Military Review

Do you need problems? You need an aircraft carrier!

66

Who, if not the Americans, can judge foreign aircraft carriers? Indeed, they are experts in this type of ships the best in the world.


Kyle Mizokami of our beloved The National Interest has given a very interesting picture of India's carrier ambitions. Kyle is generally a very good specialist, with humor, therefore it is always interesting to read him. Not everything can be agreed, so we will correct Kyle on occasion. Italicized.

Like many other countries, India wants the best weaponthat she can afford. But ideological and financial concerns mean there are many things she won't buy in the United States or Europe. This is largely indicative of Russia.

India has been a major buyer of Russian weapons for 50 years. These were not easy years for New Delhi. India's defense contracts with Russia have consistently suffered delays and cost overruns. And the equipment received doesn't always work.

Actually, Russian military equipment is working. Is always. Even if it is not exploited in the most proper way, but here's something, our equipment has always been normal with its performance.

Cost overruns ... You know, here it would be better for the Americans to keep quiet. If Mr. Mizokami cited as an example at least one of the Pentagon programs over the past 10 years, which cost the originally requested amount, it would be very interesting to get acquainted with such information
.

Of all India's troubles with Russian purchases, none speaks more of the dysfunctional relations between the two countries than the saga of the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier.

In the early 2000s, India went to market for a new aircraft carrier. The Indian military wanted a new ship to replace the old Viraat, and no one was going to create a military-industrial nightmare. It happened.

But it all started a little earlier.

In 1988, the Soviet Union commissioned the aircraft carrier "Baku". These ships were a masterpiece of Soviet design. The forward third resembled a heavy cruiser with 12 giant SS-N-12 anti-ship missiles, up to 192 surface-to-air missiles, and two 100mm deck guns. The remaining two-thirds of the ship was an aircraft carrier with an inclined flight deck and hangar.

"Baku" served for a short time in the Soviet naval navyuntil the USSR collapsed in 1991. Russia inherited the ship, renamed it "Admiral Gorshkov" and kept it on the lists of the new Russian fleet until 1996. After the boilers exploded, probably due to lack of maintenance, "Admiral Gorshkov" went into naphthalene.


In general, at first this vessel was called "Kharkov". The only TAVKR project 1143.4. He made his only exit to the sea in 1988, performing tasks in the Mediterranean Sea. After this campaign, he anchored in Severomorsk, where he stayed until 1999, when preparations began for the sale of the ship to India. On February 1, 1992, there really was an accident that killed 6 people. Fire in the aft engine room.

In the early 2000s, India faced a dilemma. The only aircraft carrier in the Indian fleet, Viraat, was due to retire in 2007.


Aircraft carriers are helping India assert its influence in the Indian Ocean, not to mention being status symbols. New Delhi needed to replace Viraat, and quickly.

India's options were limited. The only countries building aircraft carriers at the time, the United States, France and Italy, were building ships too large for an Indian checkbook. In 2004, India and Russia struck a deal for India to receive Admiral Gorshkov. India will pay Russia $ 974 million for its modernization in excess of the sale.

Russia was to turn the ship into a working aircraft carrier with a launch ramp and flight deck just over 900 feet long, with an air group of 24 MiG-29K fighters and up to 10 Kamov helicopters.

The ship, according to the agreement, will be replaced with new radars, boilers, aerofinishers and deck lifts. All 2700 rooms and compartments located on 22 decks will be renovated and new wiring will be installed throughout the ship. The "new" carrier will be named "Vikramaditya" - after the ancient Indian king.

"Real aircraft carrier for less than a billion dollars" sounds too good to be true. And so it turned out.

In 2007, just a year before delivery, it became clear that the Russian Sevmash plant would not be able to meet the agreed deadlines. What's more, the plant required more than double the money, $ 2,9 billion in total, to complete the job.

The cost of sea trials alone, which originally stood at $ 27 million, has grown to a fantastic $ 550 million.

Required comment. Where the $ 550 million figure came from is somewhat unclear. The contract clearly stated that $ 974 million for repairs and $ 530 million for the supply of 16 MiG-29K fighters and Ka-31 and Ka-27 anti-submarine helicopters.

The ship was to be delivered to the customer at the end of 2008. However, the Indians themselves stalled the case, paying only about $ 458 million. And when payments were suspended, then, accordingly, the Russian side raised the issue of indexing and underestimating the amount of work.


A year later, when the project was not yet completed, and the readiness of the aircraft carrier was estimated at only 49 percent, one of the leaders of Sevmash offered India to pay an additional 2 billion dollars, citing the "market price of the" new aircraft carrier "in the range of 3 to 4 billion dollars ".

Sevmash specialized in the construction of submarines and had never worked on an aircraft carrier before. The ship was originally built at the Nikolaev shipyards, which after the collapse of the Soviet Union became part of Ukraine. The rigging and specialized equipment on which the Admiral Gorshkov was built were thousands of kilometers away, and now in a foreign country.

In fact, the rigging and equipment were completely useless, because the ship, as it were, had already been built. But another question is that the personnel who built the aircraft-carrying cruiser, who knew every rivet, remained in Ukraine - it is difficult to argue with this. Yes, Sevmash had enough of its own cool specialists, but specialization ...

With half the terms of the deal and a loss of $ 974 million, India could not afford to backtrack. Russia knew this and was straightforward about the options for India. "If India does not pay, we will keep the aircraft carrier," RIA said.News"One of the officials of the Ministry of Defense.

By 2009, the project had reached a dead end. Russian arms exports in 2009 amounted to only $ 8 billion, and Sevmash's delays and extortionary tactics did not benefit the Russian defense industry as a whole.

