Defective aircraft carriers are not suitable for the Russian fleet

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."
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Demagogue 2 June 2020 18: 15 New
    • 20
    • 19
    +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 2 June 2020 18: 43 New
      • 26
      • 14
      +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.
      PS I ask specialists to correct if that. It’s just boiling up, it’s got it endlessly “we need another prodigy”, without justification why the hell it is needed and why it is like that.
      1. Tiksi-3 2 June 2020 19: 01 New
        • 8
        • 15
        -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 2 June 2020 19: 13 New
          • 12
          • 8
          +4
          I know Syria. And there you need an aircraft carrier?
          1. Tiksi-3 2 June 2020 19: 18 New
            • 19
            • 19
            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 2 June 2020 19: 23 New
              • 12
              • 12
              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 2 June 2020 19: 37 New
                • 10
                • 16
                -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

                all your "conclusions about the fleet" -
                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 2 June 2020 19: 41 New
                  • 5
                  • 5
                  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 3 June 2020 14: 16 New
                    • 14
                    • 1
                    +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?

                    Andrei, we need aircraft carriers not so much in Syria (more precisely, in the Eastern Mediterranean or the Mediterranean Sea in general), but to cover the areas of combat deployment of our SSBNs, the so-called "bastions". First of all, coverings from the anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy - the main enemy of our submarine missile carriers. That is, on the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet. It is extremely difficult to carry out cover with basic aviation - huge distances, that is, cover aviation will be constantly late and in a real combat situation it is likely to be late and will not fulfill the BZ. That is, we need aircraft carriers to provide air defense in specific marine areas.
                    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.
                    Now about Syria and the "distant shores." It would not seem to anyone, but Russia is a great power that has its own interests beyond its borders. And these interests must be protected.
                    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
                    But today is a unique moment in history ... and it seems that the sane part of the country's leadership is trying to use it. Namely - to change the economic paradigm - from fiscal to investment. And start pouring money into the economy (instead of pumping it into offshore and "securities" of their enemies).
                    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 4 June 2020 09: 20 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      bayard, I can not disagree with this point of view. Moreover, I share it, but only if it is determined that our goal is to build a sea power. Then, six aircraft carrier formations are few. I am an ardent opponent of gaining something for the sake of something, and then coming up with how to use this “something”. First the goal, and only then the determination of the appearance and quantity of means to achieve the goal. Now the goal of the appearance of an aircraft carrier is "Schaub Bulo", for a single aircraft carrier - for nothing. The only possible explanation is the maintenance of competencies in the construction of large-capacity ships / vessels, and yes, "saw, shura, saw!" The USSR and, as the successor of its design idea - the Russian Federation, has always been famous, as it is now fashionable to say, “asymmetric” answers, i.e. small means to zero super-duper-wunderwaffles of potential friends.
                      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 4 June 2020 12: 06 New
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        +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.
                        You can build an aircraft carrier on 2 shipyards in Russia - on the hard-to-revive Gulf, and Zvezda on Bolshoi Kamen, which has not yet been completed. So no one can drive horses, and if he wants to - while working on the project \ projects, preparation of production, personnel, selection of contractors.
                        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 4 June 2020 19: 30 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        This will give some experience.


                        The most important experience necessary is to steadily learn shipbuilding with the money of foreign customers. Therefore, you must first build what you are ready to pay money immediately and onward, and not what you want and build quickly in order to have turnover and technological competencies. At the same time, you can check various shipbuilding ideas for free, including crazy ones, on "volunteer mice." Own aviks are by no means a matter of life and death, so they need to be riveted for foreigners.
              2. ancient 2 June 2020 19: 45 New
                • 15
                • 18
                -3
                Quote: Tiksi-3
                An aircraft carrier is needed and not one!

                So what are you .... "nullified" for 20 years of "reign" have not built a single ... since he is so bad for you .. "need"? request
                Denyuzhkov dumb? And to list the composition of the freshly "imperial yachts = fleet" ... friends of His Majesty? wassat
                It turns out to be more .. "more necessary" than yours .. "mythical aircraft carriers" wassat
              3. Doctor 2 June 2020 20: 31 New
                • 3
                • 9
                -6
                An aircraft carrier is needed and not one!

                Do you have a car?
              4. LeonidL 3 June 2020 02: 22 New
                • 7
                • 9
                -2
                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 assembling on stocks, launching ... by this time crews should have already been formed, training in establishments and specialties started, aircraft and helicopter group aircraft built, and auxiliary fleet ships built for supplies and, alas, salvation, towing, the construction of a full-fledged escort has begun ... again, a sharp increase in enrollment in VM schools, midshipmen schools, etc. Built infrastructure for basing (this is an ongoing problem) - moorings, warehouses, coastal barracks, classes .. shops and bases, clubs and Navy officers' houses ... baths. And about whether AB will be in great demand in the future (only the author does not have them), hypersound and new technologies will probably nullify everything that has been invested, and you will have to invest a lot of money and stop almost everything else in the shipbuilding industry, re-equipment of the land army. Yes, and the principle of "oil guns" has not been canceled. Would you be the first to want a bottle of ford with butter? But you won’t put an aircraft carrier on bread ... Yes, and crises, pandomies ... It’s better not to soar in empirical forms, but will go down to earth.
                1. pmkemcity 3 June 2020 07: 18 New
                  • 4
                  • 11
                  -7
                  Quote: LeonidL
                  ... baths.

                  Exactly! To take such an author, yes, to the bathhouse in the 21st detachment, yes to mow naked, and then “mashka” in the hands and a hundred meters of the corridor, and after tidying, build on the upper deck at minus 20, and with an orchestra, and with passage , yes with the song "We need such ships at sea", and all this two or three times (the deck is oh-hoo). Well, already at night, you can tiptoe so that you don’t wake the pilot’s "tired" from maintenance, in the "Lenin room", to display posters about Syria with a raiser ... For a couple of hours, in the morning he will make so many sorties in a dream that the fuel will drain first in the latrine.
                2. Alexandra 3 June 2020 14: 13 New
                  • 5
                  • 2
                  +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 ...


                  The world's first atomic aircraft carrier Enterprise - bookmark February 4, 1958, commissioning November 25, 1961. Apparently the fact is that then neither computer design nor "millennials" were there yet.
                3. max702 3 June 2020 17: 55 New
                  • 4
                  • 3
                  +1
                  I agree with you, our country has no goals for the aircraft carrier fleet, all have one excuse for the APS to cover the SSBN .. What is the reason for the "normal" fleet to cover the SSBN? 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? Only the five countries that are part of the UN Security Council, others simply cannot and do not dare to do this .. Here it turns out that even such a fantastic scenario does not justify the presence of AUG ..
                  RS: It’s a pity you can’t put cons on articles to express your attitude to many crazy articles ..
                  RRS: Cancellation of minuses to articles is tantamount to cancellation of the election item "Against all" .. democratically so ..
            2. LeonidL 3 June 2020 02: 13 New
              • 6
              • 5
              +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 2 June 2020 19: 40 New
            • 9
            • 11
            -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 !!

            "Strategists" are covered from destruction ... "non-strategies" (learn theory wink ), and aviation (if any) can cover only the deployment area, but ... thereby unmasking it .... wassat
            1. Dart2027 2 June 2020 21: 00 New
              • 7
              • 2
              +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
              "Strategists" cover from destruction ... "non-strategies"

              And they too. The fleet must be universal.
            2. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 10: 03 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +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).

              And about the unmasking ... the "bastion" of the Soviet era covered part of the Barents Sea, the White Sea and the Pechora Sea. And somewhere beyond this bastion were the ARPKSN. smile
          3. Bez 310 2 June 2020 20: 27 New
            • 4
            • 12
            -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?
            Well, about the cover by the "wing" of our "submarine strategists" ...
            I would like to learn this question a little, otherwise I, apparently,
            lagged behind all these innovations.
            1. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 10: 12 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Quote: Bez 310
              Could you give a little more detail about the theory?
              Well, about the cover by the "wing" of our "submarine strategists" ...

              One link was simply released there: aviation should provide air defense to ship groups deployed in front of positional areas (at the Bearish or even Svalbard turn). In general, the next "bastion" - the main problem of which is precisely that the northern flank of the "bastion" without AB remains without air cover. For coastal aviation simply does not have time to strengthen the duty forces operating at a distance of 600-650 km from the nearest air base - the time of approaching enemy aircraft (from the moment of detection) is less than the time of approaching reserves from the coastal airfield. And without reinforcement, the forces on duty will be quickly demolished by the air clearing group.
              1. Bez 310 3 June 2020 12: 23 New
                • 3
                • 9
                -6
                All this resembles a “pseudo-war” set of words,
                senseless and merciless.
                1. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 15: 11 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  Quote: Bez 310
                  All this resembles a “pseudo-war” set of words,
                  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 3 June 2020 15: 24 New
                    • 1
                    • 6
                    -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.
                    And standing on the shore, "Peter the Great" and "Ivan Gren" let
                    coastal air defense protects. Sadness with this fleet ...
                    1. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 15: 26 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +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 3 June 2020 15: 37 New
                      • 1
                      • 4
                      -3
                      Excuse me, but I simply don’t believe in our surface fleet.
                      We will have nothing, except platforms for the use of "Caliber".
                      And the "combat icebreaker" will bring fear and terror to the enemy.
                      The submarine fleet is a separate conversation, and in a completely different way.
          4. alexmach 3 June 2020 12: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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
        2. Alexander Mironovsky 2 June 2020 22: 17 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          And what can be guaranteed to cover up one aircraft carrier if such a tear goes?
          1. LeonidL 3 June 2020 02: 25 New
            • 2
            • 2
            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 3 June 2020 14: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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.
        3. Looking for 3 June 2020 15: 48 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          in the Soviet-Russian military vocabulary there is no such thing as an air wing. And there are sixes. West. Specializing in so-called military fornication
    2. ancient 2 June 2020 19: 38 New
      • 5
      • 5
      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 2 June 2020 19: 39 New
        • 4
        • 5
        -1
        Quote: ancient
        but how are you going to cover it?

