      I would gladly watch a cartoon about how our invincible cruiser shoots everything that is possible for an intelligence-distraction group, at the same time cuts out the REP group (s) by $ ep, fighting off 2-3 shock groups near the water surface itself. Hooray, comrades! The wunderwaffle of the imperialists is disgraced, it remains only to throw PKRami, and it's all about the hat! Who?

      Если 1 Ту-22 смог устроить неслабые неприятности "Дональду Куку" в Чёрном море, то, как Вы думаете, что произойдёт, если на крейсер отправится звено "Гроулеров"? Я вот не уверен, что после этого его ПВО будет нормально функционировать. А даже если и будет, ему банально не хватит канальности для одновременного отражения налётов.
      And you can also hit it with aviation from such a range of anti-ship missile systems that it will only see missiles (well, that is, from outside its air defense zone). And what do you think will end sooner: a missile launcher of a cruiser or an aircraft carrier cellar?
      And he also won’t be able to avoid the battle: the speeds from AB are of the same order, but AB will be the first to notice it from his AWACS aircraft, and will the cruiser wait for the satellite data to be adjusted? Ah, yes: he will launch his helicopter underdrive ... which, with its radius and antenna power, the first thing you see is a fighter for your soul.
      1. Kwas
        Kwas 8 June 2020 11: 43 New
        0
        With the support of ground-based AWACS aircraft, the picture will change dramatically. A cruiser will see even better than an aircraft carrier. And then there is such a situation: its air defense range of 200-300km, ASD range of 50-100km max, but at the same time the aircraft carrier itself must be kept at a distance of more than 500km, so as not to fall under the distribution. IMHO, the cruiser has better chances. But all this is in a global conflict, which God forbid there will be.
        The real confrontation in the conditions of the Cold War or local conflict. That is, we have a coast of some conditionally Syria, which needs to be protected and where our airfield is. So he swims near the shore, above it the AWACS plane flies, and this company covers about 500 km of shore.
        As far as I know, they simply will not risk flying through his air defense zone and approaching him himself. Which was required.
        1. vVvAD
          vVvAD 9 June 2020 13: 34 New
          +1
          Quote: Kwas
          With support for ground-based AWACS aircraft

          Well, and what sea-oksiyan will our cruiser then go (in range?)
          And yet, AWACS, as it were, do not apply to naval aviation, they have plenty of work on the ground. And a little of them. And for DRLO cover planes, by the way, the radius and flight time will be even less, so patrols will need to be organized to cover them. S t.z. this is only possible with AB, otherwise our cruiser will not go beyond the territorial seas.
          Quote: Kwas
          the RCC range is 50-100km max, but the aircraft carrier itself must be kept at a distance of more than 500km, so as not to fall under the distribution.

          Кто у нас "вероятный", уж точно не Аргентина, правда?
          Then RCC AGM-158C LRASM, 800km
          Quote: Kwas
          but at the same time, the aircraft carrier itself must be kept at a distance of more than 500 km, so as not to fall under the distribution.

          Да запросто: боевой радиус F-35C более 1000км, F-18 "Hornet" более 700км - плюсуйте к дальности LRASM. А F-14 "Tomcat" имел вдвое больше.
          While the cruiser will sail to the distance of his RCC, AB will drown him 20 times.
          Quote: Kwas
          The real confrontation in the conditions of the Cold War or local conflict. That is, we have a coast of some conditionally Syria, which must be protected and where is our airfield ...

          And if it comes to Venezuela? Okay, the communications center in Lourdes is now frozen (for now). And in Nicaragua, for example, we are participating in the construction of a canal. And this is oh, how far from our tervodes.
          Пример локального конфликта: канал построен, работает, и тут дядюшка Сэм решает повторить операцию "Правое дело". Вопрос: свои бизнес-интересы защищать силой оружия надобно, или плюнуть на инвестиции? Если нет, то, во-первых, такое будет повторяться раз за разом, во-вторых, на нас станут плевать даже региональные державы.
          And do not blame the naval base: it is not known whether there will be a runway there suitable for an AWACS aircraft; the question of the sufficiency of an air wing to cover it. But what if they block it with their aircraft (for them, the backyard, as if) or capture it?
          Quote: Kwas
          As far as I know, they simply will not risk flying through his air defense zone and approaching him himself. Which was required.