Let's be honest: India did not lose $ 974 million. The costs for the first time were 478 million, and 516 were stuck. As well as 550 million for the planes. There is nothing to pity the "poor Indians", because forgive me, but the principle "money - commodity - money" has not been canceled.

Of course, half a billion dollars in comparison with 8 billion in general is also a lot, but here it is more interesting that the underpaid Indians did not in any way affect the general state of affairs.


In July 2009, then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a high-profile visit to the Sevmash plant. Indian news reported that the carrier was still half ready, which meant that the shipyard did not actually do any work on the ship for two years as it was holding on to a lot of money.

Medvedev publicly scolded Sevmash officials. “You need to complete Vikramaditya and hand it over to our partners,” the clearly annoyed president told Sevmash General Director Nikolai Kalistratov.

In 2010, the Indian government agreed to more than double the aircraft carrier's budget to $ 2,2 billion. This was less than Sevmash needed ($ 2,9 billion) and much less than the $ 4 billion market price offered by Sevmash.

Let's use a calculator. Initially 947 + 530 = $ 1 million. The underpayment was “only” 504 billion 1 million, so the $ 046 million surcharge looks like normal compensation.

Suddenly Sevmash magically began to work harder, in fact twice as hard, and completed the second half of the upgrade in just three years. Vikramaditya finally went to sea trials in August 2012 and was commissioned by the Indian Navy in November 2013.

At the commissioning ceremony, India's Defense Minister Mr. Anthony expressed relief that the test was over, telling the press that there was a time "when we thought we would never get it."

Now that Vikramaditya is finally in service, India's troubles are over, right?


In no case. Incredibly, India chose Sevmash to carry out non-warranty work on the ship for the next 20 years.

Providing spare parts for Vikramaditya is an important task in itself. Ten Indian contractors helped complete the aircraft carrier, but also over 200 other contractors in Russia, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Finland, France, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Some countries, such as Japan, most likely did not even know that they were exporting parts for a foreign weapon system.

The ship's boilers, which provide the Vikramaditya with power and propulsion, represent a long-term problem. All eight boilers are new. But Indian sailors found defects in them. During a trip from Russia to India, a boiler broke down on the ship.

It is worth saying here that even if they acquired something from someone in the dark, the Indians did not lose anything. If you bought something in the United States - well, yes, it makes sense to express dissatisfaction with the American. And this will not give the Indians any problems at all, since India is not under sanctions, and even if something breaks, problems are unlikely to arise.

Finally, Vikramaditya lacks active air defense. The ship has anti-ship missile systems and medium-range anti-aircraft missiles, but no melee systems.

India could install local versions of the Russian AK-630 cannon system, but the Vikramaditya will have to rely on the new Indian air defense destroyer Kolkata to defend against aircraft and missiles.

Here's not to blame stupidity in such an article - you know, like a hot dog without ketchup and mayonnaise. All offensive weapons were removed from the Vikramaditya, and the ship was turned into a normal light aircraft carrier.

The Basalt anti-ship missile system, both AK-100 100-mm gun mounts, the Udav-1 anti-torpedo missile defense system, and AK-30M 630-mm anti-aircraft guns were removed from the ship. Also dismantled anti-submarine sonar system "Polynom" and anti-aircraft missile systems "Dagger". All this for the sake of lengthening the runway.

If the Indians decide to protect an aircraft carrier with aircraft and an air defense destroyer, this is their own business.


And what about Sevmash? After the Vikramaditya fiasco, the plant is oddly optimistic about building new aircraft carriers and has identified Brazil as a potential buyer. Sevmash wants to build aircraft carriers, said Sergey Novoselov, deputy general director of the plant.

Well, in those years, even we wrote about it. However, the fact that Sevmash CAN in principle build a "promising" aircraft carrier does not mean at all that it will be so in reality. We can all do something like that. In principle / in perspective. But reality is often very different from reality.


Epilogue.

India ended up with its own light aircraft carrier, an aircraft carrier, not an aircraft-carrying cruiser. For quite good money, we got rid of the ship, for the restoration of which we still did not have the funds. Of course, it would be nice to spend the received dollars on the redemption and restoration of "Riga" / "Varyag", which cost China $ 30 million, but ...

But история does not know the subjunctive mood.

Kyle Mizokami wrote a pretty objective story. And the essence of this story is clear and understandable: India should not have played the fool with the old Soviet cruiser, but had to take out a loan and purchase a ship from the United States. How the Indians bought their first aircraft carrier from Great Britain.

However, this case can be quite rightly regarded as an economic example. When you really want an aircraft carrier, but there is no money for it, American ships are ... somewhat expensive. Especially for India.

No matter how perfection the American aircraft carriers are (sarcasm), the examples of China and India have shown that it is not worth spending as much money on a floating airfield as the Americans spend.

You can suffer with such strange partners as the Russians, but as a result you can get at your disposal a ship capable of performing the tasks assigned to it.

For absolutely real amounts.

A very instructive story. Especially from the pen of an American.

For those who like to read in the primary source:
India's Biggest Military Mistake: Buying a Russian Aircraft Carrier.
Author:
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 14 August 2020 05: 15
    -1
    Novel! These questions about the "necessity" of aircraft carriers for a complete victory over the foe set the teeth on edge.
    Something hurtful, we often began to poke around in foreign problems and talk about the collapse and rise of foreign armies. But the main problem of Russia is not how much money is spent on the needs of the Ministry of Defense, but where the funds received for the sale of the "national treasure" are spent in general. Here is Uncle Rashkin (from 0:05) brings to attention the mathematical calculation:
    [media = https: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = xlJC0WeqS-A]
    It takes a shock ... From the fact that no aircraft carriers will be able to protect the Russian state from legalized looting.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 14 August 2020 10: 49
      +5
      Quote: ROSS 42
      Here is Uncle Rashkin (from 0:05) brings to your attention the mathematical calculation:

      laughing First teach Rashkin to count, and then wake up the videos to advise!
      Quote: ROSS 42
      no aircraft carriers will be able to protect the Russian state from legalized looting.