        Kuzya one came, one worked, one left ???
        1. ancient 2 June 2020 19: 47 New
          • 10
          • 9
          +1
          Quote: Tiksi-3
          Kuzya one came, one worked, one left ???

          This AUG led by “Kuznetsov”, a KUG (weak one) with one “Tiki” and 3-4 “Burks” .... will direct it, this AUG to the bottom ..... like two fingers about .... . "why"
          1. Ivanchester 2 June 2020 22: 13 New
            • 4
            • 4
            0
            And what weapons can this KUG attack our AUG? wink
          2. bayard 3 June 2020 14: 36 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            Quote: ancient
            This AUG led by “Kuznetsov”, a KUG (weak one) with one “Tiki” and 3-4 “Burks” .... will direct it, this AUG to the bottom ..... like two fingers about .... . "why"

            Do they peck at her with "Harpoons"?
            And from what distance?
            And if in response to such a volley from under water, it’s not even full, but a volley of “Granites” or “Volcanoes”? From loaf 949?
            And he must have accompanied.
            But the condition of “Kuzi” was “half-disabled”, there can be no argument. The aircraft carrier was clearly not in good shape. hi
            1. Ivanchester 3 June 2020 17: 38 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3

              Do they peck at her with "Harpoons"?
              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
              And if in response to such a volley from under water, it’s not even full, but a volley of “Granites” or “Volcanoes” From a loaf 949


              Or from Peter the Great. He was there too.
              But the condition of “Kuzi” was “half-disabled”, there can be no argument. The aircraft carrier was clearly not in good shape.


              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 3 June 2020 18: 01 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: bayard
              And if in response to such a volley from under water, it’s not even full, but a volley of “Granites” or “Volcanoes”? From loaf 949?

              Uh, why then AUG? If the loaf itself would decide everything? What will the AUG do? What benefit?
              1. bayard 3 June 2020 18: 11 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Quote: max702
                Uh, why then AUG? If the loaf itself would decide everything? What will the AUG do? What benefit?

                If aggression against surface ships of the enemy is committed against you, and there are ships in your battle order (namely, ships, for Peter the Great also has 20 such HEAVY missiles), then why risk aviation?
                That's what the rocket is for the ship to sink.
                "What will the AUG do?"
                Reconnaissance (by helicopter AWACS) and the opening of an enemy warrant, the opening and timely detection of launching KR "Harpoon" and guidance on them fighter carrier-based aircraft.
                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 3 June 2020 18: 20 New
                  • 1
                  • 3
                  -2
                  Oppa and the surface carrier of heavy anti-ship missiles suddenly appeared .. So, we had to start from there! Excuse me, but is it necessary for a helicopter AWACS AUG? And what kind of enemy is such that it is necessary to hammer it with all this machinery? Who will we open the order? USA, China, England France? Who else? How to end such a showdown I think it is not necessary to say? And what's the point in such a fantastic hypothetical situation? We will spend real resources, not invented, unlike "such" tasks ..
                  1. bayard 3 June 2020 18: 30 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: max702
                    And what kind of enemy is such that it is necessary to hammer it with all this machinery?

                    Do not play clowns Maxim, we have one enemy, he is a probable opponent, and the rest / the rest are related things. Here under this enemy all this "machinery" was sharpened.
                    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 12 June 2020 18: 30 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 12 June 2020 19: 39 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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.

                    Yes there is, and placed very tightly. I’m not sure that when placing 2 AWACS helicopters there, someone else will fit there - they will be “hunks” of anti-submariners.
                    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 13 June 2020 21: 02 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Twenty-five again .. Do not fight because not the fleet of Wow Go, but because nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear forces .. EVERYTHING! The rest of the fleet by and large, the inertia of the times of the Second World War and even that of one hegemon with the accomplices of NATO accomplices .. The rest, don’t let the pirates show off to the neighbor .. The fleet of the 30s is a state crime and Stalin perfectly realized this during the Second World War the fleet of the late Soviet era, to put it mildly, was more involved in escorting gratuitous aid to cannibals and other "comrades", but the USSR was of no use to it, but the damage was higher than the roof .. Trillions of rubles were swelled into all THIS, but there was no return! We are still writing off multibillion-dollar debts. Resources could be spent much more rationally, for example, inside the country in the same impoverished RSFSR places of application of forces and means are truly endless .. But there is no sea spray and a dagger on its side, but a well-fed cannibal or barbudos is much more important than a resident of the RSFSR living in a hut .. God better I wish the money invested in the fleet in space would be invested there at least some kind of hi-tech exhaust .. Today, thank God there is an understanding of this idiocy and from the ocean leviathans we kick off how they can build what we need, and not what the "sea wolves" want.
  • Alexandra 3 June 2020 14: 56 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    See what the British will cover and provide for aircraft carriers like Queen Elizabeth. Today, the Royal Navy consists of six main class BNK main missile destroyers of the Daring type (type 45) and 13 type 23 frigates. And with these 19th BNK they are going to cover two aircraft carriers, five DVKD / DTD, and four ro-type military vehicles "ro", six naval tankers, one integrated supply ship, two armament transports and one unofficial hospital ship "Argus" - in total 21 aircraft-carrying, landing and auxiliary units of the oceanic zone for 19 escort BNCs of the far sea and oceanic zones.
    1. max702 3 June 2020 18: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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 3 June 2020 18: 43 New
        • 2
        • 2
        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.

        "To possess only a dozen large surface ships ready to participate in hostilities is unrealistic. In fact, this country needs 30 surface ships to not only meet the requirements of peacetime, but also to be prepared for unforeseen circumstances similar to the Falklands war ... Meanwhile, the financing that the fleet receives does not allow us to have 30 frigates and destroyers, especially in conditions when the programs for building aircraft carriers, amphibious ships and other projects get the highest priority, "the admiral said.

        West emphasized that abandoning aircraft carriers in favor of building ships of other classes is also impossible. "You cannot create an effective battle group without an aircraft carrier, and this is something absolutely everyone agrees with," he said.


        In contrast to the "enlightened mariners" in faraway Russia, there are enough of those who are sure that it is possible to do without an aircraft carrier, that there can be effective KAG without aircraft carriers.

        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 12 June 2020 18: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It was the Falklands that were an indicative flogging for all "not following the course of the party" ....
          The United States was there solely as a guarantor of Soviet non-interference (in the USSR, they didn’t really want to intervene but were rooting for the Arg) and let the British act very well, knowing that they screwed up ... by and large, everything was decided by the incapacity of the Argov ammunition and the non-delivery of paid "exosets" .. If there weren’t all of these non-combat factors, the shaver would have been everything, and nuclear submarine captains would have had to apply the order for this ..
          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 3 June 2020 08: 14 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -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 2 June 2020 19: 11 New
    • 7
    • 5
    +2
    Quote: andranick
    It’s just boiling up, it’s got it endlessly “we need another prodigy”, without justification why the hell it is needed and why it is like that.

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

    First you need a fleet (including expeditionary forces) to cover the “expeditionary force”, which will “land on the enemy’s coast. (It’s not there yet).”
    Well, the "direction of the main blow" wassat .... which of the NATO countries will we .. "occupy" lol
    1. andranick 2 June 2020 19: 19 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +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 3 June 2020 02: 28 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      In previous surveys, the author clearly defined the tasks: "to mine the Baltic" "Capture Northern Norway and Svalbard!" Hooray! Hooray! Aboard! The keyboard for battle, sofa admirals!
  • Vladimir1155 3 June 2020 00: 21 New
    • 5
    • 6
    -1
    I support! "projection of force" = empty word, you need the ability to defend YOUR TERRITORY 1 to strike retaliation against the enemy, then expeditionary forces, and with them aircraft carriers (of all kinds) and UDC are simply not needed from the word at all, and there are no resources for that
  • alexmach 3 June 2020 10: 48 New
    • 2
    • 2
    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 4 June 2020 08: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You would have considered the length of the sea borders of Great Britain, exactly many times less than that of Russia.
      1. alexmach 4 June 2020 08: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 4 June 2020 08: 48 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +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 4 June 2020 09: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 4 June 2020 11: 05 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +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 4 June 2020 12: 33 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -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 4 June 2020 14: 38 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  How will an aircraft carrier from a submarine help you? Here's a huge ground-based anti-submarine will help.

