Military Review

Heavy aircraft carrier of the Pacific Fleet

123

As an author, I consider it my duty to the readers to immediately declare my position on the construction of aircraft-carrying ships for the Russian Navy: first, there is no need to build analogues of the American-type multipurpose nuclear aircraft carriers "Nimitz" or "Ford" with catapults; secondly, it is unacceptable to repeat the experience of building ships for the use of short or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft such as the Soviet "Kiev" or the British "Invincible".


As if it goes without saying that it makes no sense to maintain a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser, whose tasks are laid down in the design to provide cover for the deployment area and combat duty of strategic missile submarines and ensure the combat stability of a detachment of ships in the transition by sea from air attacks in the Baltic and Black seas ... These operational-strategic formations are simply not burdened with the maintenance of the naval component of the country's strategic nuclear forces, and the second task of the TAVKR in these theaters can be successfully solved by forces aviation these formations themselves in cooperation with parts of the Aerospace Forces. There are two options left: the Northern Fleet, where the TAVKR "Admiral fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov ", and the Pacific Fleet.

Forty years ago, there was still a problem with submarines with less long-range SLBMs entering the Atlantic from the bases of the Northern Fleet in comparison with modern ones, and for its solution universal ships were created - heavy aircraft carrying cruisers (pr. 11431 "Kiev"; pr. 11434 "Baku ») With vertical takeoff and landing aircraft Yak-38, which could not oppose anything to carrier-based interceptors from the American aircraft carriers of the 2nd Fleet F-14. The situation was similar in the Pacific Ocean with the sisterships of the TAVKR pr. 11432 "Minsk", pr. 11433 "Novorossiysk".

The situation has now changed a lot. Modern SSBNs of Russia do not need to break through anti-submarine lines, trying to get closer to the shores of North America. They could feel comfortable under the waters and ice of the Barents and Okhotsk seas. The problem of air cover is also being solved by creating a regiment of interceptor fighters on the modernized MiG-31 in the Murmansk region. These aircraft, operating in the Arctic from stationary equipped airfields, will be able to perform the task more efficiently in comparison with the deck-based Su-33, which, even being with the aircraft carrier in (or above) the SSBN deployment area, due to weather conditions, will not be able to take off. It may be argued that the P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine patrolmen in such weather conditions will also not be able to search for submarines. Yes, but the root of the problem is that their flights can be performed regularly, which an aircraft carrier with limited autonomy cannot provide. The Northern Fleet has only one of them, and even after modernization, it is unlikely that the operational utilization factor will be brought to 0,4. Apparently, the fleet command is well aware of this. How else to explain the four-month campaign of the flagship of the fleet, an aircraft-carrying cruiser and two BODs to the shores of Syria in the winter of 2016-2017? What, sacrificed a cover for SSBN combat duty for the sake of demonstrating the flag of Russia and the pennants of ships, personifying the power of the entire Navy, coastal Europe and the dust and dust of the barracks and sheds of the notorious ISIS (banned in the Russian Federation)? And having scrolled history service of the ship, it is easy to see that the ship was practically not engaged in this task, except during exercises. To solve it, the command of the fleet was forced to attract cheaper and, I'm not afraid to say, probably more effective forces and means than a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser in its current state.

The expedition of a detachment of ships to the shores of Syria, according to conservative estimates, cost the country's budget (or MO) 7,5 billion rubles. We can assume that after the modernization, the same group will carry out combat patrols in the Barents Sea on a quarterly basis: 30 days at sea (at the limit of the autonomy of ships in terms of fuel and food supplies) and 60 days inter-voyage repairs and maintenance, training, vacations and other delights of coastal life ... I think that this is unrealistic! Even supporters of full-fledged American aircraft carriers for our fleet have proposed to expel the aircraft carrier into the Mediterranean during the winter months. But the country is preparing for war. But it is difficult to come up with intelligible, realistically achievable goals for such trips. To walk back and forth along the unfriendly shores of Europe, to climb voluntarily into the Mediterranean mousetrap ... Why? I will suggest an alternative offhand. A military-political axis is being created: Moscow - Havana - Caracas (abbreviated for the first two letters of the capitals: MOGAKA)! The allies allocate and maintain a naval base, and we guarantee "people's democracy and freedom of navigation" with a detachment of ships led by an aircraft carrier! Even an uninitiated man in the street will understand whom we are friends against for such money. While the court is on the line, both heavy cruisers ("Kuznetsov" and "Nakhimov") will come out of modernization, add a couple of BOD-frigates of pr. 1155 to them, and all winter you can write eights around Cuba and Haiti ...

And then, with an unsurpassed priority, the second task for which the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser was built will come to the fore: air defense of a group of ships at sea crossing, giving it combat stability! It is already clear that for the first task, ensuring the security of the SSBN combat patrol area in the Barents Sea (read: in the Northern Fleet), the existing cruiser in its present form is not suitable. As the army wisdom says: if you can't - we'll teach, if you don't want - we'll force you. So, the command of the fleet does not want to either teach or force him to do this, it is troublesome.