      That's for sure! Yes, by the way, does the leader of the Chikunovskie organized crime group still go to Rashkin as deputy assistants?
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 14 August 2020 11: 10
        +3
        Quote: Serg65
        That's for sure! Yes, by the way, does the leader of the Chikunovskie organized crime group still go to Rashkin as deputy assistants?

        What do you mean ?! Here are the scoundrels, but I was led ... crying
        Remind you of the environment "you know who"? About the Tambov organized criminal group, its leader Kumarin, the type of activity of these "kind people" and personal contacts? You yourself asked:


        stop I almost forgot:
        Quote: Serg65
        First teach Rashkin to count, and then wake up the videos to advise!

        I'm not going to wake anyone ...
        I will ... You will ... They will ...
        I wake up ... you wake up ... They wake up ...
        Gramoteev shitty divorced from HSE - nowhere to spit ... wassat
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 14 August 2020 11: 56
          -4
          Quote: ROSS 42
          I'm not going to wake anyone

          Are you just another philologist-forger?
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Remind you of the “you know who” environment?

          You yourself know who, does not hit himself in the chest with a cry POWER TO THE PEOPLE, LAND TO PEASANTS, PLANTS WORKERS! And does not kiss the Nazis aspirated! wink
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 14 August 2020 12: 05
            +3
            Quote: Serg65
            You yourself know who, does not hit himself in the chest with a cry POWER TO THE PEOPLE, LAND TO PEASANTS, PLANTS WORKERS! And does not kiss the Nazis aspirated!

            And, judging by the amendments to the constitution, he only thinks:
            In the morning I smear a sandwich -
            Immediately thought: what about the people?
            And the caviar does not climb into the throat,
            And compote does not pour into your mouth!

            Rashkin lied here in the same way as his leader, GAZ. Not 26 rubles, but only 000 for each resident of Russia.
            I just "bummer" to edit these deputy parables. BUT!!! Why is my wife, a nurse of the highest category, not receiving the salary of 2018 rubles promised in 33 by “you know by whom” “you know which female workers of the Bryansk perinatal center” ...
            These pseudo-servants of the people are simply disgusting to me. And it is easier for me to explain for myself and my family than to understand the lies of some and the lies of others.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 14 August 2020 12: 48
              -6
              Quote: ROSS 42
              judging by the amendments to the constitution, he only thinks:

              He thinks about what else to do so that your comrades-in-arms, having come to power, will not destroy the country again!
              Quote: ROSS 42
              I find it easier to explain for myself and my family than to understand the lies of some and the lies of others.

              But at the same time, you are doing fakemetry on VO with enviable frequency!
              Quote: ROSS 42
              Why does my wife, a nurse of the highest category, do not receive the salary of 2018 rubles promised in 33 by “you know by whom” “you know which workers of the Bryansk perinatal center” ...

              You yourself know who pays your wife personally? Contact the Ministry of Health of the Kemerovo Region wink
    2. Charik
      Charik 18 August 2020 14: 03
      0
      The moth ate everything and a bear coat and money
  2. Graz
    Graz 14 August 2020 06: 46
    12 th
    aircraft carriers in their current form are obsolete ships, like battleships before World War II
    1. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 14 August 2020 08: 44
      12
      How can an aircraft carrier, like a moving airfield, be an obsolete object? Those. in your little world, stationary airfields are reliable stable objects for basing aircraft, although they are rigidly tied to the terrain and can easily be destroyed by anything, and a floating airfield that still needs to be tracked down and caught up is a vulnerable object?
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 14 August 2020 12: 17
        -3
        Quote: arkadiyssk
        Those. in your little world, stationary airfields are reliable stable objects for basing aviation, although they are rigidly tied to the terrain and can easily be destroyed by anything, and a floating airfield that still needs to be tracked down and caught up is a vulnerable object?

        You should know the differences between an aircraft carrier and a ground airfield:
        1. A ground airfield is located in a sovereign territory and has a known immunity status.
        2. The ground airfield can be repaired and put back into operation.
        3. A ground aerodrome has a longer service life with lower costs.
        4. The ground aerodrome may have a layered air defense system.
        The "invulnerable" AUG can be destroyed in several ways, and in any case, no one will reach this floating airfield (together with the escort).
        The presence of an aircraft carrier near the territorial waters can be regarded as a fact of aggression ...
        Sorry, but smart people are sitting in KB, calculating the probability of destruction of "A" and the chances of his survival. All that the civilian population is supposed to know is that there are opportunities to sink any vessel (warship).
        hi
        1. Andy
          Andy 14 August 2020 13: 31
          +4
          Quote: ROSS 42
          1. A ground airfield is located in a sovereign territory and has a known immunity status.

          yeah, but for an attack on a ship under a military flag, according to you, they will only threaten you with a finger? :)
          Quote: ROSS 42
          4. The ground aerodrome may have a layered air defense system.

          aha, does your aircraft carrier go alone? (Kuznetsov's tug does not count - our "escort" can cause nothing but tears, but we are generally about the concept)
          Quote: ROSS 42
          The presence of an aircraft carrier near the territorial waters can be regarded as a fact of aggression ...

          yeah. and NATO bombers near the borders - in your scenario, doves of peace? no one announced the war to anyone yet :))
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 15 August 2020 17: 03
            -6
            Quote: Andy
            aha

            You will distract from the "tanks", switch the toggle switch to the "head" position and then tell me all the advantages and chances of not being destroyed by an aircraft carrier in comparison with a ground airfield ... This is your guide:
            1. Andy
              Andy 15 August 2020 18: 32
              +2
              Quote: ROSS 42
              This is your guide:

              you can see in your head only eating. sad
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 15 August 2020 14: 39
          +3
          Quote: ROSS 42
          3. A ground aerodrome has a longer service life with lower costs.