                  Mobility matters when the freedom to choose a target for the attack and the need for the enemy to pursue. At the same time, it is very difficult to get something from mobility, if the enemy is much more banal, and in the conflict, say the AUG and regiments on the Su-35 for the same money, the number will obviously be on the side of the latter, and in multiples. At the same time, the author here painted in paints how a whole squadron would be lifted from the ship. Well, so ground planes take off and are massaged much faster. And the squadron of "superhornets", which was raised for half an hour, has every chance of stumbling upon a regiment at once, taking off at once on alarm. At the same time, the same Far East is quite compact precisely in terms of territories that need to be covered.
    2. andranick 4 June 2020 09: 32 New
      • 1
      • 1
      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 4 June 2020 08: 27 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +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
      • 0
      +1
      Is there a common border with the rest of the Russian Federation?
      1. Andrey.AN 5 June 2020 12: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 5 June 2020 19: 42 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -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 6 June 2020 11: 33 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -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.
  • ancient 2 June 2020 19: 07 New
    • 11
    • 8
    +3
    Quote: Demagogue
    We still need UDC, Yak-141m2, too.

    What are you going to .. "capture" from the sea? What are you going to cover with these UDC? "Yak-141M2" is .... wassat
    Is that a cartoon "build"?
    Quote: Demagogue
    what they need to support the landing in the first place

    In order to "support" something, you need to have "something" .. have it? Or are you going to a marine battalion ... "bridgeheads ... to conquer"?
    Quote: Demagogue
    No ka-52 aircraft will not replace. They have a small radius and are vulnerable to the most primitive air defense.

    Here is one sober thought drinks From which it follows that UDC ... "in FIG ... are not needed", but only BDK wink
    1. Demagogue 2 June 2020 19: 17 New
      • 6
      • 7
      -1
      UDC .... "in FIG ... not needed", but only BDK


      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 2 June 2020 19: 36 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +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.

        Yes, let them do at least ONE serial AFAR, at least for .. "something" wassat
        Quote: Demagogue
        Plus dril helicopters can be placed there.

        This is a weak "coaxing yourself" (detection range is very small ") wink
        Quote: Demagogue
        Having even a weak aircraft carrier is much better than not having it at all.

        I wrote about this, but he needs a "cover order" ... and "hde" he ... right in ..... 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 2 June 2020 20: 18 New
          • 1
          • 6
          -5
          Yes, let them do at least ONE serial AFAR, at least for .. "something" wassat


          They did it to Gorshkov. I think soon.

          detection range is very small "


          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 3 June 2020 00: 34 New
            • 5
            • 4
            +1
            Quote: Demagogue
            And it’s not a problem to warrant Gorshkovs.
            ?! Here is how? Ten to twelve years for each ?! Something is slowly there, - "with planing for now" ....?!
            1. Demagogue 3 June 2020 09: 47 New
              • 2
              • 8
              -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 5 June 2020 00: 50 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 "spread over the fleets"), at least - LITTLE !!! hi
                1. Demagogue 5 June 2020 07: 46 New
                  • 1
                  • 3
                  -2
                  You saddled the position of righteous anger, I look)) But I never wrote anywhere that I was delighted with our shipbuilding program.

                  You do not take into account the main nbans. Only an aircraft-carrying ship in modern conditions represents real strength. Therefore, the udk / light aircraft carrier, with all its shortcomings, is moving in the right direction. We need at least some kind of battleships. It is clear that our aug is not able to fight anyone serious outside our fortresses. Work along the coast against a low-tech adversary unless or as part of a coalition.
                  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 5 June 2020 15: 30 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +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 (!)... Of the 956s, in fact there was only one "Fast" (715), at the Pacific Fleet, and that one (of course with limited capacity for sure, for it had not gone far for a long time) (!). 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 5 June 2020 19: 04 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -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 5 June 2020 21: 08 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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
                      Let's go in order. As they say - "flies separately, cutlets separately" (!). smile
                      Across the North: Ustinov, and for now two 22350 (with a stretch, for Kasatonov has not yet been handed over (!) ...) and three corvettes on the Federation Council, you lied (!)they just aren't there (!), like UDC ... !! Do you want to turn on Kulakov, and at the end of your resource Severomorsk? ... and Peter the Great ?!
                      According to the Pacific Fleet: "Varangian", "Panteleev", "Tributo", "Vinogradov" - command me to whistle all into one (only possible) KPUG ?! Do not write about corvettes, please (!), - 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 ?! as in a comedy “for two birds with one stone”, the hero Golokhvast used to say, - "SO WHAT SAME?" . ?! request
                    3. Demagogue 5 June 2020 21: 53 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -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 5 June 2020 23: 16 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 ??. Yes, and the last 956th "Fast", probably 6 years DO NOT EXPERIENCE (!).... Maybe Lazarev will be released, but for repair (in its place) can become not only “Peter the Great”, but also “Varangian” by that time / will fit in / .... What do you think, according to BNK of the first rank, in six years ... +4 / -5 ... or what ?! winked
                    5. Demagogue 6 June 2020 09: 03 New
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      -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 2 June 2020 22: 03 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +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.
  • SVD68 2 June 2020 20: 14 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +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 2 June 2020 20: 53 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -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 2 June 2020 21: 07 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +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 2 June 2020 21: 11 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -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 2 June 2020 21: 33 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            And the planes will not return to Aug?
            1. Demagogue 2 June 2020 21: 38 New
              • 3
              • 3
              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 3 June 2020 08: 21 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +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.
            "Ivan Vasilievich, when you say, it seems that you are raving" (c)
            1. Demagogue 3 June 2020 09: 43 New
              • 6
              • 2
              +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. Avior 2 June 2020 22: 12 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +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 3 June 2020 15: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Users are pretty. Whose avatar names. Corresponds to their psychology.
  • EvilLion 4 June 2020 08: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 4 June 2020 10: 46 New
      • 1
      • 1
      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 4 June 2020 11: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Comparing this plane with Avax or A-50 is just ridiculous.
        1. Demagogue 4 June 2020 11: 47 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -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 4 June 2020 12: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 4 June 2020 14: 08 New
              • 1
              • 1
              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 4 June 2020 14: 30 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 4 June 2020 18: 09 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -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.
  • avg
    avg 2 June 2020 19: 18 New
    • 2
    • 2
    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 3 June 2020 13: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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
      • 0
      0
      And much less.
  • timokhin-aa 3 June 2020 21: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 3 June 2020 21: 32 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -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
        • 0
        +1
        Light aircraft carriers are useless, as are the actions "in the fortresses" - these are already completed stages.
        VTOL in the list of priorities in the last place, in principle, it is not particularly needed, for the same Americans, except for their recent experiments with the F-35 of these “verticals” no more than 6 units on the UDC. And not just like that.
        1. Demagogue 10 June 2020 21: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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
            • 0
            0
            Regarding VTOL, it’s just your conviction.
            Practice does not confirm it yet.
            1. Demagogue 12 June 2020 05: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0


              "Tell me, will there be pogroms? - To be, to be."))
  • Dimmedroll 2 June 2020 18: 35 New
    • 10
    • 8
    +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 2 June 2020 18: 59 New
      • 3
      • 6
      -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.
      The quote is "... How long does it take for the aircraft to complete a combat mission? If you don’t fall into fanaticism and act like Americans, then you can take 500-550 kilometers for the maximum combat radius allowed in a real war. "
      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 3 June 2020 10: 17 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +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
        • 1
        • 1
        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 2 June 2020 19: 02 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Dimmedroll
      Let’s honestly say how we will bring them to the ocean?

      Well, one can be had in the Mediterranean Sea, though it will be necessary to collect all the active forces of the fleet (modern) available at the moment in service, and the naval base for "maintenance" to cover it.
      Yes ... well, the aircraft carrier must be nuclear.
    3. Alexandra 3 June 2020 15: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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
      • 0
      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.
  • antivirus 2 June 2020 18: 39 New
    • 3
    • 3
    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,

    - Was NSKhrushchev the ancestor of "rocket mania"? - he is not just the enemy (how many?) Aircraft carriers.
    -search for "missile" and not UDKashnikov.
    --- steppe against the sea: "my throne is a saddle, my glory is on the field ..." - not in the seas
    1. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 10: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: antivirus
      -search for "missile" and not UDKashnikov.