          You know bad. Count the annual number of provocations with their participation in our airspace and in relation to our KMG. And yet, for you, as if there were no long-term U-2 flights through our territory, completed only the S-125 in the story of Powers.
          But what about protecting our own sea lanes, for example, protecting our tankers, if necessary, while wiping petroleum products to countries that the United States wants to strangle - also wipe / bend / leave? So they will displace us from everywhere, and then they will take us seriously.
    4. timokhin-aa
      10 June 2020 20: 39 New
      0
      And just imagine who they are more afraid of, a weaker aircraft carrier, or a cruiser with support (including air reconnaissance, at least from the coast), which can pardon them easily, and they can shoot down the wing.


      You have an extremely exaggerated view of the possibilities of pr.1144
      1. Kwas
        Kwas 10 June 2020 21: 34 New
        0
        Enlighten in what?
        1. timokhin-aa
          11 June 2020 23: 34 New
          +1
          В "и завалить сможет, и авиакрыло сбить".
  • +5
    +5 4 June 2020 14: 55 New
    +1
    A large, fit, real nuclear carrier of 100 thousand tons is good in that it is smart enough not to even begin to build and seriously design, unlike any ersatz .... they can start to play with it ... because the aircraft carrier of Russia (any) it’s not necessary because the benefits of it for us, based on the resources spent on it and this very amount of resources (aka loot), we have incompatible things ...

    Forget about all kinds of children's amusements (like bombing for nothing or suddenly the adversary goes crazy and comes to bomb Rodin on his own trough, and we’re flying with his own), AB is a means of controlling global ocean communications anywhere in the World Ocean ... we have such a task is not and is not expected, all other tasks are solved at times cheaper.

    Ежели "Америке - кирдык" и надо будет занять её место - так они нам свои и продадут по цене металлолома (не в последнюю очередь чьтоб Китаю насолить).
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 June 2020 20: 00 New
      0
      How simple it is for you.
      Is it okay to change ALL electric equipment there, to set up the production of fuel elements to Amer standards, etc.?
      Gone are the days when you can just take a foreign ship and fight on it, now even the transfer of a frigate is a long-standing saga.
      1. +5
        +5 4 June 2020 20: 08 New
        +1
        It was sarcasm ... but you can take it with the F-35 and even the team :)
      2. ser56
        ser56 4 June 2020 20: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        to establish the production of fuel rods to Amer standards, etc.?

        it is already done and we sell assemblies at their station ... request
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        ALL electrical equipment to change,

        what for? any ship is autonomous - generation on board ... if communication with the shore, it is easier to put a frequency / voltage converter ...
        1. timokhin-aa
          10 June 2020 20: 38 New
          0
          At the station, yes, but we are talking about transport reactors.

          The converters will have to be installed, taking into account their size, I have doubts.
  • tank64rus
    tank64rus 4 June 2020 14: 56 New
    0
    Look at the aircraft carrier with a retractable deck, the patent of the Russian Federation in my opinion for 2018.
  • serg2108
    serg2108 5 June 2020 00: 22 New
    0
    Once, Comrade Stalin called aircraft designer Yakovlev and set the task: to create a new, best fighter in the world. And he called the term - three months.
    At first, Yakovlev objected that the same Americans spend a year and a half on such development!
    На что Сталин совершенно искренне удивился: "А... развэ ви амэриканэц?"
    The plane was created in three months.