          He-he-he ... but here there is one subtle point.
          An aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield that can be relocated to the area required at the moment. Or even concentrate several ABs in this area.
          The ground airfield is stationary. That is, it needs to be built separately in each district. And it's not a fact that there is only one - if we want to ensure the basing of an air group capable of repelling 3-4 AUG (and with a normal arrival time, and not a nodding analysis, and even with a fuel supply for half an hour of patrolling).

          Thus, when comparing maintenance costs, it is necessary to take, on the one hand, the costs of all AV fleet and compare them with the costs of all airfields built to support the operations of naval aviation and cover coastal facilities.
      2. General failure
        General failure 21 August 2020 22: 05
        0
        Hunt down - and satellites fly in space for a reason.
        Catch up - planes fly faster than ships.

        If you hit a bomb in an airfield or an aircraft carrier, it will be damaged. And it will have to be repaired.

        The airfield is on the spot, with the help of bulldozers and concrete, by the forces of military personnel so steep that they are not even given machine guns (construction battalion, if someone does not understand). In a week he will be able to somehow work.

        The aircraft carrier is at a marine plant thousands of miles from the theater of operations, if it gets there. And if it doesn’t swim, then the whole will drown - along with the planes, hangars and the captain.

        That is, the airfield is strong, but immobile.
        The aircraft carrier is expensive, fragile, but mobile.
        It can work perfectly against the Papuans, just like a regular airfield.
        He may also try to sneak up on advanced opponents from the butt side and try to vandyurize, with extremely ambiguous results.
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 14 August 2020 08: 47
      +9
      Yes Yes. Meena Whitehead will kill all large surface ships. Royal Navi everything, give money to pensioners. After all, a cheap destroyer is capable of sinking a huge battleship. Some even fell for and began to rivet the carriers.

      However, battleships and large surface ships of an artillery wing survived for another 60-70 years, being built according to new and new projects. And they were killed by planes and missiles.

      All these super-missiles are still the same untested wonder weapons. Will it be murderous or blank? Shows only real application.
      1. Ryaruav
        Ryaruav 14 August 2020 10: 02
        +1
        as the practice of the Second World War has shown, such a ship as an aircraft carrier can die from a single hit of 227 kg of a bomb, in our time, a missile defense system entering the hangar, despite all the water curtains and other measures, can lead to sad consequences, and if full-fledged American aircraft still represent are stable combat units, then light (small) aircraft carriers have disadvantages of an order of magnitude higher, in the history of shipbuilding, as a rule, expensive ships are in the lead, of course, if the concept of their construction was correct at this time stage in the development of naval thought
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 14 August 2020 10: 18
          +9
          As practice has shown, a battleship of 40 tons, capable of carrying up to 000 combat aircraft and 20-32 vehicles of the general air group, can die from a heap of packing waste and John with a welding machine two decks higher.

          In general, this is not an indicator. As well as hits. The use of aircraft carriers has always led to some kind of positive result for the user. Here, of course, the choice of opponents also affects. But in '82 it was quite even and closest to the defeat of the forces of democracy. However, the aircraft carriers showed themselves excellently, the air groups achieved overall superiority, destroyed the basic aviation on the islands (and this played a key role, because it was not possible to take a normal combat load from Argentina, there was no time reserve in the target area, and sometimes it was necessary to refuel the vehicles, which additionally limited the forces of the raid), achieved superiority in the sky (the Argentines switched to the tactics of single and double breakthroughs), achieved demoralization of defensive positions on the islands.
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 17 August 2020 19: 36
            -1
            Quote: donavi49
            Here, of course, the choice of opponents also affects.

            in in. you need to choose the Papuans who have nothing but AK.
            Quote: donavi49
            However, aircraft carriers proved to be excellent.
            yes .. even like .. for example in Vietnam where at colossal costs I had to turn off the fishing rods request
            Quote: donavi49
            and this played a key role, because from Argentina it was not possible to take a normal combat load, there was no time reserve in the target area, and sometimes it was necessary to refuel the vehicles, which further limited the forces of the raid

            very inappropriate example .. aircraft carriers have nothing to do with the fact that more than 80% of the bombs of the Argentines did not explode. and these aircraft carriers arrived when the entire landing fleet had already received a bomb from the Argentines and only a miracle saved the British ... or rather, not a miracle, but old German bombs that were already unusable. yes
      2. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 14 August 2020 11: 27
        -4
        Quote: donavi49
        All these super-missiles are still the same untested wonder weapons. Will it be murderous or blank? Shows only real application.

        Here's the catch - no one will dispute the real achievements of Soviet science?
        In the event of a war with the USSR, US aircraft carriers were supposed to enter the Norwegian Sea to support operations in the northwest direction. Deck aircraft could take off from them in order to attack surface ships and submarines, to hit ground objects, while they could carry nuclear charges on board.
        To neutralize the American AUG, Moscow planned to use aircraft, ships and submarines with modern missile weapons. For this, the USSR built three Project 1164 Atlant missile cruisers, capable of a speed of 32 knots.
        Each missile cruiser carried 16 P-500 "Basalt" anti-ship missiles, which had a speed of up to Mach 2,5 and a distance of 550 km. The missiles carried to the target a high-explosive cumulative warhead weighing one ton and an atomic power of 350 kt ...