      And UDC-shnikov too. Ustinov and Amelko tried to occupy the "Stapel 0" of UDC, making building 1143.5 impossible in this way.
      1. antivirus 3 June 2020 10: 39 New
        • 1
        • 1
        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
          • 0
          0
          Your speech connectivity is lost somewhere.
          1. antivirus 3 June 2020 21: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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?
            You are discussing everything and everything - “it is necessary, not necessary,” and I’m talking about how much to tear from the farms and the north (reserve electrical supply) and etc. PRIMARY TASKS OF PUSHING A HUGE COUNTRY out of post-serfdom (after all, collective farms in 1930 didn’t increase the cost and elevators and other pribludy in rural areas) in the industrial era. we did not go through this stage completely - we simply destroyed the "village" and small towns.
            You take responsibility for the lives of 100 million people (your own, your relatives) with 5 aircraft carriers (70 thousand tons each) and without sewers and other “civilizations”, because it’s “not advisable” and so much great is “seen from high offices” even though Kudrin, even Rogozin.
            kindergartens are not for them;
            and not to you?

            and the production of diamonds and oil eventually won the USSR
  • Thrifty 2 June 2020 18: 50 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Comrade Timokhin, could you please name "another country" with which Russia will jointly build an aircraft carrier? Unless only Mongolia, or Eritrea, and all the rest of the world on command from the usa, even for good loot and through the lip do not spit! We will need to strain ourselves, and build aircraft carriers for ourselves!
  • Andrey.AN 2 June 2020 18: 53 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 2 June 2020 19: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 2 June 2020 19: 19 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    PD-50 drowned during the dock operation due to metal corrosion. "Admiral Kuznetsov" is not here. The tower casing could not withstand the water pressure + a power outage occurred, while the pumps were threshed, constantly pumping water out of the rotten floating dock. Due to the age of the tower, the floating dock turned into a sieve and the PD-50 drowned. All the same, the PD-38 lasted 50 years without repair + he had a birth injury, which is associated with the operation of the pumps. Due to their malfunctioning, at one point in the PD-50 test in Sweden, a water hammer hit the hull and the PD-50 “surfaced with dents”. It is noted that the steel sheets of PD were literally pressed inward, as a result of which they had to be “digested” urgently. It was a few days before the transfer to Soviet sailors. The PD-50 received damage during transportation to the USSR, when it fell into a severe storm. This also required restoration. Therefore, the PD-50 was doomed. Ukrainians had a similar situation on a German trophy floating dock with a carrying capacity of 60 thousand tons (for the battleship Tirpitz), which in the USSR was numbered 4M. "It was built in fascist Germany in 1937 at the Krupp factory. After the war, the dock in the form of a trophy hit Leningrad. Then it needed to be transferred to a new factory. The dock is 250 meters long, 50 meters wide and 60 thousand tons payload. We carried it in tow around Europe from the Baltic to the Black Sea - it was a super operation! Even about 45 years old, large-tonnage ships were being repaired on the dock - the Krupp steel remained on, and only after more than 65 years of operation it finally cracked. The dock, with the height of a 9-story building, sank sank to the bottom, and the top sticks out. " The ruthless exploitation of floating docks to the state of scrap metal, and no conspiracy theories. What kind of nuclear aircraft carrier can be discussed if the Kirov heavy nuclear missile cruiser has not yet been disposed of. Since August 2005, “Kirov” has been immersed in the ground with a nose bulb fairing. The hull of the ship is deformed, the acid-fueled fairing of the GAS and the lag mines are leaky. And all this deeply do not care.
    1. timokhin-aa 3 June 2020 21: 04 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Well, in general, I do not insist, however, sabotage cannot be ruled out, the dock was much younger than Kruppovsky
  • KrolikZanuda 2 June 2020 19: 35 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -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
      • 0
      0
      This is not pressed.
    2. Alex Rossky 8 June 2020 13: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Could this benefit from the Olympics be concretized in a couple of phrases?
  • lucul 2 June 2020 20: 00 New
    • 14
    • 5
    +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 2 June 2020 21: 08 New
      • 2
      • 7
      -5
      It seems that someone periodically throws us the idea of ​​the need to build aircraft carriers, as a minimum of two, and full, and this despite the fact that no arguments were expressed against it. However, aircraft carriers in the world exist and they continue to be built, the same China (though they have a long coast and does not freeze), but ice-breaker-type aircraft carriers have not yet been invented, but we need to develop our Navy somehow and if there is such an “urgent” need in aircraft carriers it’s better to make them for drones, it will be much cheaper., VTOL operations should also be continued, since they are more needed than aircraft carriers.
    2. Avior 2 June 2020 22: 15 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +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 3 June 2020 15: 27 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        And the Yak-44 and A-110 developers planned to land on Kuznetsov. "

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

        “Due to some oversize, which was the price for the springboard take-off, the Yak-44E was slightly larger than the catapult take-off plane with the same performance indicators. However, it fit well on the deck of the ship and did not require a noticeable (from the point of view of the effectiveness of the entire ship air group) reduction the number of fighters. "

        The conversation has not begun at all. When the Navy pays for the design and development work on the deck-based RLDN suitable for base at Kuznetsovo and the construction of a 400-meter-high docked roof at the Baltiysky Zavod, one can already discuss the project of a promising aircraft carrier.
        1. Avior 3 June 2020 16: 18 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -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 3 June 2020 16: 30 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +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?

            As practice has shown, a completely land turboprop KC-130F could land on a Forrestal aircraft carrier without any aerofinisher and take off without any springboard and catapult:

            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 3 June 2020 16: 34 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -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 3 June 2020 16: 40 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Everything rests on the wingspan. The Yak-44 project had a wingspan of 25,7 m. The E-2C had 24,56 m. The E-2C successfully flies with 42 thousand tons of Charles de Gaulle, which has a landing deck with a flight deck smaller than that of Kuznetsov "
                1. Avior 3 June 2020 18: 26 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  E2C takes off from the catapult.
                  1. Alexandra 3 June 2020 18: 55 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +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 3 June 2020 19: 27 New
                      • 1
                      • 3
                      -2
                      even piston capable, in World War II they soared smile
                      1. Alexandra 3 June 2020 20: 30 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        But reactive, only with turbofan:

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

                        "... Jet engines are installed on the aircraft. To reduce the take-off distance when using the aircraft from short runways or from aircraft carriers with a springboard start, the engines (engine) can be equipped with afterburners ..."
      2. timokhin-aa 3 June 2020 21: 06 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +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 8 June 2020 13: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The author wants Kuznetsov in the ranks to gain skills in using the wing based on him.
    3. Nemchinov Vl 3 June 2020 00: 48 New
      • 1
      • 1
      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 3 June 2020 06: 26 New
        • 3
        • 3
        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 5 June 2020 00: 42 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 600-800.
          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.
          then in your opinion, not the A-50 (or by analogy with the Hokay), 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.
          And the second: it can cost three or four satellites - "Peony" (add to "Liana"), and it will be cheaper, for "Ocean visibility to detect enemy AUGs"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 5 June 2020 07: 19 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -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.
            So what about detection, it was "smooth on paper"
      2. frog 3 June 2020 20: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        If you don’t rely too much on “finding an AUG near Antarctica,” then maybe you can get around Volga-type radar systems? Cheaper and easier than the ever-memorable Arc. At 3 km it works. It is clear that additional reconnaissance and other things will be needed, so the “Wave” is not a panacea, but only one of a set of means .....
    4. Alexey RA 3 June 2020 11: 12 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +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.

      Quite the opposite: the strike component was in the hangars, and the decks were busy servicing the fighters. Due to the ongoing raids by the Americans, Nagumo was forced to organize a Zero reload and refueling conveyor, holding up to 42 fighters in the air and spending second-wave cover fighters on air defense.
      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.

      What does the scout have to do with it? Scouts were engaged in detecting ships of the enemy fleet. And the failure with the air defense 1 and 2 DAV was caused by the fact that all the “Zero” in pursuit of fragments pulled to low altitudes, hunting for torpedo bombers and trying to fill up the “Wildcat” Tech. As a result, McCluskey and Leslie attacked both at the training ground - and even in this situation, McCluskey nearly failed the attack, arranging confusion with target designation, because of which his entire group at first rushed to bomb one target.
      The ICH, as with the Pearl Harbor attack, the dive attack under Midway was previously played in Middle-earth. Only instead of the English in Taranto, this time there were Germans and Illastries. The Italian torpedo bombers pulled the British CAP into the MV and WWI, after which "pieces" came up at high altitude. CAP squandered the ammunition and fuel on attempts to shoot down the torpers, and the scramble hastily lifted from the deck did not manage to gain height. And the "things" worked like at a training ground. smile
    5. Tavrik 3 June 2020 20: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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.
  • Undecim 2 June 2020 20: 51 New
    • 6
    • 8
    -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.
    The author decided to inflict a counterattack on the consciousness of people under the motto "Aircraft carriers are eternal" and "Russia cannot live without an aircraft carrier." Obviously, the author believes that as soon as the aircraft carrier is built, the life of Russian citizens will improve dramatically. True, the relationship of these factors does not reveal, offers to take a word.
    1. timokhin-aa 2 June 2020 21: 38 New
      • 7
      • 5
      +2
      Well, why juggle like that?
      1. Undecim 2 June 2020 21: 59 New
        • 6
        • 5
        +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 2 June 2020 22: 05 New
          • 7
          • 5
          +2
          Not just an aircraft carrier, but a certain type of aircraft carrier. The author and his boorish colleague are just a lobbyist in the Internet circles of a certain military-industrial complex group pushing their "products". He writes not only on this site. Well, they are at war with the same apologists for other products and roam their wars from site to site.
          1. Undecim 2 June 2020 22: 11 New
            • 4
            • 8
            -4
            I do not think that the author has the resources to influence decisions at this level. And "public opinion" and scribble on all sorts of resources and even more so. The only one affected by such publications is local hamsters, who for some reason believe that the presence of an aircraft carrier in the country will somehow positively affect their position in the food chain.
            1. Liam 2 June 2020 22: 15 New
              • 4
              • 3
              +1
              There are masters, there are apprentices. And each has its own audience. For the troll factory and other projects for manipulating the "public opinion" of the Internet, quite real money is being spent by quite official persons.
              1. Undecim 2 June 2020 22: 35 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                By the way, who do you mean by "a rude colleague"?
                1. Liam 2 June 2020 22: 42 New
                  • 5
                  • 5
                  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 7 June 2020 23: 58 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Undecim
                  By the way, who do you mean by "a rude colleague"?