And how can our modernized heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser fulfill the role of the foundation of the anti-aircraft defense of the order of ships on the proposed transition to the shores of Cuba and Venezuela, reliably or practically symbolically? In the proposed campaign, we can firmly rely on standard ammunition for missiles and air defense shells of escort ships, on their radar detection zones and a certain number of firing channels. But the typical composition of the air wing of our TAVKR is impossible to predict. Over time and from campaign to campaign, it changed unpredictably. I accept any criticism and options, and yet I would venture to suggest the composition of the ship's air group in the following composition: 14 pieces of Su-33; 16 pieces of MiG-29K; 2 pieces of Ka-31 AWACS helicopters; 2 Ka-27PS helicopters; 6 Ka-27PL helicopters.

To create intrigue, dashingly twist the plot! The command of the US Navy in the Atlantic learns about the overcoming of the Faro-Icelandic border by a group of ships of the Northern Fleet of the Russian Federation from the morning messages marked "lightning" from the Western media ... The search for the KUG (after all, Kuznetsov is a heavy aircraft carrier, but a cruiser) basic patrol aircraft and ships and submarines at sea. Following a course to the southwest at a cruising speed of 18 knots, the order of ships fulfills the tasks of anti-submarine defense and conducts reconnaissance of the surface and air situation in order to timely detect enemy forces. In the air, the Su-33 is used as a reconnaissance aircraft with a universal reconnaissance container - radio-technical (UKR-RT), which took off from the third launch position with the maximum possible supply of fuel, and the Ka-27PL is in operation as planned. On the deck of the cruiser are two MiG-29Ks at the 1st and 2nd launch positions in readiness for takeoff to carry out the task of air interception, a search and rescue helicopter and the next Su-33 and Ka-27PL, ready to change the air patrol. The remaining 33 aircraft are located in the under-deck hangar. If we take the duration of the patrols of the Su-33 and Ka-27PL at three hours, then even with a round-the-clock organization of flights in this composition, their number will be equal to 16 sorties per day - not the most intense mode.

For reasons beyond its control, our aircraft-carrying cruiser successfully avoided real tests for the maximum number of sorties. The authors of the articles raising this topic, with manic persistence, make attempts to calculate the strike capabilities of the TAVKR, naturally, taking the maximum number of MiG-29K aircraft into its wing and reaching the number of 48 sorties per day, respectively, when striking the maximum range in groups of 12 aircraft and up to 52 sorties during strikes in groups of 4-6 aircraft. And we will be guided by these calculations.

So, sooner or later one of the Poseidon patrols will stumble upon an order of Russian ships in the Atlantic, and will be notified about the composition, course and coordinates. Having received such information, what will the American admirals, warmed up by criticism of the Democratic and Republican mass media, act under the watchful eye of the White House administration? That's right: inadequate! This is not an RTO entered the Eastern Mediterranean, it is a "Russian bear" breaking into the backyard of an American ranch! And for escort and observation will be sent not a single supernumerary "Arlie Burke" and not a stupid "Zamvolt", but a full-fledged aircraft carrier strike group, raised by alarm, with the task of showing the impudent who is the boss in the house. Acting on the intelligence of the patrol aircraft, the American AUG will reach the rendezvous point with our KUG and a cacophony of mutual play on the nerves will begin. Our carrier-based air group will be able to work out the possibility of real intercepting an American AWACS aircraft, the possibility of echeloning long-range air defense orders with heavy and light fighters, the prospects of striking the AUG both with long-range anti-ship missiles from ships and various strike groups of aircraft. Finally, a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser and its crew will have to work hard on the brink of the technical capabilities of the ship and the morale of the crew.

The scenario of a meeting at sea of ​​two friendly squadrons is preferable for us, but unrealistic, but playing on the nerves on the verge of a foul on both sides is fatally predictable and advantageous for the American side for a clear advantage in order to demonstrate both obvious opponents and doubting allies of its superiority and power ... And here it will be very important whose carrier-based aircraft will be the first to fly over the warrant or the deck of an enemy aircraft carrier, as if practicing the task of delivering a preemptive strike at the maximum range and the possibility of breaking through the air defense system. Having practically a threefold advantage in the number of carrier-based aircraft and the ability to provide up to 160 sorties per day against our theoretical about 50, probably it will not be the overarching task to achieve the so-called air superiority of American carrier-based aircraft. And yet: are there any options to avoid the shame of defeat, albeit conditional?