        They say ... They say (not the grandmothers on the bench, but specific people), a direct hit was not required ... And even calculations were made ...
        And you advise us to check the practical application ... wassat
        I have known the islands for a long time, on which I can do it ... wassat The whole world is in ruin ... fellow
        You probably know that the DPRK has nuclear weapons? Why do you think American AUGs suddenly turned around and Trump met with Eun? But he is such a nuclear charge: unpredictable and devastating, like diarrhea Hurricane. However, should the Americans not know this? On August 6th and 9th, exactly 75 years ago, they conducted an experiment on a Japanese state.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 14 August 2020 12: 07
          +3
          It was also planned to make curtains of torpedo boats in tow, against the heavy fleet of battleships in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

          As a result, only Luigi Rizzo was able to achieve victory on the battleship and then in a different tactic, in fact, by accident. Where combat success and all the problems of the Austro-Hungarian fleet converged + a specific theater.

          What you have given is not even a combat calculation, but simply an analyst's napkin calculation on a free topic. Well, the other side, by the way, worked against this tactic. And to reach the launch range, even with the control center, the Atlantes already had real problems in those years. For the AUG had superiority in detecting, and then running away, luring, or running away and sprinkling Hornets with Harpoons.

          In fact, aircraft carriers from the 40s to today work actively, both in combat operations and in compulsion to obedience, in the form of a threat. Monster rockets cannot boast of a rich track record.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 15 August 2020 14: 46
          +2
          Quote: ROSS 42
          For this, the USSR built three Project 1164 Atlant missile cruisers capable of a speed of 32 knots.

          Against 8-10 combat-ready enemy AUGs.
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Each missile cruiser carried 16 P-500 "Basalt" anti-ship missiles, which had a speed of up to Mach 2,5 and a distance of 550 km. The missiles carried to the target a high-explosive cumulative warhead weighing one ton and an atomic power of 350 kt ...

          Uh-huh ... and each carrier carried 24 interceptors with 4-6 RVVs on each. And it had an air defense zone 300 miles deep.
          1. your1970
            your1970 16 August 2020 22: 56
            +1
            When attacking the USSR / RF, it does not matter at all whether there is AUG or not, 300 miles or 200 ... A million population more or less ...
          2. Volder
            Volder 17 August 2020 07: 13
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Against 8-10 combat-ready enemy AUGs.
            The United States has never had so many combat-ready aircraft carriers and does not have so many now. In recent years, only 2-3 aircraft carriers have been combat-ready.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            ... and each aircraft carrier carried 24 interceptors with 4-6 RVVs each. And it had an air defense zone 300 miles deep.
            The P-500 "Basalt" was soon replaced by the P-1000 "Vulkan" with a range of up to 1000 km. Obviously, this doesn't mean anything to you.
    3. Sergey Obraztsov
      Sergey Obraztsov 14 August 2020 09: 53
      0
      What does this have to do with super missiles and the vulnerability of aircraft carriers? In the 21st century, they are not created for war with the powers of the level of Russia / America / China. They are made to project power on those countries that still have a walk to Antarctica before hypersonic weapons. It is nonsense to stake on them, neglecting other weapons, but one or two things will not bring anything but benefit to any country with a sufficiently thick wallet to maintain them.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 August 2020 10: 05
        +9
        Quote: Sergey Obraztsov
        They are made to project power on those countries that still have a walk to Antarctica before hypersonic weapons.

        How would it be so to speak, to make it clear? :)))) Hypersonic weapons are not a panacea against aircraft carriers. This is a good, useful tool, which, nevertheless, is not a wundwerwaffe and will not negate the value of surface ships.
        Aircraft carriers can be destroyed without hypersonic, if you have enough strength for this, but the presence of hypersonic weapons does not at all guarantee the destruction of an aircraft carrier
        1. Sergey Obraztsov
          Sergey Obraztsov 14 August 2020 10: 35
          +3
          Well, reading the comments, I have repeatedly seen arguments from jingoistic patriots that after their appearance aircraft carriers can be written off for scrap. There were even such articles. And I completely agree with you. It all depends on the combat guard order. But how things are with him among the Indians, I honestly do not know, I will be glad if they share the details. This has become very relevant in view of the recent tension with China.
        2. Volder
          Volder 17 August 2020 07: 27
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Hypersonic weapons are not a panacea for aircraft carriers.
          Why do you think so? The hypersonic "Dagger" with a range of 2000 km was created against aircraft carriers. And soon the Zircon will catch up with a range of 1000 km.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Aircraft carriers can be destroyed without hypersound, if you have enough strength for it,
          ... If you have enough effective missiles.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          ... but the presence of hypersonic weapons does not at all guarantee the destruction of an aircraft carrier.
          Of course it does. After all, there is no protection against hypersound. And if we take into account the range of action of hypersonic missiles, then their carriers are unlikely to be destroyed in advance (before launch).
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 August 2020 07: 37
            +3
            Quote: Volder
            The hypersonic "Dagger" with a range of 2000 km was created against aircraft carriers.

            He does not know how to hit ships in motion - this is Iskander.
            Quote: Volder
            Of course it does. After all, there is no protection against hypersound.