                  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
                  so that the local submariners it became clear that you are for "Shpets" lol
                  Well, animal, here, too, are you going to tear apart the tee for 855M for UHMW?
        2. Alexandra 3 June 2020 15: 39 New
          • 1
          • 1
          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 3 June 2020 17: 43 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            How many modern great powers without aircraft carriers in their military fleets do you know? I do not know any:
            Among the conditions that determine whether a power is “great” or not, there are no aircraft carriers.
            1. Alexandra 3 June 2020 18: 26 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power

              "Spatial dimension

              All states have geographic coverage of interests, actions, or projected power. This is decisive factor distinguishing a great power from a regional power. By definition, the scope of a regional power is limited to its region. The view was expressed that a great power should have actual influence within the entire existing international system. Arnold J. Toynbee, for example, noted that "A great power can be defined as a political force exerting influence over the widest circle of communities in which it operates. The Great Powers of 1914 were" world powers "because the Western community has recently become" worldwide "[24]

              Other suggestions were made that a great power should be able to participate in extra-regional affairs and that a great power should have extra-regional interests - two provisions that are often closely related. "


              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

              “Projection of force is a term used in military and political science to mean the ability of a state to deploy and maintain forces outside its territory.

              This ability is an essential element of state power in international relations. We can say that any state that is able to send its armed forces outside its territory has a certain level of ability to project power, but the term itself is most often used in relation to armed forces that have worldwide reach (or, at least, a much wider than the immediate territory of the state). Even states with significant hard power assets (for example, a large standing army) can have only a limited regional impact if they lack the means to effectively design their strength on a global scale ... "
              1. Undecim 4 June 2020 01: 23 New
                • 0
                • 4
                -4
                Everything is clear with you. Another strategist on a Wikipedia scale.
                1. Alexandra 4 June 2020 11: 24 New
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  +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 4 June 2020 13: 01 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    Altruism is no stranger to me either, so I recommend trying art training as a response step.
              2. Nemchinov Vl 6 June 2020 00: 48 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 6 June 2020 12: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          So maybe we should - in general, let the sun go home? Will we be like Costa Rica, without an army?
          1. Undecim 4 June 2020 01: 30 New
            • 1
            • 5
            -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
              • 3
              • 1
              +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 4 June 2020 20: 08 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Regarding the "internal protests" - this is to the local hamsters, turbopatriots. And I’m criticizing not the very idea of ​​the presence of full-fledged aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy, but specifically your excitement around this idea and the complete lack of understanding (although serious doubts arise) that, given the current state of the economy as a whole and shipbuilding in particular, this some practically significant scale there is no way.
                1. timokhin-aa 10 June 2020 20: 18 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Now may not be the right time to strike hard, but it is quite suitable for the promotion of healthy ideas.
                  Regarding the economy, the Poseidon megatorpedo, a series of 22160 patrol ships, and two MRK series left the cost of an aircraft carrier by about 40-45 kilotons.
                  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.
  • iouris 2 June 2020 21: 58 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The Army Aviation and Navy is a cast from society (F. Engels). Is the state "full" and the fleet "full"? By the way, thanks to the work of those lawyers who are "involved in legal proceedings", the fleet does not have aircraft carriers at all. Formally, of course, they are ...
  • Avior 2 June 2020 22: 37 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +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 2 June 2020 22: 50 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      You are absolutely right.
    2. Alexandra 3 June 2020 15: 47 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Hindus such repairs cost 2,4 billion papers with the presidents.


      You Italian "Cavour" with the Indian "Vikramaditya" beguiled. Now the Italians are completing 33 thousand tons of Trieste. The price tag is 1 billion 171 million euros. It was built by deceiving the Italian parliament, which apparently also entrenched opponents of aircraft carriers.

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

      1. Avior 3 June 2020 18: 28 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -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 3 June 2020 19: 04 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          Cavour was commissioned in 2009. Construction cost of 1 billion 390 million euros in 2010 prices. Euro inflation from January 2010 to December 2019 14.2%.
      2. Liam 3 June 2020 18: 41 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: AlexanderA
        It was built by deceiving the Italian parliament

        This is newspaper nonsense.
        1. Alexandra 3 June 2020 19: 20 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -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

          "In Italy, the company Finkantieri is working on the design of a new landing helicopter dock ship.

          According to the terms of reference, the prospective DVKD (displacement of 20-22 thousand tons) should have a continuous flight deck (about 4 m500) with an island superstructure on the starboard side, six helipads and two elevators (one after the superstructure, the other in the aft end) of aircraft . It is supposed to place six helicopters in the hangar (the maximum in the air group may be 2-12 units of various types). "
          1. Liam 3 June 2020 19: 28 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +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 3 June 2020 20: 17 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Listen. Why are you throwing off these slurred articles for 2018?


              Article. From the official publication of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation of the journal Foreign Military Review No. 5 of 2018

              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?


              Exactly. Officially (in the documents submitted to the parliamentarians) the displacement of the ship for "humanitarian operations" was not announced. Unofficially, the parliamentarians were convinced that they were voting for this DVKD:



              Scandalous "newspaper nonsense" erupted when it "surfaced" that the price is somewhat different, and the ship is "slightly different."

              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

              On which page of the document say "all TTX and not only"? On the 5th, on the 6th? Did you look at the document? Cite the length of it, the displacement?

              Do not read Soviet newspapers at night)


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

                Article. From the official publication of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation of the journal Foreign Military Review No. 5 of 2018

                Yeah. And Pravda is the official organ of the CPSU. This is the Soviet newspapers for the night.
                Quote: AlexanderA
                Scandalous "newspaper nonsense" erupted when it "surfaced" that the price is somewhat different, and the ship is "slightly different."

                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.
                FQ scandalists launched a cartoon about the “deception” of the Parliament with an amount that supposedly was 800 Lyam. Humbly “forgetting” to mention Leonardo’s share which went on a separate line. And the duck went for a walk along the “official” bodies and their gullible readers)
                Only a person who has no idea how the system works in a democratic parliamentary country can swallow nonsense about deceiving parliament with a TTX and the amount. Who and where will allocate the "missing" hundreds of millions to pay for the "unforeseen" ship without a parliament’s decision and including all these amounts in the state budget, etc. ?)
                1. Alexandra 3 June 2020 21: 15 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  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

                  MPs were presented with "all TTX" - these are your fantasies. There was not even a price.

                  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 programmi 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 for 20 thousand tons of DVKD, and for 33 thousand tons of UDC / AVM for F-35B fighters with a price tag of 844 million euros. Suddenly someone will believe. Are there people here who have not read Timokhin’s article and don’t know how much Cavour cost? Or not?

                  FQ scandalists made a cartoon about the "deception" of the Parliament with an amount that supposedly was 800 Lyam. Humbly "forgetting" to mention Leonardo’s share which went on a separate line. And the duck went for a walk around the "official" bodies and their gullible readers)


                  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 3 June 2020 22: 10 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    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 4 June 2020 00: 01 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +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 previste dal requisito operativo della LHD.

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


                      No need to translate. Please cite the parliamentary document that appeared before these hearings, in which not even “all performance characteristics” would be announced, but 33 thousand tons of displacement and 245 meters of the future ship to provide “humanitarian aid during emergencies / natural disasters” by fighter bombing F-35B. You saw such a document, right?
                    2. Alexandra 4 June 2020 00: 46 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Parliamentary Hearing July 30, 2015.

                      "5-06174 Artini: About the payment for the construction of a multi-purpose landing ship and about any changes in the program.

                      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 4 June 2020 01: 21 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +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.
                        And only brilliant observers from Soviet newspapers in 2018, when for 3 years all this info in a public field and the ship is close to launching, they hawk a cutlet from a scandalous newspaper (from 2016) and feed their unsuspecting readers with "sensations"
                      2. Alexandra 4 June 2020 11: 32 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Yes Yes, stupid slow-witted Italian parliamentarians. Poor Deputy Minister Alfano had to explain to them why a 33 thousand ton F-35 aircraft carrier is NOT worth 21,5 thousand ton French Mistral, and carefully avoiding mention of the F-35 index! Thank you for your comment!:)))
            2. Liam 3 June 2020 21: 00 New
              • 1
              • 1
              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
              On which page of the document say "all TTX and not only"? On the 5th, on the 6th? Did you look at the document?

              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 4 June 2020 01: 07 New
                • 1
                • 1
                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.

                Today, the fact that the Trieste is being built just under the F-35B is well known. But on July 30, 2015, Deputy Minister of Defense Alfano did not admit this. Drag another link. I am stealing from this circus with an unrecognized deputy defense minister in the Italian parliament. :))
                1. Liam 4 June 2020 01: 59 New
                  • 3
                  • 2
                  +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)
                  PySySy. For the development of your horizons. The newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano, which moved this cartoon into small masses in 2016, “drowns” for a batch of 5 stars.
                  1. Alexandra 4 June 2020 02: 47 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    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?

                    The fact is that on July 30, 2015 parliamentarians only suspected that under the guise of a "humanitarian aid ship" they financed the construction of a ship suitable for basing F-35B fighters.

                    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 cienti 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.

                    For the development of your horizons. The newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano, which moved this cartoon into the narrow masses in 2016, “drowns” for a batch of 5 stars


                    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 4 June 2020 01: 39 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Liam
                Who told you that this nameless conceptual project from the Fincantieri website is the one that was submitted to Parliament?