The first and simplest thing that comes to mind is to try to use your speed advantage to break away from your opponent, or at least keep him at a relatively safe distance from you. No one doubts that the American AUG as part of a nuclear aircraft carrier and escort ships such as Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke is "flying off". The compound is capable of ocean crossings at a cruising speed of 20 knots and, if necessary, a maximum speed of 30 knots. It is worth recalling that the distance from Murmansk to Havana is at least 4600 nautical miles, and there is no doubt that the nuclear missile cruiser, which has undergone modernization, will confidently cope with the task of switching at a cruising speed of 18 knots and, if necessary, can exceed the speed of 30 nodes on a significant time interval. And weather conditions are unlikely to be able to significantly affect the change in these parameters downward. But what about a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser with a boiler-turbine power plant? The tactical and technical characteristics of the ship confirm the possibility of reaching a maximum speed of 29 knots, and even flying 3800 miles on it! As they say, if youth knew, if old age could! Probably, this was not true in our century and with a tailwind and not a counter current (remember that the Gulf Stream flows from the southwest to the northeast). Probably, the success of the modernization of the ship will have to be considered the achievement of a long combat economic speed of 18 knots with the ability to accelerate to 26 knots during the takeoff and landing operations of the ship's air group. Unfortunately, this is not yet the weakest link in our hypothetical order of ships. Large anti-submarine ships, they are also destroyers according to NATO classification, they are future frigates of the far sea zone and ships of the first rank in their own navy. Correcting for age, we take characteristics from open sources of their distant youth: the maximum speed of 30 knots with a cruising range (miles) / at a speed (knots) - 6300/14 and 3500/18. Simply put, at 18 knots, they will not be able to reach from Murmansk to Havana without refueling, all the more so making jerks with a 30-knot speed on a par with cruisers. With regret, it must be admitted that such a group of four Soviet-built ships on three different types of engines will not be able to either break away from the US AUG, nor fully resist it in the air. An attempt to strike a coordinated strike simultaneously with the use of anti-ship missiles from a nuclear-powered missile cruiser and a group of carrier-based fighters may look like a gesture of despair. But even during the exercises of our fleet, such a scenario of events was not worked out and it is unlikely that its improvisation with a real enemy will be successful.

We will not exaggerate further, delving into a comparison of the performance characteristics of the latest American F-35 and relatively fresh "Super Hornets" with deck products of the Soviet aviation industry. Without sprinkling ashes on our heads, but in all honesty, we recognize as an indisputable fact that in the confrontation with the most probable enemy in the Atlantic and in the Arctic seas accessible for navigation, our KUG led by the TAVKR has practically no real chances to compete on equal terms with the American AUG. Yes, in peacetime the proposed campaign is realistically feasible, yes, there are not only invincible Americans in the sea, but also arrogant British with "Elizabeth", and cocky French with "De Gaulle". It's just that over the past decades the world has changed, the enemy has changed, the circumstances have changed, and, given the whole range of problems and challenges, the purpose of the ship must be changed.

We need an air defense aircraft carrier! And if for the Northern Fleet it is still possible to use the modernized TAVKR "Kuznetsov", then for the vastness of the Far East and the Pacific Fleet it becomes necessary. Multipurpose aircraft carriers of the USA, Chinese clones of the Soviet Varyag, aircraft-carrying “destroyers” of Japan and even South Korea plans to acquire a light aircraft carrier ... It is difficult to refute the argument that such an expensive pleasure as an aircraft carrier can be justified where and when, for whatever reason a country cannot obtain or build a full-fledged airfield to protect its interests. The Pacific Fleet's landing operation or the defense of the island territories of our country will be impossible without gaining air supremacy at least temporarily. In addition, the aircraft carrier is quite flexible. weapon and a universal tool depending on whether we are going to use it in hostilities or for political purposes. We still remember American aircraft carriers in the strike, anti-submarine or multi-purpose configuration of the carrier-based air group.

Anticipating the question of amphibious operations, I will answer: the return of Russia to its natural historical borders in the face of an increasingly tough confrontation with a weakening world hegemon would require the return of St. Lawrence Island (150 km from Chukotka), St. Matthew Island, the western group of the Aleutian Islands (west of the Amchitka Strait , one and a half thousand kilometers from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), but even the same Guam! The anti-submarine version can greatly complicate the service of enemy submarines in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and on the approaches to it. But all these "Wishlist" means, first of all, ensuring air supremacy. Even in the anti-submarine version of an aircraft carrier, the order of ships should have both aerial reconnaissance and air patrol of aircraft in the air defense version, and, if necessary, a "long arm" in the strike version of fighters.

The long-term development trend of the US Navy does not provide for the conquest of dominance at sea by collision of ship groups with the priority use of ship-based anti-ship missiles, and even more so artillery duels. The emphasis is placed on massive strikes by carrier-based aircraft using massive anti-ship missiles, in order to overload the enemy's air defense capabilities. And in the context of the unprecedented growth of the PLA navy's naval composition, it is planned to involve the planes of the US Air Force Strategic Aviation Command in carrying out such air strikes. One way or another, the main threat to our fleet and coastal infrastructure will come from the air - anti-ship missiles and long-range cruise missiles, carrier-based fighter-bombers and strategic bombers with all possible arsenal of air attack weapons, this is basic anti-submarine aviation. Just as the mobility and maneuverability of the land air defense system is the key to the stability of the grouping of forces in the theater of operations, so the presence of a sufficiently strong air group of heavy air defense fighters on board an aircraft carrier will be the key to the successful conduct of any operation at sea with its participation. The presence in the naval strike group of a cruiser with one long-range air defense missile system (project 1164 "Atlanta") or with two (project 1144 "Orlany") can ensure the defeat of aerodynamic air targets at a distance of up to 200 kilometers, at the same time, the outdated Su -33 in the version of weapons for air combat is capable of patrolling for two hours at a distance of 250 kilometers. Moreover, we will take into account the advantage of not only increasing the radius of destruction, but also the ability to destroy potential carriers of anti-ship missiles before they are launched at the target, as well as the possibility of detecting and engaging anti-ship missiles flying at low altitude even before they appear in the detection zones of shipborne radars.