            protection against hypersound is exactly the same as against supersonic - the destruction of target designation means, which will not allow the use of missiles from a range of hundreds of kilometers, the destruction of carriers before reaching the line of attack (which is not a problem in the absence of an external control center and the need to fire point-blank) and electronic warfare means misleading missile seeker
            1. Volder
              Volder 17 August 2020 12: 27
              -4
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              He does not know how to hit ships in motion - this is Iskander.
              Of course, the "Dagger" is able to hit surface moving targets. This was stated by Yuri Borisov. Googled. Well, the fact that the rocket is similar to the "Iskander" missile is misleading sofa experts :)
              protection against hypersound is exactly the same as against supersonic - the destruction of target designation means, which will not allow the use of missiles from a range of hundreds of kilometers,
              The flight time of the Dagger when launched from a distance of 1000 km and a flight speed of Mach 10 will be approximately 5 minutes. If we assume that the control center was issued at the time of launch, then during this time the ship can move a maximum of 5 km, i.e. the search area will be a circle d = 10 km. What is 10 km to find a target with a seeker? No external target designation means are needed here. Plus ANN with the ability to adjust from the Glonass system.
              destruction of carriers before reaching the line of attack (which is not a problem in the absence of an external control center and the need to fire point-blank)
              Sorry, but that doesn't sound serious. The carriers located 2000 km from the aircraft carrier are inaccessible for the enemy carrier-based aircraft. If it was not possible to shoot Daggers from such a distance, they would not have been developed. Our Department of Defense, unlike the Pentagon, is not fraudulent.
              electronic warfare means misleading missile seeker
              The existing active means of electronic warfare are powerless against the optical seeker.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 August 2020 12: 44
                +4
                Quote: Volder
                Of course, the "Dagger" is able to hit surface moving targets. This was stated by Yuri Borisov.

                He also talked about a nuclear-powered rocket flying around the clock. That is, Borisov, to put it mildly, talked about what he would like to have, and not about what we really have.
                Quote: Volder
                Our Defense Department, unlike the Pentagon, is not fraudulent.

                Still doing it. Moreover, on a regular basis.
                Quote: Volder
                Well, the fact that the rocket looks like an Iskander missile is misleading for sofa experts :)

                This is Iskander :)))
                Quote: Volder
                No external target designation means are needed here.

                You wrote
                Quote: Volder
                The flight time of the Dagger when launched from a distance of 1000 km and a flight speed of Mach 10 will be approximately 5 minutes. If we assume that the control center was issued at the time of launch

                Who will issue the CU? Santa Claus? This is the task of external target designation means.
                Quote: Volder
                Sorry, but that doesn't sound serious. The carriers located 2000 km from the aircraft carrier are inaccessible for the enemy carrier-based aircraft.

                Uh-huh. And since where the target is, they do not know, they will have to stomp towards this very target at the detection radius of the airborne radar / GAK. That is, at best, three hundred kilometers, for submarines, tens of kilometers.
                Quote: Volder
                If it was not possible to shoot Daggers from such a distance, they would not have been developed.

                Blessed is he who believes. And they were not developed for this - the normal practice of airborne missiles, the targets are stationary.
                The thing is that Iskander has 2 missiles - one "hypersonic" (there is no way without quotation marks) and the second - an ordinary cruise. And I have a persistent feeling that speaking of moving targets, it is CD that they mean.
                Quote: Volder
                The existing active means of electronic warfare are powerless against the optical seeker.

                The optical seeker is very easily "deceived" by everything, up to the banal smoke screen. Not to be confused with telecontrol.
                1. Liam
                  Liam 17 August 2020 12: 47
                  -5
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The thing is that Iskander has 2 missiles - one "hypersonic" (there is no way without quotes) and the second - an ordinary cruise

                  What kind of winged version does Iskander have?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 August 2020 13: 14
                    +3
                    Quote: Liam
                    What kind of winged version does Iskander have?

                    P-500 (9M728)
    4. antivirus
      antivirus 14 August 2020 16: 02
      0
      in the universe may wonder at your thought ........................................... .................................................. ...
      7x70 000t VI
  3. v4s.zar
    v4s.zar 14 August 2020 07: 38
    +4
    Aircraft carriers will exist for as long as there will be carrier-based aircraft in general and the navy as a service in general.
    1. Volder
      Volder 17 August 2020 07: 29
      -3
      Quote: v4s.zar
      Aircraft carriers will exist for as long as there will be carrier-based aircraft in general and the navy as a service in general.
      Exactly until the aircraft carrier is sunk.
  4. EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 August 2020 08: 17
    -2
    Now our industry is also to blame before India. Well OK.
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 14 August 2020 08: 22
    0
    Ten Indian contractors helped complete the aircraft carrier, but also over 200 other contractors in Russia, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Finland, France, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
    .... Suppose, during the construction of its aircraft carrier, Russia will manage with its contractors?
  6. donavi49
    donavi49 14 August 2020 08: 40
    10
    And then they began to make their own aircraft carrier (but not themselves) and realized that Vikra came out really cheaply and quickly. For their part has been under construction for 15 years and the French export catapult has already been surpassed in terms of money. And the Indian has a cheap springboard. And the end-edge of this epic is being pushed back so that even domestic timing engines like Rakhmanov are envious.
  7. Couchexpert
    Couchexpert 14 August 2020 08: 41
    +2
    Quote: Article
    But reality is often very different from reality.

    That's for sure. In life, in general, everything is not as it really is ...
  8. Serg65
    Serg65 14 August 2020 09: 56
    +8
    laughing Another novel from Roman! And superficial as always!
    After the boilers exploded, probably due to lack of maintenance, "Admiral Gorshkov" went into naphthalene.

    The boilers just remained intact, the steam line burst! And the cruiser left for naphthalene much earlier.
    He made his only exit to the sea in 1988, performing tasks in the Mediterranean Sea. After this campaign, anchored in Severomorsk, where he stood until 1999

    To put it mildly, this is not true ...
    During 1990, six artillery fires, one anti-aircraft and one anti-ship fire were carried out. The landing of an amphibious assault was provided once. 1049 helicopter sorties were performed by Ka-27 helicopters and 171 by Ka-25 helicopters. Yak-38 aircraft made 47 sorties. 4242,8 miles covered in 537 running hours.
    In 1991, 1375,3 miles were covered in 173 running hours. Four artillery and one anti-aircraft missile fire was carried out. Ka27 helicopters made 417 helicopter sorties.

    From the Author .. In 2004, India and Russia made a deal for India to receive "Admiral Gorshkov". India will pay Russia $ 974 million for its modernization in excess of the sale.