                So there were no other conceptual projects of the new recreation center on the Fincantieri website. According to this, the parliamentarians did not realize that in fact they were voting for the 33 thousand ton “humanitarian” F-35B aircraft carrier.

                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 4 June 2020 01: 49 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: AlexanderA
                  So there were no other conceptual projects of the new recreation center on the Fincantieri website

                  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? It’s not MO who “buys” the drawing from the company’s website, but the company makes the ship with TTX to the customers it needs. And MO ordered that real ship that was launched already, and not your drawing. These are your problems (and Soviet newspapers) that reality is different from your fantasies on the topic
                  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 4 June 2020 02: 21 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -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.


                    Once again I am convinced that your statement that “all TTX” was presented to the parliamentarians is your fantasy based on your illusions about how the institutions of Italian democracy work. Not even a member, but vice president (from July 24, 2015) of the parliamentary defense commission Massimo Artini on July 30, 2015 did not know exactly what the parliamentarians voted for the ship suitable for basing F-35B fighters, although he already knew about it.
                    1. Liam 4 June 2020 18: 42 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +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 3 June 2020 21: 05 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +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 4 June 2020 01: 29 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -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.


            That project had a 190-meter DVKD with a displacement of 20 thousand tons, which for a long time passed for the future Trieste, the flight deck had just ~ 4500 m2 (22,5 thousand tons of a 199-meter Mistral had a flight deck of 5200 m2). Depends on the area occupied by the island superstructure and other architectural features. Let’s say there in the new part of the flight deck they painted AU (directly according to Gorshkov’s precepts, only 76 mm).

            1. Liam 4 June 2020 01: 37 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -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 4 June 2020 11: 13 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                I correctly guess that you are trying to convince those present that the deputies of the Italian parliament are stupid for free? :)

                According to your version, the deputies allegedly had “all TTXs,” but Deputy Defense Minister Gioacchino Alfano had to tell them why THIS is not worth it like the French Mistral! :)

                And not in expressions: "Because our ship will have a displacement of one and a half times greater, it has a gas turbine providing 25 knots, zonal air defense systems, and it is designed to be based on the F-35B, and the expressions: "French ships of the Mistral type have been built since the beginning of the 2000s, this is a project from the 90s. The technological evolution of the past 15 years cannot make these ships comparable to our future LHD, which will correspond to the modern level of technology. In addition, the production of three units one type for the navy of France and two more units for the navy of Russia helped to reduce production costs by creating economies of scale " - 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! :)

                And yes, 4500 m2 is the total area of ​​the hangar, landing deck and slipway deck of the Trieste docking chamber. If you don’t know, then the Juan Carlos I close displacement has a total area of ​​all these decks of ~ 5400-5500 m2 (according to various sources), but he has a total area of ​​the second landing (transformed into an aircraft hangar) deck and a helicopter hangar ~ 3000 m2, which is clearly not observed in Trieste, whose aviation hangar area is ~ 2000 m2. In addition, Trieste also has an amphibious (tank) deck similar in size to the Juan Carlos I amphibious (tank) deck, plus a docking chamber dock that is similar in area to the Juan Karlosovskaya deck, giving a total of 4500 m2 .

                Oh well, thanks for the fun exchange of views! :)
  • timokhin-aa 3 June 2020 21: 15 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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.


    No more than 100 yards will cost a total upgrade of Kuznetsov to the last nut. But it is not necessary to do so in such a volume.

    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 2 June 2020 22: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    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.

    An interesting article met an article about a conceptual design of this kind with many reprints, the essence: KSCC, "Manatee", a semi-catamaran. In one of your recent articles in the series, I asked you to comment on what you think about this.

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

    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 for aircraft engines, air defense systems, etc., even despite the assistance provided to him in building our own SPRN. India is also building its own "Wikrant", and indeed it sometimes can’t figure out its own organizational issues in cooperation with other countries. Examples of this are endless tenders and an ugly story with FGFA. An aircraft carrier in joint production with it may drag out for a long time ... We exclude Western countries for obvious reasons. + we keep in mind the experience of SuperJet with an openly harmful French engine (what do they do better for themselves ?!) Actually, there are no more acceptable options.
    1. timokhin-aa 3 June 2020 21: 22 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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.

      KGNTS, "Manatee", a semi-catamaran. In one of your recent articles in the series, I asked you to comment on what you think about this.


      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


      In China, selling weapons to Russians is a fixed idea, sort of like "well, now we are definitely adults", they have their 054 project going to all our exhibitions as "SKR pr 054E". So, by the way.
      1. vVvAD 5 June 2020 10: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Thanks for the reply.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        In China, selling weapons to Russians is a fixed idea, sort of like "well, now we are definitely adults", they have their 054 project going to all our exhibitions as "SKR pr 054E". So, by the way.

        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
          • 0
          0
          We have a problem - there is nowhere to assemble the case, the rest we can without them. You only need a "trough".
  • 911sx 3 June 2020 00: 07 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +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 3 June 2020 00: 53 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -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 5 June 2020 11: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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.
        Ok, UAVs are crushing by quantity, regardless of losses - cheap, disposable, semi-autonomous swarm. In this case, we are talking about an arsenal ship. But, firstly, AI technologies for the responsible use of the swarm in the off-line mode in case of loss of external communication are only being developed, what we have is "probable" (you, after all, agree that the attacker will try to drown out the communication channels of the UAV with the control center, so with each other). And, secondly, again the question arises of at least primary target designation. But it is desirable, all the same, situational awareness and control in real time. And then, you know, “Akella missed” in a similar situation will cost more than the total cost of these UAVs.
    2. Nemchinov Vl 6 June 2020 01: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 3 June 2020 00: 24 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: Undecim

    The author decided to inflict a counterattack on the consciousness of people under the motto "Aircraft carriers are eternal" and "Russia cannot live without an aircraft carrier." Obviously, the author believes that as soon as the aircraft carrier is built, the life of Russian citizens will improve dramatically. True, the relationship of these factors does not reveal, offers to take a word.
    that's right, it is
  • Boris ⁣ Shaver 3 June 2020 01: 37 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +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 3 June 2020 02: 07 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    "At present, our carrier forces, consisting of an aircraft carrier cruiser (in fact, has long been just an aircraft carrier," is an AB that cannot go to sea and on which, of course, it is impossible to train two regiments of naval aircraft carrier.
    "Granites" from this ship have long been unable to fly, and they are not needed on it "- A sound thought and a long-sought-after solution. But ... to remove the "Granites" - this is not a madele, after all, these are constructive and very expensive events.
    "" Admiral Kuznetsov, "as well as the 100th and 279th separate naval aviation regiments, are not combat ready." - This is obvious and does not need proof.
    "The regiments have insufficient training and have not yet reached the required level of combat readiness, and the ship is in repair, complicated by the unavailability of the dock needed to complete it." - So to say, "our song is good, start from the beginning" - No one doubts this.
    With the fact that a full-fledged aircraft carrier is better than an aircraft carrying cruiser and they “want to have it, and preferably five or six,” then it’s worth returning to the sinful earth and recall the classic “Let's drink so that our desires coincide with our capabilities”.
    What is the latent idea of ​​the cycle? “A normal aircraft carrier is good, inferior is bad” - no one argues. This is the author's "shadow boxing". But the UDC began to build the message - there is no need to build the UDC, but let's first restore Kuznetsov, then we will build three or four, or better, five or six full-fledged aircraft carriers ... "Yes, all this is based on" research "on the pages of" VO "a man without a naval education ...
    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.
    In the post-Tsushim times, there was such an author of scandalous articles (for the Navy) Portuguese - accusing the naval department of all mortal sins. He was distinguished by a special harshness of judgments and a very poor knowledge of the subject of his convictions (i.e., the fleet, which is obvious without education and service) ... All this with aplomb, infallibility ... Often the results of his attempts were comic. (According to the book K Nazarenko "Fleet and power in Russia").
    1. Boris ⁣ Shaver 3 June 2020 10: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: LeonidL
      all this on the basis of "research" on the pages of "VO" by a person without a naval education

      I have a friend, a journalist with an economic profile of one of the federal channels, once told me about some speakers who I have to talk to while doing reports. For some reason, many of them are sure that there simply cannot be journalists on the channel, experts in their specific direction: “how, you don’t have a grain specialist ?!”, “you don’t have specialists in microbiology ?!” , "and so, you have no normal specialists for slaughtering cattle ?!".
  • Niko 3 June 2020 09: 34 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The logical conclusion of a series of articles. The author’s position is clear from the very beginning and undoubtedly has a right to exist with something I argued with (although I agree with many things). figures and their interpretations, almost everyone suffers from this) I mean the style itself and the "fervor" with which the author writes, it seems he really believes that this morning Vladimir Vladimirovich will read this article for morning coffee and imbued with the author’s faith will get down to business, he’ll follow in the footsteps Peter 1st. Or the author sincerely believes that now the majority on the site will vote FOR and the order for fishing from the previous article, on the same site will immediately go to the basket ..... Amazing self-confidence
    1. Alexandra 3 June 2020 16: 05 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      The author does not select figures well, not in his favor. He referred to the Cavour for 1,5 billion euros, while the Italians are now completing the Trieste, an even greater displacement (33 thousand tons), for only 1 billion 171 million euros, that is, at the price of one and a half Italian the frigates 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
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        About the complete unsuitability of the UDC as aircraft carriers was the previous part.
        Trieste, this is there.
        1. Alexandra 3 June 2020 23: 47 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -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. :)

          It’s a pity Alexander. You never wrote an article on semi-catamaran aircraft carriers from the Krylovsk center. But there are at least two options proposed - the “light” one with 44 thousand tons of displacement, and the more “serious” one, with a displacement of 60 thousand tons (although the general public did not see the second, only heard about it).
          1. timokhin-aa 10 June 2020 20: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 12 June 2020 11: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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.