So what should a Russian aircraft carrier be like? ..
Author:
Photos used:
www.defenseimagery.mil, commons.wikimedia.org
123 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Naz
    Naz 6 October 2020 10: 23
    -3
    Anyone, the main thing is to be.
    1. Hunter 2
      Hunter 2 6 October 2020 10: 34
      +4
      Anyone - Definitely not necessary! There are smart heads in the Navy. It is necessary - high-quality, able to fit into the Navy, and complete tasks. Tasks can be different!
      1. Naz
        Naz 6 October 2020 11: 23
        +3
        I'm figuratively.
      2. novel66
        novel66 6 October 2020 11: 59
        14
        non-catapult and without a full-fledged AWACS aircraft, the fuck is not needed, the smokers laugh. Lesha, hello hi
        1. Hunter 2
          Hunter 2 6 October 2020 12: 52
          +1
          Salute Romych soldier I totally agree with you! You also forgot about the full-fledged divisions of the Marines! bully
          1. novel66
            novel66 6 October 2020 13: 27
            +2
            and delivery vehicles
        2. Fizik M
          Fizik M 6 October 2020 12: 56
          0
          Quote: novel xnumx
          non-catapult and without a full-fledged AWACS aircraft, the fuck is not needed, the smokes laugh

          a very good radar could be installed on the Su-33KUB, with significant AWACS capabilities
          but, alas, this plane was "strangled"
      3. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 6 October 2020 13: 15
        +1
        Quote: Hunter 2
        Tasks can be different!

        But how bae we must start with this.
        WHAT FOR.
      4. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 6 October 2020 13: 18
        +4
        The topic raised in the article is at least very premature. First, in the near foreseeable future, Russia does not plan and, indeed, will not be able to build an aircraft carrier due to the lack of competencies. All TAVKRs were built in Nikolaev, repair and alteration of "Gorshkov" is a good example. Secondly, the air group,
        for a new aircraft carrier, there are no planes or pilots. And in the distant future, the situation may change dramatically, and then it will be necessary to raise this issue.
      5. Doccor18
        Doccor18 6 October 2020 14: 44
        +3
        There are smart heads in the Navy ...

        Were, are and will be! Only these heads are not allowed to work normally and do what they need to do. Every "master" thinks that he is smarter than a designer ...
        ... firstly, there is no need to build analogues of the American-type multipurpose nuclear aircraft carriers "Nimitz" or "Ford" with catapults ...

        The article is a question, but the opinion of the author is not clear. Why is there no need for a Ford analogue?
        We need a naval air group: 48 heavy fighters, 4 AWACS aircraft, 4 electronic warfare aircraft and 4 search and rescue helicopters, for a total of 60 HP. In addition, the ship should have a nuclear power plant, 4 catapults, 4 aircraft lifts, decent seaworthiness and autonomy, a large enough crew to not only keep up with the combat service of the aircraft carrier in the limit mode, but also to repair aircraft. What displacement can you put all this in? At 50 kt? Will not enter. What kind of ship will you get? Just something like "Nimitz-Ford" will come out. It is also possible, for the sake of completeness, to add anti-submarine aircraft, tanker aircraft and transport workers, but I consider this to be an overkill.
        And Russia needs at least 6 such ships, 3 each for KSF and KTOF. How much will this program cost? Lots of! But it will also solve a great many questions in the country's defense, a kind of 40 years ahead ...
        1. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 6 October 2020 18: 51
          +1
          Quote: Doccor18
          And Russia needs at least 6 such ships, 3 each for KSF and KTOF.

          We have no bases for these ships, we have no room even for one Kuznetsov
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 7 October 2020 17: 28
            0
            Quote: ZEMCH
            We have no bases for these ships, we have no room even for one Kuznetsov

            Come on, on the Northern Fleet the whole trinity will be stationed on the SRZ-35 - like Kuznetsov before. All the same, the plant will have no time to repair other ships: one AV finished repairs, the other immediately stood up - and so on in a circle. smile
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 7 October 2020 17: 29
          +2
          Quote: Doccor18
          What displacement can you put all this in? At 50 kt? Will not enter. What kind of ship will you get? Just something like "Nimitz-Ford" will come out.

          The unforgettable project 1160 will be released - only without the SLCM launcher between the bow catapults. smile
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 8 October 2020 07: 37
            0
            The unforgettable project 1160 will be released - only without the SLCM launcher between the bow catapults. 