    Joseph is not on you and on our government!
    another respect and respect for the author, one of not many of whom is pleasant to read (IMHO)
    1. Kwas
      Kwas 5 June 2020 12: 21 New
      0
      You know, I’m a developer by the way, and I'm a little nauseous from executives setting unrealistic deadlines, because this is their rule. But physics cannot be altered, and if you need to pass it too quickly, then you will be tormented to finish it. That was, by the way, with our fighters, recently on oper.ru a whole series of lectures was.
      1. serg2108
        serg2108 15 June 2020 10: 50 New
        0
        technically competent specialists should lead, and deadlines and resources should be allocated immediately and immediately. I completely agree with you that stupid directions are always present, but sometimes you need to take the initiative and think a few steps ahead! (IMHO)
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 5 June 2020 09: 01 New
    +2
    In my opinion, it is necessary to start an aircraft carrier program with an answer to the question "why". It would be stupid to make a "Russian Nimitz" and dump it to the fleet like, you yourself will figure out where to attach it. The modern US fleet was originally built around aircraft carriers, we did not have this. Our fleet is missile-carrying. The presence of carrier-based aircraft, I think, will not expand the strike function of our fleet.
    But the function of air defense and reconnaissance for our fleet must be strengthened. That is, it requires not just an aircraft carrier, but an air defense / airborne carrier. Which already gives a different vision.
    For example, the composition of an air wing. If we are talking about intercepting aircraft of the enemy AUG, then why do we need manned aircraft? Air is the perfect memto for robotic fighter jets. This means not the MiG-29, but the interceptors based on the "Hunter". And here there will be other requirements for the ship and other parameters of "combat performance".
    1. vVvAD
      vVvAD 5 June 2020 14: 45 New
      0
      All right, just show me
      перехватчики на базе "Охотника"

      A hunter is a percussion machine, and his performance characteristics are appropriate. How do you imagine performing a missile defense maneuver?
      And then: so far no country has implemented UAV interceptors. Intelligence - please, drums - as much as you like, transport, refueling, REP - is there or in the process of being created. But there is no interceptor. Not casual it, do not you?
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 5 June 2020 23: 13 New
        0
        How do you know the Hunter's performance characteristics? :)
        So far I have only seen the deltoid La according to the pattern of a flying tailless tail. And only the most general characteristics are published. Do you have an insider? What is stopping this missile defense maneuver? In addition, in Russia there are samples of electronic warfare systems that counteract missiles with GOS.
        The fact that there is no interceptor UAV does not mean that there are fundamental problems with implementation. It's just that the United States, which is leading and setting the tone in this area, does not need such a model. They do something primarily for themselves. For example, I reasonably believe that in a combat situation, the command "hit the aliens" in air combat is much easier to implement ...
        1. agond
          agond 9 June 2020 10: 24 New
          +1
          I would like to know from supporters of aircraft carriers how to use them in the winter, for example in the same Sea of ​​Okhotsk ... and generally what to do with them in the winter?
  • Vladimir Mikhailov_2
    Vladimir Mikhailov_2 9 June 2020 13: 36 New
    0
    Автор! Вы когда-нибудь были на палубе "Кузнецова"? Или только на картинке её видели? Вы знаете сколько технических позиций на палубе? Сколько одновременно можно выкатить самолётов до начала полётов?Единственное, что Вы правильно назвали это количество самолётов в волне. Но мне кажется вы не представляете причину этого количества. Ну а экономические и технические выкладки с некоторыми допущениями можно принять.
  • Job74
    Job74 10 June 2020 17: 44 New
    0
    If Russia had the money for a dozen or two of real aircraft carriers, be sure that they would have already been built without any discussion. But having a military budget ten times smaller than the American one, you have to hit the theory, portraying the entire carrier fleet as the only ship. It is clear that we are a land country, but no one has canceled the protection of shipping on the oceans occupied by the USA. The projection of force does not suit us, we need more practical ships, namely cover aircraft carriers that serve the purposes of air defense and anti-aircraft defense formations, because even during WWII it was found out that the best anti-aircraft gun is a plane.
    1. agond
      agond 10 June 2020 22: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Job74
      If Russia had the money for a dozen or two of real aircraft carriers, be sure that they would have already been built without any discussion