    In fact...
    The contract for the supply of TAVKR "Admiral Gorshkov" was signed by Rosoboronexport and the Indian Navy on January 20, 2004 in Delhi. The contract value is more than $ 1,5 billion, of which it was planned to spend from $ 600 to $ 700 million directly on the repair and rebuilding of the ship.

    The key point here was that the price for the modernization was determined not by Sevmash, but by Rosoboronexport. And now, Roman, you should write a saga about how Azerbaijani Pashayev preserved a unique plant for Russia, about whose names the food cards issued to Sevmash workers were called, how salaries were delivered to Severodvinsk! Come on, tell people the truth!
    Yes, by the way, Roman, do you know why the head Borey got the name "Yuri Dolgoruky"?
  9. Sergey Obraztsov
    Sergey Obraztsov 14 August 2020 09: 58
    0
    ... For quite good money, we got rid of the ship, for the restoration of which we still did not have the funds.

    And in the long term * twenty years of payments for maintenance and repairs. Let's not forget about airplanes and helicopters. This is also bread and strong currency for more than one year. Yes, India already has some kind of aircraft, but I can hardly believe that with future modernization they will completely replace them with foreign-made equipment.

    The composition of the air group has been determined: these are 14-16 MiG-29K aircraft, 4 MiG-29KUB (transferred to India on February 12, 2009 [28]), up to 8 Ka-28 helicopters, 1 Ka-31 helicopter, up to 3 HAL Dhruv (instead of 2 Ka -28)
  10. xomaNN
    xomaNN 14 August 2020 15: 15
    +1
    "The claw is stuck, the whole bird disappears!" This is about the situation in India and the semi-finished former aircraft carrier. smile

    Not a bad option for Sevmash - learning to build aircraft carriers for someone else's money. Indeed, before the specialization of the NSR was only the nuclear submarine.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 August 2020 15: 06
      +2
      Quote: xomaNN
      "The claw is stuck, the whole bird disappears!" This is about the situation in India and the semi-finished former aircraft carrier.

      There was rather "miser pays twice". The Indians were directly told that after the sludge the entire ship needs to be capitalized. But the chemically wise Indians decided to save money by limiting the list of works.
      Well, then - everything is according to the classics:
      And Balda condemned with reproach:
      "You would not chase, pop, for cheapness."
  11. Mikhail Zakharov
    Mikhail Zakharov 14 August 2020 23: 55
    +1
    a country without aircraft carriers cannot call itself a great naval power
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 15 August 2020 08: 30
      +2
      Germany looks at this post with bewilderment.
  12. Alex1949
    Alex1949 15 August 2020 18: 21
    0
    The article is too long and whether Indians will read it in a row.
  13. Glad
    Glad 15 August 2020 21: 46
    +2
    Quote: donavi49
    However, the aircraft carriers showed themselves excellently, the air groups achieved general superiority, destroyed the basic aviation on the islands (and this played a key role, because Argentina was not able to take a normal combat load, there was no time reserve in the target area, and sometimes it was necessary to refuel the vehicles, which additionally limited the forces of the raid), achieved superiority in the sky (the Argentines switched to the tactics of single and double breakthroughs), achieved demoralization of defensive positions on the islands.

    Hmm ... I'm, of course, terribly sorry, but the "excellent" rating for the actions of a British aircraft carrier and British carrier-based aircraft in 1982 looks somewhat overstated. Especially in terms of actions against enemy aircraft. The British, by the way, being guided by the ratio of losses, were at first in euphoria and assessed the actions of their aviation in the same way as you assess them. There were even voices that, they say, VTOL aircraft showed an overwhelming advantage over conventional vehicles, and it would be necessary to actively introduce "vertical aircraft" into the Air Force and carrier-based aviation by reducing the number of conventional aircraft.
    However, a little later, when the euphoria passed and a sober analysis of the hostilities was carried out, the VTOL rating changed somewhat. The Harriers, in fact, operated in hothouse conditions, the repetition of which in other conflicts is extremely unlikely. Mainly because the Argentine aviation operated at the limit of the combat radius and the Argentines had no time to be distracted by air battles. They had to sink the English ships.
    And here the Argentines have succeeded like no other! With only 10 Exocets and rather old American bombs, the Argentine aviation managed to sink 6 (seemingly 6, I don't remember exactly) warships! This does not qualify as "excellent" for the British carrier-based aircraft, which was supposed to cover its squadron.
    And God knows how many more English ships would have been drowned if all Argentine bombs that fell into them exploded, or if the Argentines had 20 Exocets, not 10. Here, something like that ...
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 16 August 2020 06: 45
      +1
      Quote: Glad
      And here the Argentines have succeeded like no other! With only 10 Exocets and rather old American bombs, the Argentine aviation managed to sink 6 (seemingly 6, I don't remember exactly) warships! This does not qualify as "excellent" for the British carrier-based aircraft, which was supposed to cover its squadron.
      Here is another proof of the viciousness of the concept of large surface ships outside the BMZ, and the viciousness of aircraft carriers against at least some countries capable of defense, inability to supply, fire support and simply a shortage of various expeditionary military forces in the Russian Federation ...
      1. Harry cuper
        Harry cuper 19 August 2020 10: 20
        +1
        Kuzya was created for completely different tasks, I agree with you. What was hung on him in the extreme (God forbid, not the last!) Campaign does not correspond to them in any way
    2. AB0877
      AB0877 18 August 2020 13: 18
      0
      Which 6 British ships sank the args? Read the descriptions of the conflict - they are from both sides. Do you really think that only Harriers flew? Oh well. Exocet is not a bomb, from the word at all. All cases of defeat of British ships have long been sorted out, including cases of outright carelessness of personnel. Remind you how the Falklands Crisis ended?
  14. Grits
    Grits 16 August 2020 02: 39
    0
    Quote: Serg65
    In 2004, India and Russia signed a deal under which India will receive "Admiral Gorshkov"