            Exactly hi
        3. hydrox
          hydrox 7 October 2020 21: 20
          -2
          Quote: Doccor18
          Why you don't need a Ford analog

          Despite all possible US competencies in the construction of aircraft carriers, Ford took 12 years to build, and we will never pull the construction of a piece of iron worth $ 18 billion (this is without aircraft filling!) Despite the fact that social holes in our budget only multiply and multiply ...
          Again, out of 3 years of being in the fleet, the ship spent 80% of the time in repairs and alterations, but do we need this? But we can't build a better one yet ...
  2. Airdefense
    Airdefense 6 October 2020 10: 24
    +7
    My opinion is certainly not popular, but now Russia has no time for aircraft carriers. Economically, this is an expensive weapon, at least two aircraft carriers are needed, since a situation is always possible when one is under repair, ideally at least 4, two in TOF, two in BF.
    1. Hunter 2
      Hunter 2 6 October 2020 10: 28
      +6
      Quote: Airdefense
      My opinion is certainly not popular, but now Russia has no time for aircraft carriers. Economically, this is an expensive weapon, at least two aircraft carriers are needed, since a situation is always possible when one is under repair, ideally at least 4, two in TOF, two in BF.

      I'm embarrassed to ask, how do you plan to deploy two aircraft carriers in the Baltic? belay and what will they do there? There is Kaliningrad - there is an unsinkable aircraft carrier!
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 6 October 2020 11: 15
        +3
        Quote: Hunter 2
        There is Kaliningrad - there is an unsinkable aircraft carrier!

        He will not enter Kaliningrad, only Baltiysk, viewed from all sides.
      2. Fizik M
        Fizik M 6 October 2020 11: 51
        +2
        Quote: Hunter 2
        There is Kaliningrad - there is an unsinkable aircraft carrier!

        nothing that he is shot by long-range art (MLRS)?
        1. Hunter 2
          Hunter 2 6 October 2020 13: 01
          -1
          Is it okay that the adversaries are also shot up and down? Not so long ago there was news about the placement in Kaliningrad of Arta (not children's calibers). Also, if suddenly, there are Iskanders there, but there are a lot of things. I love - Kaliningrad! And I love the surroundings too, Rauschen is a former - I just adore. hi
          1. Fizik M
            Fizik M 6 October 2020 13: 18
            0
            Quote: Hunter 2
            Is it okay that the adversaries are also shot up and down? Not so long ago there was news about the placement of Arta in Kaliningrad

            Are Polish naval bases under fire with our art?
            or are you talking about "Tornado"?
            but we are not going to be the first to attack Poland
            Unlike"
            Quote: Hunter 2
            Even if suddenly, there are Iskanders too

            total rocket salvo of Poles, count
      3. Fizik M
        Fizik M 6 October 2020 11: 52
        -2
        Quote: Hunter 2
        I'm embarrassed to ask, how do you plan to deploy two aircraft carriers in the Baltic?

        no need to place, its place is in the north
        Quote: Hunter 2
        and what will they do there?

        for example, ensuring the escort to Kaliningrad
      4. novel66
        novel66 6 October 2020 12: 00
        +5
        how do you plan to deploy two aircraft carriers in the Baltic?

        I suggest - across! lol block all opportunities for adversaries lol
        1. Fizik M
          Fizik M 6 October 2020 12: 28
          -1
          Quote: novel xnumx
          I suggest - across! block all opportunities for adversaries

          after the Suwalki corridor is blocked by the US division, we are not at all laughing ...
          1. novel66
            novel66 6 October 2020 12: 32
            0
            why not our division?
            1. Fizik M
              Fizik M 6 October 2020 12: 55
              0
              Quote: novel xnumx
              why not our division?

              see map
    2. Fizik M
      Fizik M 6 October 2020 12: 03
      -1
      Quote: Airdefense
      Economically, this is an expensive weapon, at least two aircraft carriers are needed, since a situation is always possible when one is under repair, ideally at least 4, two in the TOF, two in the Baltic Fleet.

      the issue of redistributing the costs of the Navy
      now all this is "HEATED" into submarine
      which in a real war will be drowned like kittens
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 6 October 2020 13: 02
        +1
        Well, there is nothing to cover it with !!! And the people do not understand that the same KUG in the DMZ distracts a bunch of enemy forces
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 6 October 2020 13: 02
      -5
      Quote: Airdefense
      My opinion is certainly not popular, but now Russia has no time for aircraft carriers.

      This is an adequate opinion, and whether it is popular or not, depends on how much a person is in the subject.
      Quote: Airdefense
      ... Economically, this is an expensive weapon

      And not only the weapon itself, but also the infrastructure to support it also costs a pretty penny.
      Quote: Airdefense
      at least two aircraft carriers are needed,

      Here I disagree - we do not need aircraft carriers at all, even air defense, because we now have developed weapons systems against the massive launch of sea-based cruise missiles by the Americans. Our various air defense systems, in my opinion, are quite enough to cover the main centers of the country against the Kyrgyz Republic, and we definitely will not be able to deploy an anti-missile defense and air defense system on naval ships.
      Quote: Airdefense
      ideally at least 4, two in TOF, two in BF.