              At Izumo, with a similar waterline width and 30 knots, the hangar is wider than at Kavur and Trieste, 550x80 feet (167,7x24,4 meters). This is specifically the Italian "devastation in the head" with hangars 21 meters wide.



              The Cavour was originally designed with a dock camera. Abandoned in the later stages:

              "The flagship of the Italian Navy, originally created as a universal landing ship of the UMPA project (Unit Maggiore Per Operazione Anfibe), but later assigned to the class of aircraft carriers and received the designation NUM (Nuova Unit Maggiore). The project was developed since 1991 as a replacement for the cruiser- helicopter carrier “Vittorio Veneto.” The contract for its construction was signed on November 22.11.2000, XNUMX. Originally, the AB was supposed to be called “Luigi Einaudi” or “Giuseppe Mazzini.” It was laid under the name “Andrea Doria”, but during the construction it was renamed “Cavour” . "

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


              It’s good, intelligibly. And the fact that with hydrodynamics there is not so badly understood on the basis of 44-27 knots declared for 28 thousand tons of “light multi-purpose aircraft carrier” with a power of a power plant of 80 MW.
            2. Alexandra 12 June 2020 11: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The future "Cavour" at the design stage, while it was still UDC, 1998:
              1. timokhin-aa 13 June 2020 11: 50 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Castrated UDC
                1. Alexandra 13 June 2020 22: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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
                    • 0
                    0
                    The main thing is not to confuse UDC with an aircraft carrier.
                    1. Alexandra 15 June 2020 13: 17 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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
                        • 0
                        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 3 June 2020 10: 01 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +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 3 June 2020 16: 19 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +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 ....


      Firstly, they are poor today. For example, the French did not have enough money to install VL MICA on the Mistral air defense system. But the British did not have enough money to install the Harpoon anti-ship missile launcher for all Daring destroyers, they sell the DC, seriously thought about not building / selling / building as the Prince of Wales helicopter carrier.

      Secondly, only the French have their own Rafale-M carrier-based fighter jets, but even they don’t have the whole spectrum of technology, American steam catapults are on the Charles de Gaulle. The European electromagnetic catapult project has bent at the stage of technology demonstrator.

      And if you do not have the money or the necessary technology, you build defective ships. It's funny that a dozen F-35Bs for the Italian Trieste will probably cost Italy’s Defense Ministry more than the ship itself.
      1. Doccor18 3 June 2020 16: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Firstly, they are poor today. For example, the French did not have enough money to install VL MICA on the Mistral air defense system. But the British did not have enough money to install the Harpoon anti-ship missile launcher for all Daring destroyers, they sell the DC, seriously thought about not building / selling / building as the Prince of Wales helicopter carrier.

        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 3 June 2020 16: 50 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Under the article "Military spending of the main NATO countries (2011)" you can get some idea about how they spent a decade ago:

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

          "Great Britain. The government in the face of a decline in GDP growth and a growing national budget deficit has been forced to revise government spending, and therefore long-term plans are being developed to optimize the financing of ministries and departments ..."

          "France. The government and the leadership of the country's Ministry of Defense make every effort to reduce the negative consequences of reducing defense spending through the sale of real estate and the use of free radio frequencies ..."

          And the Brazilians just the helicopter carrier "Ocean" from the British and bought.)
    2. timokhin-aa 3 June 2020 21: 32 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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 3 June 2020 10: 23 New
    • 2
    • 2
    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 3 June 2020 12: 30 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -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 3 June 2020 21: 14 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      "Defective aircraft carriers are not suitable for the Russian fleet." Yes, they are fully-fledged and are not particularly needed .. To challenge America at sea, you need to have about the same number of aircraft carriers as they have, and this is not even unscientific fiction, but complete nonsense. To engage in local conflicts, maintain experience and competencies, and inferior aircraft carriers will be enough.
    2. timokhin-aa 3 June 2020 21: 32 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      One go fix it.
      1. Bez 310 3 June 2020 22: 36 New
        • 1
        • 5
        -4
        No, they won’t fix it, I’m giving a tooth!
        1. timokhin-aa 4 June 2020 19: 55 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          I give a tooth


          and what in quotes?
          1. Bez 310 4 June 2020 20: 14 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            Yes, I myself did not understand ...
  • Herman 4223 3 June 2020 12: 34 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    An aircraft carrier is a fleet tool and the fleet certainly needs it.
  • d4rkmesa 3 June 2020 15: 51 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    How many letters. “The creation of the fifth generation fighter started in 1986 ...” - did not read further. It is clear that PAKFA was supported, but in the last century it was not even close.
    1. timokhin-aa 3 June 2020 21: 33 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      "Fighter 90" passed you by? PAK FA is the LAST of the fifth generation programs in the Russian Federation, before it there were others that came down to flying prototypes.

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

      Even earlier. It was MiG 1.44 IFI.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Alexander Samoilov 3 June 2020 17: 49 New
    • 4
    • 4
    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
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      But the Yak-141 at the time the program was closed was almost ready for mass production.


      And why is it better than the MiG-29K? And why would he be "ready for mass production" tests not even focused on him?

      Moreover, the Yak-201 project with a reduced


      Not the Yak-201, but the “201”, and it was not created, but it was not fully calculated, it was not even a project, but a workpiece for research.

      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 5 June 2020 12: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The author is burning, just handsome!
        Sorry for the offtopic, could not resist.
      2. Alexander Samoilov 10 June 2020 06: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        "By the end of 1991, work on the preparation of the Saratov aircraft factory mass production The Yak-41M was discontinued due to lack of funding. "In terms of performance characteristics it is inferior to Mig-29s. Even the F-35s in terms of performance characteristics are inferior to it, too. And? This is GDP. They are always worse than" normal "aircraft. But to lift four dozen “Khornetov” and “Nimitz” need 16 minutes! To solve the air defense tasks, this is a complete failure. With subsonic anti-ship missiles, given the range of detection of the “Hokai,” you can still fight but beyond, especially hypersound, is already far beyond the possibilities. There is documentation and FLYING If even this is not enough for production, what kind of a NEW aircraft carrier can you stutter at all? The mass production of the Chinese version of the Mig-21 was completed only 3 years ago. Can we equip them with an aircraft carrier of the 21st century? 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
      • 2
      • 1
      +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 4 June 2020 06: 37 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +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
          • 0
          +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 3 June 2020 19: 49 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +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.
    As for the "ships for the poor", if you are not aware of the fact that neither the state budget of Russia nor the available idle capacities of the USC does not allow you to build "ships for the rich" for our Navy.
    With a flat income tax, Russia is doomed to build "ships for the poor" and I must say thanks to our "caliber" designers because it was only thanks to them that they managed to make the RTOs a real force.
    1. agond 3 June 2020 21: 37 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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

      And some here believe that we have all this, but there is no aircraft carrier. and very persistently impose. the thought of their need, while atm it is very likely that not only "frigates, minesweepers in sane numbers, helicopters" are missing, perhaps somewhere there is even not enough full-fledged food for all employees, at least that was the case with us in the construction battalion in 1978 -80 years ... the foreman in a conversation said that the soldiers even got scurvy from Teykovo, the town of Grozilovo. 1974
      1. lelik613 4 June 2020 06: 47 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        What to argue? "Only some here" believe that the army of the church with mosaics and Disneyland is not enough. Put them on Kuzyu and the enemies will die immediately. But you’ll have to drag him with hacks ...
    2. timokhin-aa 3 June 2020 21: 39 New
      • 1
      • 1
      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 3 June 2020 23: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 3 June 2020 21: 14 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +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 5 June 2020 13: 29 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: vladimir1155
      info from satellites about takeoffs

      and over-the-horizon radars ...
  • ser56 3 June 2020 21: 47 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +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 4 June 2020 18: 41 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      wrote everything right
    2. abc_alex 5 June 2020 08: 29 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      There is such a thing.
      The aircraft carrier construction program for modern Russia will generate a host of related programs and related orders. Starting with 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" to so many. And I'm not talking about the oligarchs. It will be necessary to modernize, restore, and somewhere and create anew 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 is 4 cars. Not a single KB will subscribe to such "happiness". So, we need a comprehensive program for a small AWACS aircraft, affecting both ground units and the Air Force. Here 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 5 June 2020 13: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: abc_alex
        which will "do well" to so many.