      Unfortunately, our admirals have a large ship size for some reason
      считается гарантией его эффективности ,так же большие командиры хотят командовать большим кораблем ( их на малых укачивает) и несомненно если дать им деньги на их хотелки то они начнут строить авианосцы, не взирая ни на лед в Арктике , в Охотском море , на Камчатки , ни на полное отсутствие сбаз за пределами своих территориальных вод, . Невольно возникают сомнения в профессиональной пригодности этих морячков "авиаторов"
      It should be borne in mind that in aircraft carriers there is a relationship between their size and the size of the aircraft and it is very non-linear, that is, it is impossible to proportionally increase the size of the complex by 10% and 10%, say, the size of the ship without a sharp deterioration in the logistics of the complex, and we see that the Mig-29k is too big for Kuznetsov. he would have suited a plane close in size to the Mig-21
      1. Job74
        Job74 11 June 2020 09: 34 New
        -1
        Quote: agond
        Mig-29k is too big for Kuznetsov. he would have suited a plane close in size to the Mig-21

        Конечно , чем меньше самолёт , тем большее его количество можно разместить на палубе , но "Кузя" , например , при схожих с амеровскими кораблями размерах , несёт их гораздо меньше. Нет катапульты - эта национальная особенность наших авианосцев, которая экономит деньги и существенно снижает эффективность корабля. Надо чтобы кто-то сформировал точный облик по-настоящему нужного , эффективного и подъёмного для нашего бюджета корабля и смог доказать нашему адмиралитету что это - то что нужно. История показывает , что обычно у нас всё наоборот. Думаю , что пока мы можем в лучшем случае расчитывать на что-то аналогичное "Кавуру", может быть и с "вертикалками".
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 11 June 2020 14: 32 New
          -2
          Guys fans of aircraft carriers - you wake up and walk (at least mentally) along the perimeter of the borders of your largest country in the world and check how they are protected ??? How is Russia protected from land in the first place ??? !!! Look at the dozens of abandoned Soviet military towns where the combat life was boiling recently and now the wind is walking and three old men with one berdanka in the whole village - that’s the whole defense !!!

          And now, calculate how many billions of rubles you need to spend in order to at least partially restore Russia's defense capabilities in the land sectors by the year 2040 !!! And also count how many billions of rubles are allocated for the construction and maintenance of the surface Navy, and for the construction and maintenance of the SSBN fleet !!! I think that many fans of aircraft carriers will have their fantasy fade away !!!

          As you do not understand, Russia was long late in the race of aircraft carriers !!! There are no capacities, there is no time, there is no money for aircraft carriers and there will not be, there are no people who will build aircraft carriers !!! You finally look at what modern children play - this is the generation that will replace the generation of the collapse of the USSR ... They do not want to be pilots !!! - they want to be managers, computer scientists, stars of show business - by anyone but not military pilots !!!

          It ... Russia can certainly begin a grandiose unfinished construction - similar to the tsar’s battleships ... In this field, I think more than one generation of all sorts of hoarders - contractors and top-ranking officials will get rich .... But Russia will not be able to establish itself by 2040 full-fledged AUG- and a will again create ersatz aircraft carriers beautiful in parades and useless in real combat !!! Or even worse, the creation of aircraft carriers in Russia will end with another revolution in Russia and another throwing billions of government rubles into the pipe !!!
      2. Selevc
        Selevc 12 June 2020 09: 34 New
        0
        Quote: agond
        Unfortunately, our admirals have a large ship size for some reason
        considered a guarantee of its effectiveness,

        Direct analogies with the 30-40s of the 20th century ... Then all these beautiful giants (pocket battleships) together went to the bottom !!! And sometimes even with the help of elementary misinformation - without even entering the battle !!!
        Or another example - the Japanese giant battleships, the Americans, were sunk at the end of World War II as in exercises !!! That is, a huge part of the military budget of Japan, which in fact turned out to be paper tigers, sank to the bottom !!!
        I think that Russia is not worth repeating the feat of Japanese sea kamikaze !!!
  • Job74
    Job74 11 June 2020 16: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: Selevc
    and he will again create ersatz aircraft carriers beautiful in parades and useless in real combat !!!