      Ideally, we should rely only on our strategic nuclear forces, including the troops of the Strategic Missile Forces and our SSBNs, and everything else is just annex to them. In my opinion, the two helicopter carriers being laid down are most suitable for replacing aircraft carriers if we continue to participate in the affairs of other countries according to the Syrian scenario.
      1. Fizik M
        Fizik M 6 October 2020 13: 15
        -4
        Quote: ccsr
        This is an adequate opinion

        o inadequate ensign Zadova "drew" lol
        Quote: ccsr
        because we now have developed weapons systems against the mass launch of sea-based cruise missiles by the Americans

        fool
        "Sing the bird, do not be ashamed" - with FACTS and ARGUMENTS
        otherwise you're all "in the bushes" lol
        Quote: ccsr
        Ideally, we should rely only on our strategic nuclear forces, including the troops of the Strategic Missile Forces and our SSBNs

        fool
        Well, explain to Zadov, how are you going to fight with Japan in this case?
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 6 October 2020 13: 23
          -5
          Quote: Fizik M
          Well, explain to Zadov, how are you going to fight with Japan in this case?

          Prospis verbiage - we will not fight with Japan, we will fight with the United States, because they have a military alliance, and therefore there are American nuclear weapons on Japanese territory (or at least periodically appear there). And our carrier groups will not do anything against the United States - everything will happen faster. However, go play in your sandbox, build aircraft carriers from the sand - it will cost the country cheaper.
          Quote: Fizik M
          "Sing the bird, do not be ashamed" - with FACTS and ARGUMENTS
          otherwise you're all "in the bushes"

          Open your eyes, smart guy, and learn at least something from modern weapons as an educational program:
          10 Russian air defense systems: air defense systems and air defense systems

          https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/256772-10-rossiyskikh-sredstv-pvo-zrk-i-zrs/
          1. Fizik M
            Fizik M 6 October 2020 13: 42
            -4
            Quote: ccsr
            we will not fight with Japan,

            yeah, "let's merge right away"
            Quote: ccsr
            we will fight with the USA, because they have a military alliance

            Zadova, from what hangover did you decide that during the landing on the Kuril Islands, the United States would openly participate in military actions on the side of Japan?
            Quote: ccsr
            And our carrier groups will not do anything against the United States - everything will happen faster.

            did you suck your "dirty finger"? oh, yes, for "ensign Zadova" on the secret map "all US ships and targets are drawn" - this is "strategic (!!!) development" wassat
            Quote: ccsr
            10 Russian air defense systems: air defense systems and air defense systems

            Zadova, did you study geography at school or did you skip it?
            see
      2. Doccor18
        Doccor18 6 October 2020 15: 08
        0
        Quote: Airdefense

        ... Economically, this is an expensive weapon


        And not only the weapon itself, but also the infrastructure to support it also costs a pretty penny.

        Well, yes, the army costs money. It is easier, of course, to put in banks, to help the unfortunate oligarchs ...
        ... we now have advanced weapons systems against the massive launch of American sea-based cruise missiles. In my opinion, our various air defense systems are quite enough ..

        How much air defense system is needed to intercept 1000-2000 kr.? Even the capital cannot be covered by such an armada, not to mention other cities.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 6 October 2020 19: 32
          -6
          Quote: Doccor18
          Well, yes, the army costs money.

          Naturally, it’s good for some not to forget why we lost the USSR, where the inconceivable costs of the fleet played an important role. Do you want to let Russia go around the world by building aircraft carriers?
          Quote: Doccor18
          How much air defense system is needed to intercept 1000-2000 kr.?

          As far as I remember, after the first war, the latest air defense systems were deployed in the Gulf, which completely covered the capital from all the American CDs. And then, the flight time of ship-borne missile launchers over our territory was such that our fighter aircraft managed to hit them.
          But you do not seem to be able to grasp a simple idea - while these missiles were flying to Moscow, only ruins would remain of the United States. This is what the Americans knew better than you, and therefore they have long understood that the CD is not a first strike weapon, but only an unmasking sign of preparation for war.
          Yeah, with Turkey or Japan, God forbid, also SSBNs and Yars ...?

          In fact, these are allies of the United States, which means they must be destroyed in the same way as other American bases on their territory - by the way, we never concealed this even during the Brezhnev era.
          A helicopter carrier, without air cover or, at worst, a deeply echeloned shipboard pro can only one thing - to die heroically on foreign shores ...