        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 ... 12 June 2020 16: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I can not agree in general
  • EvilLion 4 June 2020 09: 21 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -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 4 June 2020 18: 42 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      wrote everything right
    2. timokhin-aa 4 June 2020 19: 58 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +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 4 June 2020 20: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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
          • 0
          0
          No, not enough planes or TSA.
  • Kwas 4 June 2020 09: 36 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I wonder why people, so zealously counting money, do not consider much cheaper alternatives. First of all, to put into operation, the sisterships of Peter the Great are on the joke. After all, we need not so much to bomb someone, but to make sure that we don’t need to bomb someone. 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 they can easily fill up, and they can shoot down the wing.
    1. Vladimir1155 4 June 2020 18: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 5 June 2020 12: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 5 June 2020 19: 32 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +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 5 June 2020 08: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Because, as correctly noted above, classical strike ships are blind. With the length of "arms" of 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 way to solve it 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 the effective “what would you not need to be bombed”, we currently lack eyes, not fists. And the “Eagles” will not help here.
      1. Kwas 5 June 2020 12: 33 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 5 June 2020 23: 32 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 5 June 2020 14: 28 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -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?

      If 1 Tu-22 was able to make good trouble, “Donald Cook” in the Black Sea, then, what do you think will happen if the growlers link to the cruiser? I'm not sure that after this his air defense will function normally. And even if it does, he will not have enough corny channel to simultaneously repel raids.
      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 8 June 2020 11: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 9 June 2020 13: 34 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +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.

          Who is "probable" with us, certainly not Argentina, right?
          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.

          It's easy: the combat radius of the F-35C is more than 1000 km, the F-18 "Hornet" is more than 700 km - plus the LRASM range. And the F-14 "Tomcat" had twice as much.
          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.
          An example of a local conflict: a channel is built, it works, and then Uncle Sam decides to repeat the operation "Just Cause". Question: Do you need to protect your business interests by force of arms, or spit on investments? If not, then, firstly, this will be repeated over and over again, and secondly, even the regional powers will spit on us.
          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
      • 0
      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 10 June 2020 21: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Enlighten in what?
        1. timokhin-aa 11 June 2020 23: 34 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          In "and he can fill up, and the air wing down."
  • 5-9
    5-9 4 June 2020 14: 55 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +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.

    If "America is kirdyk" and it will be necessary to take its place - so they will sell theirs to us at the price of scrap metal (not least to salt China).
    1. timokhin-aa 4 June 2020 20: 00 New
      • 1
      • 1
      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. 5-9
        5-9 4 June 2020 20: 08 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It was sarcasm ... but you can take it with the F-35 and even the team :)
      2. ser56 4 June 2020 20: 45 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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
          • 0
          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 4 June 2020 14: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Look at the aircraft carrier with a retractable deck, the patent of the Russian Federation in my opinion for 2018.
  • serg2108 5 June 2020 00: 22 New
    • 1
    • 1
    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!
    To which Stalin was absolutely sincerely surprised: "Ah ... did you see an American?"
    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 5 June 2020 12: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 15 June 2020 10: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 5 June 2020 09: 01 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In my opinion, the aircraft carrier program should be started by answering the question “why.” It would be foolish to make a “Russian Nimitz” and dump it into a fleet of type, 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 rocket-bearing. The presence of carrier-based aircraft, I think, will not expand the shock 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 the wing. If we are talking about the interception of enemy AUG planes, then why do we need manned vehicles? Air is the perfect memo for robotic fighter jets. So not MiG-29, but interceptors based on the "Hunter". And here there will be other requirements for the ship and other parameters of "combat performance."
    1. vVvAD 5 June 2020 14: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      All right, just show me
      hunter-based interceptors

      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 5 June 2020 23: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And how do you know LTH "Hunter"? :)
        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 UAV interceptor does not mean that there are fundamental problems with implementation. Just the United States, which leads and sets the tone in this area, there is no need for such a model. They do something primarily for themselves. For example, I justifiably believe that in a combat situation, the command "hit strangers" in aerial combat is much easier to implement ...
        1. agond 9 June 2020 10: 24 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +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 9 June 2020 13: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Author! Have you ever been on the deck of the Kuznetsov? Or just saw her in the picture? Do you know how many technical positions on deck? How many planes can be rolled out simultaneously before the start of flights? The only thing you correctly called is the number of planes in the wave. But it seems to me you can not imagine the reason for this amount. Well, economic and technical calculations with some assumptions can be accepted.
  • Job74 10 June 2020 17: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 10 June 2020 22: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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
      It is considered a guarantee of its effectiveness, just as large commanders want to command a large ship (they’ll cradle them on small ones), and undoubtedly if you give them money for their Wishlist, they will begin to build aircraft carriers, regardless of the ice in the Arctic, in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, in Kamchatka, the complete absence of depots outside their territorial waters,. Involuntarily there are doubts about the professional suitability of these sailors "aviators"
      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 11 June 2020 09: 34 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: agond
        Mig-29k is too big for Kuznetsov. he would have suited a plane close in size to the Mig-21

        Of course, the smaller the plane, the larger its number can be placed on deck, but the Kuzya, for example, with sizes similar to those of Amer’s ships, carries them much less. No catapults - this is a national feature of our aircraft carriers, which saves money and significantly reduces the effectiveness of the ship. It is necessary for someone to form the exact shape of the really needed, efficient and lifting ship for our budget and be able to prove to our admiralty that this is what you need. History shows that we usually have the opposite. I think that so far we can, at best, rely on something similar to Kavur, perhaps with vertical lines.
        1. Selevc 11 June 2020 14: 32 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -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 12 June 2020 09: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 11 June 2020 16: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 12 June 2020 09: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 11 June 2020 20: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 11 June 2020 22: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 11 June 2020 23: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 13 June 2020 11: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: max702
    It was the Falklands that were an indicative flogging for all "not following the course of the party" ....


    But now the British, with their two Queen Elizabeth’s hypothetical new Falkland war, will be pulled, or they have nothing to “cover and secure” two new aircraft carriers?

    Some speakers have an opinion that Russia will build aircraft carriers "nizya", because they will "have nothing to cover and provide." Are we with surface warships in the future worse than Britain today?
  • Alexander Barinov 14 June 2020 08: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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?
    What is the name of that Fool in the Navy anyhow higher, which one large aircraft carrier "wants"?
    For parades, do they scare blacks and Arabians?
  • Job74 15 June 2020 09: 56 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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.
    It is not a matter of whether an aircraft carrier is needed or not, the matter is what it is needed and how to build it. Our army has always tried to be armed with something simple, cheap and effective, such as Kalash or T-34. And now they are trying to do this with ships. This is a type of experiment - can we give an asymmetric aircraft carrier response to America or not. The ultra-cheap aircraft carrier is a container ship, such as the English, sunk by the Falkland War. Ultra dear - these are the latest Fords. Somewhere between them we must seek a golden compromise. Without the aircraft carrier, it’s dumb - still a great power.
    1. agond 17 June 2020 09: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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
    • 0
    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 18 June 2020 13: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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.

    Of course, land aviation outperforms marine aviation according to the cost / effectiveness criterion, but this is if you do not stick your nose further than the coastal waters. This question is already in the political sphere - and what does Russia actually need? More precisely - a lot of things, but at what cost and will we have enough money and strength? So, even the slightest coercion to peace of any eastern states claiming our islands is better if there are carrier-based aircraft and Tarava-type assault landing ships. Of course, huge ships are now beyond our means, but then we must do what we can do, and not abandon the matter with a sigh, "but still, nothing good will come of it." If you do not try to do it, it certainly won’t work out.
  • hostel 19 June 2020 19: 12 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The author is my admiration !!! Everything is correctly and simply stated. And what a bacchanalia in the comments.
  • Dmitry Leontiev 23 June 2020 14: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 25 June 2020 13: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Thanks to the author for the work!
    I hope an article will soon appear where, he will compare in detail the number of sorties, well, for example, with Nimitz and Lizka))) The fact that Russia needs a full-sized AB, no less than Kuzi somehow, especially anyone There is no doubt, but the author, with stubbornness worthy of better application, through the prism of discrediting the concept of UDC as a small AB with KVVP airplanes, without a little doubt, extends the conclusions made on "UDC + KVVP" to the whole concept of KVVP, which is at least incorrect . I remain in my opinion, and this article, IMHO, only confirms my beliefs) And that's why. On real combat radii of 500-550 km (along the coast) there is no difference in payload, speed, etc. between the F-35B and F-35C))) But there is a difference in the time the combat group was raised into the air, the landing speed on the AB , and the advantage, moreover, is obvious for KVVP))) And the number of sorties per day for KVVP is not limited to 4, because no aerofinisher) Now, with regards to the timing. It’s quite simple to upgrade an AB under KVVP - change the springboard, remove the finishers. And, by the way, you can build a new AB with the dimensions of Kuzi on the Zvezda - the launch mass there is 40000 tons, it also passes in width and length. If you start now, then by 28-30 it is realistic to have 1-2 AB in the fleet. On aircraft KVVP. There is no need to make a “triune” aircraft of the F-35 type, you need to make an air-missile defense aircraft - and it will not yield to the deck in anything. In the sense of absolutely nothing) Yes, this is not fast, but not by 2040. The main difficulties are associated with the engine. We lagged behind the USA and are lagging behind, albeit not as much as 10 years ago. Now, in order to catch up, it is urgently necessary to cut the adaptive engine (and regardless of whether there will be KVVP or not), and for the Su-57, and for other machines. 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. IMHO, if you do now, in the year 27-28 KVVP will make its first flight.
  • Job74 26 June 2020 12: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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.
  • Dmitriy51 28 June 2020 17: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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!
    URA-Patriots, of course, will "begin" now. But those who stood in these "unparalleled" repair factories perceive the words about "new, powerful" in only two ways. Taunt, or laugh.