    The erroneous doctrine of the creation and application of these makes them useless in battle. There is no need to separate the Navy from the rest of the army, otherwise it will turn out like in Japan during WWII. Armed forces - a balanced body, at least it should be. When will we saturate the army with new weapons? What will be the criterion for such saturation? It reminds an army joke: from here to sunset, because you can arm it forever. That way our fleet will quickly wither away. Of course, we beat a German woman on land, but after all, on the street the century of globalism, distance and oceans are becoming theater of operations. An ancient debate about the place of the fleet in the Russian army.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 12 June 2020 09: 28 New
      0
      [/ quote] [quote = Job74] No need to separate the Navy from the rest of the army, otherwise it will work out like in Japan during WWII.

      Sorry, but the fleet was separated from the main army by all those fighting in the 2nd world country !!! In Germany, too, for example, sailors submariners or battleship teams have always been considered a special caste ...

      ] When will we saturate the army with new weapons? What will be the criterion for such saturation?
      The saturation criterion will be the protected perimeter of the state ... The saturation criterion will be the fleet, which is based on the concept of a deep multi-stage defense of its territories, first of all .. And to build aircraft carriers so that later someday someone would cover up somewhere and spend billions of rubles on it - and not Is it fat for Russia ??? Whatever rubber budget is ...

      To build aircraft carriers and at the same time have holes in the defense in their rears is for Russia the right path to another revolutionary catastrophe ...
  • Suslin
    Suslin 11 June 2020 20: 47 New
    0
    A large aircraft carrier is certainly better than two, three UDCs or two small aircraft carriers. But where to build it and where will it be based? Questions and questions.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 11 June 2020 22: 44 New
      0
      Is it better? So he went into repair - and that’s all, he’s not. And here, as a sin, a crisis in friendly Mumba-Umbia. And there’s nothing to react to. And if there are three aircraft carriers in the fleet, at least one of them will be in service. It is clear that to build three small aircraft carriers or UDCs with SVPP is much more realistic, three large ones.
      1. Suslin
        Suslin 11 June 2020 23: 39 New
        0
        They try to convince us that a small tit is better than a large crane. It is necessary to strive for the best, compromises are not brought to good.
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra 13 June 2020 11: 37 New
    0
    Quote: max702
    Именно фолкленды и были показательной поркой для всех "не следующих курсом партии"....


    Но сейчас то англичане со своими двумя "Куин Элизабетами" гипотетические новую фолклендскую войну потянут, или им нечем два новых авианосца "прикрывать и обеспечивать"?

    У части выступивших есть мнение что России строить авианосцы "низя", потому что те будет "нечем прикрывать и обеспечивать". Не ужели у нас с надводными боевыми кораблями в перспективе хуже чем сегодня у Британии?
  • Alexander Barinov
    Alexander Barinov 14 June 2020 08: 26 New
    0
    I have questions:
    Like IW Stalin in packs of small and medium-sized submarines. and also torpedo boats were stopped by the German fleet?
    Назовите ФИО того Дурака в ВМФ або выше, который "хочет" один большой авианосец?
    For parades, do they scare blacks and Arabians?
  • Job74
    Job74 15 June 2020 09: 56 New
    +1
    Quote: AlexanderA
    Are we with surface warships in the future worse than Britain today?