          An aircraft carrier will die heroically without missile defense in the same way - what then is its advantage?
          By the way, who told you that it would occur to someone to attack the warships of the atomic superpower, which is Russia? Do you think there are many suicides in the world?
          1. Fizik M
            Fizik M 7 October 2020 09: 42
            +2
            Quote: ccsr
            Naturally, it's good for some people not to forget why we lost the USSR, where the inconceivable costs of the fleet played an important role

            On the scale of the RF Armed Forces, the cost of the Navy did not exceed 20-25%.
            At the same time, there were granidose cuts of large "rats" of the OPK and VS - such as the BRZK "Ural", etc. delirium of "strategic intelligence".
            Quote: ccsr
            Do you want to let Russia go around the world by building aircraft carriers?

            fool
            Zadova, does the word “blaze” your aircraft carrier?
            It is surprising that YOU "hid the language in the appropriate place" due to the inadequate costs of our submarine.
            Quote: ccsr
            As far as I remember, after the first war, the latest air defense systems were deployed in the Gulf, which completely covered the capital from all the American CDs.

            fool
            Zadova, did you teach arithmetic in YOUR TsPSh? Can you count on your fingers the number of enemy missiles and the number of missiles on combat-ready launchers?
            Quote: ccsr
            And then, the flight time of ship-borne missile launchers over our territory was such that our fighter aircraft managed to hit them.

            YOU have forgotten about the extremely insufficient number of AWACS aircraft.
            About the "effectiveness" (firing position) of the UR type R-27 and R-60M on the KR, see acc. diagrams in declassified and published textbooks and guides.
            Quote: ccsr
            But you do not seem to be able to grasp a simple idea - while these missiles were flying to Moscow, only ruins would remain of the United States. This is what the Americans knew better than you, and therefore they have long understood that the CD is not a first strike weapon, but only an unmasking sign of preparation for war.

            fool
            The CD for the United States is primarily an OPERATIVE CONVENTIONAL weapon.
            About what we immediately "drooling", and in the end - many years later still got the same thing.
            Quote: ccsr
            In fact, these are allies of the United States, which means they must be destroyed in the same way as other American bases on their territory - by the way, we never concealed this even during the Brezhnev era.

            fool
            These "brain analyzes" are simply to PSYCHITERS.
            For otherwise it is impossible to evaluate the "proposals" on the use of nuclear weapons in an obviously CONVENTIONAL conflict.
            Quote: ccsr
            By the way, who told you that it would occur to someone to attack the warships of the atomic superpower, which is Russia? Do you think there are many suicides in the world?

            fool
            FACE ABOUT TABLE:
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 7 October 2020 11: 43
              -2
              Quote: Fizik M
              On the scale of the RF Armed Forces, the cost of the Navy did not exceed 20-25%.

              You're lying, because in the USSR this percentage was higher, and now even more so. And remember, dilettante - the most economical type of armed forces is the Strategic Missile Forces, but the "flared" ones will never admit this.

              Quote: Fizik M
              At the same time, there were granidose cuts of large "rats" of the OPK and VS - such as the BRZK "Ural", etc. delirium of "strategic intelligence".

              "Ural" cost several times cheaper than any cruiser - teach materiel, verbiage. But the benefits from it, even now, were several times greater than from any cruiser, if the naval did not destroy it.

              Quote: Fizik M
              YOU have forgotten about the extremely insufficient number of AWACS aircraft.

              I do not know where such amateurs were trained for the fleet, but a massive launch of cruise missiles was opened in a few tens of seconds, and they did without any AWACS. And then it was just necessary to make a decision for all the armed forces, including the air defense and air force.

              Quote: Fizik M
              The CD for the United States is primarily an OPERATIVE CONVENTIONAL weapon.

              Only a real jacket can carry nonsense about "OPERATIVE CONVENTIONAL weapon". Now I realized that you are from the Novorossiysk sailor and sewed military shoulder straps to the tunic of the civilian fleet. Burn on "the great theorist". And remember the layman, the CD, depending on the charge, cannot be considered an operational weapon for most countries of the world, by definition, because they can destroy most states.
              Quote: Fizik M
              For otherwise it is impossible to evaluate the "proposals" on the use of nuclear weapons in an obviously CONVENTIONAL conflict.

              I have heard a lot of nonsense from the naval, but such a unique person is rarely even among them - that's really a complete layman in military affairs, since he started talking nonsense how the Americans or we will use nuclear weapons, in case of a real threat of war.
              Quote: Fizik M
              FACE ABOUT TABLE:

              This is an attack by stateless terrorists, not by the armed forces of another country. By the way, smart guy, tell me whether the radar stations were working on the American ship or not at that moment, and how the radio silence mode helped this ship, since you were screaming something about this mode in the Black Sea.
              1. Fizik M
                Fizik M 7 October 2020 13: 36
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                the most economical type of armed forces is the Strategic Missile Forces

                which the:
                a) not applicable in a conventional conflict
                b) carried out (by more than 90%) by a sudden disarming NUCLEAR strike
                Quote: ccsr
                "Ural" cost several times cheaper than any cruiser - learn materiel

                Ensign Zadova, YOU don’t twist your "sirloin", and don’t lie - the numbers are on the table! - they are already "open" according to YOUR application
                Quote: ccsr
                but a massive launch of cruise missiles was opened after a few tens of seconds, and without any AWACS they managed.