    Gorshkov was placed at the quay wall of Sevmash before 2000. Because I personally saw him every day with my own eyes. It turns out strange then ... Either we agreed to sell India earlier, or they wanted to ourselves (which is unlikely).
  15. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 16 August 2020 06: 43
    -2
    an aircraft carrier is always a burden, and if it does not have tasks, then it needs to be sold to those who have tasks for AB, that is, Russia really needs to sell it to India or China whose military concepts require the use of aircraft carriers ... and we are laying unnecessary udcs ...
    1. AB0877
      AB0877 18 August 2020 13: 32
      +1
      There is such parsley - you can argue to the point of hoarseness what types of ships our fleet needs (admirals need everything and preferably more), but we must start with naval doctrine, i.e. from paper. I read what it is - "dark water in the clouds." What do we have as a result? Continuous "manual control" and outright shyness, multiplied by outright window dressing. At the same time, we are not the richest country and it would be good to remember the lessons of the USSR, which, in particular, was ruined by insane militarization. Alas, our leaders put their own ambitions above common sense and the welfare of their citizens. The same is observed in other types of troops. The exception is space groupings, but there is rather a restoration of the old USSR functionality, and then with certain problems.
  16. Fyodor Dostoevsky_3
    Fyodor Dostoevsky_3 16 August 2020 14: 34
    0
    Whose boilers were installed on the aircraft carrier? What problems happened to them? Usually these are cracks in the headers and steam drums, there may be problems with screens or tempering pipes. I think that it is unlikely that they are produced by Sevmash itself, most likely these are the products of Belgorodians or someone else.
  17. rusboris
    rusboris 17 August 2020 12: 04
    -1
    USA to Hell, Russia to Paradise. Let's leave this apocalypse to the writers. Modern warfare is of a hybrid type. There you need an aircraft carrier and a nerd with a computer. Both exist in Russia. There is no possibility of escorting transport ships when the NATO blockade is broken and the sea blockade of regimes disloyal to Russia is ensured. There are also no reliable marines fire and landing craft. Specifically, these are UDC, BDK and rocket artillery armored cruisers, raiders of the classic type, with a displacement of up to 10 tons. Almost all of the comments of colleagues are a classic preparation for the past wars. Let's leave these exercises to the generals. Our sofa task is a flight of thought not burdened with responsibility and fear for the chair.
  18. pleschakovai
    pleschakovai 17 August 2020 14: 10
    -1
    What is this expensive money? And for what? That an aircraft carrier would be sunk in an instant? There are aircraft carrier killers, they walk nearby and, if necessary, zvizdanut so that it does not seem a little !!! Dadu-dadu ... as the Tagged Bear said!
  19. certero
    certero 17 August 2020 18: 16
    +1
    Quote: v4s.zar
    as long as there will be carrier-based aircraft in general and the navy as a species

    The next generation will be drone carriers. Whoever is the first such carrier will do the same and get an advantage
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 17 August 2020 19: 55
      +2
      Quote: certero
      Whoever is the first such carrier will do the same and get an advantage

      and whoever takes control of the second will get an advantage wink
      1. AB0877
        AB0877 18 August 2020 13: 44
        -2
        How do you imagine the interception of control of the drone (s)? So far, nothing has worked out with cruise missiles.
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 18 August 2020 14: 34
          0
          Quote: AB0877
          How do you imagine the interception of control of the drone (s)?

          what do you mean I represent ??? represent those who need to think of something, for example, adherents of the "battle swarm".
          if you are interested in how this happens, google "counter drone". there are articles and videos.
          but of course if you don't want to know anything about it then don't read anything. believe in the all-conquering swarm! hi
          1. AB0877
            AB0877 18 August 2020 17: 56
            0
            I didn't say anything about the all-conquering swarm. I just asked about the drone control interception vision. The same "Ax" has 4 control systems: inertial (how will we intercept?), Optical (reconciliation of the flight task with a map of the underlying surface. It can be muffled, but very locally and with an unknown result in the form of correction for other navigation systems), correction by GPS or other similar systems (maybe jammed, but again in a rather narrow area of ​​the terrain), Satellite control.
            And where is the "interception" here? forced landing, changing target parameters, self-destruct, etc
            PS No need to send me to Google, I was taught something even without him (more precisely, before his appearance).
            1. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 18 August 2020 20: 27
              +1
              Quote: AB0877
              PS No need to send me to Google, I was taught something even without him (more precisely, before his appearance).

              it looks like you still need it, since you do not distinguish a CD from a drone request still would be compared with missouri shells ...
              drone implies control, that is, a communication channel. if there is a communication channel, then it can be blocked or intercepted yes can you go on?
              You can find a video showing the actions of protection systems and see for yourself.
  20. Harry cuper
    Harry cuper 19 August 2020 09: 50
    0
    as a result, you can get at your disposal a ship capable of performing the tasks assigned to it
    The question is what tasks. If you show the flag or act against the coast of Pakistan, you can do it. Anything more - no. However, India does not claim to be the captain of the universe.
  21. Tcheluskin
    Tcheluskin 20 August 2020 05: 50
    0
    Vikramaditya lacks active air defense
    no melee systems.
    India could install local versions of the Russian AK-630 cannon system

    I have already indicated in the comments to previous similar articles that in 2015 two AK-630s and 24 short-range missiles Barak-1 were installed on Vikramaditya, with radar and electro-optical guidance systems.
    http://topwar.ru/163462-smi-indija-silno-pozhalela-kupiv-rossijskij-avianosec.html
  22. av58
    av58 21 August 2020 11: 10
    0
    Buffoons.
    You don't need to add anything else laughing