    If we rejoice at piece rocket corvettes and don’t know if something will be larger, then yes, worse.
    Дело не в том , нужен авианосец или нет , дело в том какой он нужен и как его построить . Наша армия всегда старалась иметь на вооружении что-то простое , дешёвое и эффективное , типа калаша или Т-34. Вот и сейчас это пытаются сделать с кораблями. Это типа эксперимента - можем ли мы дать ассиметричный авианосный ответ Америке или нет. Ультрадешёвый авианосец - это контейнеровозы , типа английских , потопленных Фолклендской войне. Ультра дорогой - это новейшие "Форды". Вот где-то между ними надо искать золотой компромисс. Совсем без авианосца стрёмно - всё-таки великая держава.
    1. agond
      agond 17 June 2020 09: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Job74
      It’s not a matter of whether an aircraft carrier is needed or not, the matter is how it is needed and how to build it

      Even the most inferior of the inferior aircraft carriers will be much more expensive than a very full-fledged airport on the island.
  • BVU
    BVU 17 June 2020 21: 09 New
    0
    The country's economy is floundering in a quagmire of disastrous politics. She just will not pull large-scale projects, their implementation will lead her to collapse. This we have already passed. First you need to cure the country, free yourself from the mafia, put on the rails of democracy, on the path of dynamic progressive development and prosperity.
  • Job74
    Job74 18 June 2020 13: 21 New
    0
    Quote: agond
    Even the most inferior of the inferior aircraft carriers will be much more expensive than a very full-fledged airport on the island.

    Конечно сухопутная авиация выигрывает у морской по критерию затраты/эффективность , но это если не высовывать носа дальше прибрежных вод. Этот вопрос лежит уже в сфере политики - а что России собственно , нужно? Точнее - много чего , но какой ценой и хватит ли нам средств и сил ? Так вот , даже мало-мальское принуждение к миру всяких восточных государств , претендующих на наши острова , лучше при наличии палубной авиации и штурмовых десантных кораблей типа "Тарава". Конечно , огромные корабли нам сейчас не по-плечу , но тогда надо делать то , что по плечу , а не забрасывать дело со вздохом " а всё равно ничего хорошего из этого не выйдет". Если не пытаться делать - точно не выйдет.
  • hostel
    hostel 19 June 2020 19: 12 New
    -1
    The author is my admiration !!! Everything is correctly and simply stated. And what a bacchanalia in the comments.
  • Dmitry Leontiev
    Dmitry Leontiev 23 June 2020 14: 10 New
    0
    For modern weapons, an aircraft carrier is too easy and a desirable goal for it to make sense to invest at least some significant funds in this huge. Destroy an aircraft carrier with current weapons (especially hypersonic; or underwater smart drones) is many, many times cheaper than building it. And the military significance of the floating airfield leaves no doubt that in the event of war it will be one of the first targets for destruction - and will be sent to the bottom long before entering the radius of its operation.
    The Americans have already come to the understanding that for this reason they will have to abandon aircraft carriers: countries that are not able to destroy them elementarily if necessary, become and will become smaller every day. And now, obviously, the Americans, having decided to get rid of this expensive useless rubbish themselves, are trying with all their might to impose the idea of ​​building it on Russia, so that it would spend as much of its military budget on it as possible, invest heavily in this senseless, critically vulnerable imperial club for Papuans - and remained in the end without what would really ensure its defenses.
  • con_nick
    con_nick 25 June 2020 13: 13 New
    0
    Thanks to the author for the work!
    Надеюсь, в скором времени появится статья где, он подробно сравнит количество боевых вылетов, ну например с "Нимица" и "Лизки"))) Тот факт, что РФ нужен полноразмерный АВ, не менее "Кузи" как-то особо ни у кого сомнений не вызывает, но автор с упорством достойным лучшего применения, через призму дискредитации концепции УДК как малого АВ с самолетами КВВП, ни чуть не сомневаясь, распространяет выводы, сделанные по "УДК+КВВП" на концепцию КВВП в целом, что по меньшей мере некорректно. Я же остаюсь при своем мнении, и эта статья, ИМХО, еще лишь подтверждает мои убеждения) И вот почему. На реальных боевых радиусах в 500-550 км(по берегу) разнице по боевой загрузке, скорости и пр. между F-35B и F-35C нет))) А вот по времени подъема в воздух боевой группы, скорости посадки на АВ - есть, и преимущество, причем явное, у КВВП))) И число боевых вылетов в сутки у КВВП не ограничено 4-мя, т.к. нет аэрофинишера) Теперь что касаемо сроков. Модернизировать АВ под КВВП достаточно просто - изменить трамплин, убрать финишеры. И, кстати, построить новый АВ с габаритами "Кузи" можно на "Звезде" - спусковая масса там 40000 т, по ширине и длине тоже проходит. Если начать сейчас, то к 28-30 реально иметь в составе флота 1-2 АВ. По самолетам КВВП. Не нужно делать "триединый" самолет типа F-35, нужно сделать КВВП - и он не будет уступать палубнику ни в чем. В смысле совсем ни в чем) Да, это не быстро, но никак не 2040 г. Основные сложности связаны с двигателем. Мы от США отставали и отстаем, пусть и не так много как еще 10 лет назад. Сейчас, чтобы догнать, нужно в срочном порядке пилить адаптивный движок(причем вне зависимости от того будет КВВП или нет), и для Су-57, и для других машин. Что касаемо движка КВВП, то там особую сложность представляет собой редуктор привода подъемного вентилятора(для F-35 делали англичане на Роллс-Ройсе), у нас тоже есть кому сделать, это тоже не быстро, но и не 20 лет. ИМХО, если заняться сейчас, году в 27-28 КВВП совершит первый полет.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 20 July 2020 23: 14 New
      0
      You are mistaken, just in terms of flight range, maximum overload and combat load, the F-35B is inferior to the other two versions. They have extra. a fuel tank in place of the lifting fan in option B and a more spacious armament compartment.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 20 July 2020 23: 57 New
      0
      The very same scheme of the F-35B power plant is ideal for SCVVP. The problem is the possibility of creating an engine similar to the F-135 in terms of power and reliability.
  • Job74
    Job74 26 June 2020 12: 55 New
    0
    Quote: con_nick
    With regards to the KVVP engine, there is a particular difficulty in the gearbox for the drive of the lift fan (for the F-35 the British did on Rolls-Royce), we also have someone to do, this is also not fast, but not for 20 years.


    Why a fan? Power take-off from the main free turbine is quite complicated and difficult, and in case of combat damage it will clearly fail. I do not see any big advantages over the Yak-141 scheme. Here Harrier's scheme seems simpler, another thing is that such an engine cannot be made ours either. What the hell is not joking, maybe someday instead of lifting engines they will use nowadays electric propellers that are now fashionable.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 20 July 2020 23: 17 New
      0
      I assure you that the fan solution is the most elegant of all. A big problem with other SCRVs is the ingress of hot gases reflected from the runway into the air intakes, which leads to overheating and loss of power. Here is normal air.
  • Dmitriy51
    Dmitriy51 28 June 2020 17: 51 New
    0
    What are the aircraft carriers, which UDC ???? Our industry (USC) cannot repair !!! Not to mention the construction, ships 1155 !!! And to build a ship 30-50, and even more so 100 thousand tons of displacement ...
    Do not make me laugh!
    УРА-Патриоты конечно сейчас "начнут". Но те, кто стоял в этих "не имеющих аналогов" заводах в ремонте, слова о "новом, мощном" воспринимают только в двух вариантах. Издевка, или смех.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 20 July 2020 23: 54 New
      0
      I agree, first we need to be able to produce ships of URO rank 1, with a displacement of ~ 10000 tons, to maintain and repair.
      In the United States, there is a Newport News shipyard that can build full-fledged aircraft carriers. To begin with, we need to take possession of a similar one, in a place convenient for launching ships and calling for repairs.