                of course
                "awl" (alcohol) and stew were treated lol
                when the ensign of the rear to officers shredded a ray laughing
                Quote: ccsr
                that's really a complete layman in military affairs

                fool
                this nonsense - "in a jar" and to psychiatrists lol
                Quote: ccsr
                This is an attack by stateless terrorists

                there was no problem with the definition of "citizenship" of the PKR

                Quote: ccsr
                By the way, smart guy, tell me

                no, Zadova, tell it YOU
                the other day YOU were asked questions, and YOU run away from answering them as "lousy from the bath"
                laughing
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 7 October 2020 19: 17
                  -2
                  Quote: Fizik M
                  b) carried out (by more than 90%) by a sudden disarming NUCLEAR strike

                  This is how such a "sudden disarming NUCLEAR strike" can be carried out - tell us about your erotic fantasies in more detail ...
                  Quote: Fizik M
                  which the:
                  a) not applicable in a conventional conflict

                  What other "conventional conflict" can we have with the Americans or the Chinese - tell us the kobzar, plucking his strings of the Ukrainian soul - you are from the former citizens of Ukraine, as I understand it.
                  Quote: Fizik M
                  there was no problem with the definition of "citizenship" of the PKR

                  You cleverly changed the photos like a thimble - the first one was with a hole not from the CD, but from the actions of terrorists:
                  The success of the terrorists was brought about by the carelessness of the naval command, which did not orient the sailors to the constant expectation of such an attack. Although the motorboat approached the Cole very close, hiding behind a garbage barge, the experts stated that with proper organization of monitoring the sea, the terrorist attack would have been thwarted. However, an attack on the destroyer was not considered likely. In addition, Aden had a reputation for being a safe port.

                  This is your whole point, verbiage - to dodge without blushing when caught by the hand.
                  1. Fizik M
                    Fizik M 7 November 2020 19: 30
                    0
                    Quote: ccsr
                    This is how such a "sudden disarming NUCLEAR strike" can be carried out - tell us about your erotic fantasies in more detail ...

                    1.erotic dreams (with elements of insanity), you have a grandfather
                    2. see statements of the heap of. persons, and these are precisely the facts
                    3. "For me personally" I figured out the parameters of such a strike (especially since the Strategic Missile Forces division is "close at hand"), I will refrain from publicity
                    Quote: ccsr
                    What other "conventional conflict" can we have with the Americans or the Chinese - tell us the kobzar, plucking his strings of the Ukrainian soul - you are from the former citizens of Ukraine, as I understand it.

                    1.no, I'm not with 404 (and YOU are probably with kashchenko)
                    2.the one that Ogarkov and Gorshkov spoke about (and many others)
                    Quote: ccsr
                    You cleverly changed the photos like a thimble - the first one was with a hole not from the CD, but from the actions of terrorists:

                    if YOU have problems with the CEREBREL, get treatment
                    in my post everything was clear and clearly written
                    Quote: ccsr
                    when caught by the hand.

                    Monsieur, YOU have WET facts
                    in fact - for nonsense, they did not just catch YOU, but they caught you many times
          2. ZAV69
            ZAV69 8 October 2020 13: 03
            0
            Quote: ccsr
            By the way, who told you that it would occur to someone to attack the warships of the atomic superpower, which is Russia? Do you think there are many suicides in the world?

            Sisyan to the Kremlin in a white Mercedes and attack your health
      3. Doccor18
        Doccor18 6 October 2020 15: 11
        -1
        Ideally, we should rely only on our strategic nuclear forces, including the troops of the Strategic Missile Forces and our SSBNs, and everything else is just an appendix to them. By

        Yeah, with Turkey or Japan, God forbid, also SSBNs and Yars ...?
      4. Doccor18
        Doccor18 6 October 2020 15: 15
        0
        In my opinion, the two helicopter carriers being laid down are most suitable for replacing aircraft carriers if we continue to participate in the affairs of other countries according to the Syrian scenario.

        A helicopter carrier, without air cover or, at worst, a deeply echeloned shipboard pro can only one thing - to die heroically on foreign shores ...
  3. Selevc
    Selevc 6 October 2020 10: 32
    +3
    While here they have been arguing for years - to be or not to be a Russian aircraft carrier and what it will be GDP has already made its choice long ago !!! Projects for the creation of new generations of missile weapons are widely financed - because these projects are thousands of times cheaper than building an aircraft carrier !!!
    And even with ships of the helicopter carrier class Russia has problems - while this whole political adventure with the Mistrals was unfolding - Japan quietly and quickly built its full-fledged analogue of a helicopter carrier !!! Because Japan's shipbuilding infrastructure is much more developed than that of the Russian Federation.
    Therefore, when we talk about Russian aircraft or helicopter carriers, we must always add the prefix - someday, maybe !!!

    And in general, is it necessary to build these huge ships for a country that is clearly lagging behind in the worldwide UAV race ???
    1. KCA
      KCA 6 October 2020 11: 00
      0
      Russia is not lagging behind in the world UAV race, in some matters even overtakes, the S-70 made an autonomous take-off, overflight and landing, flew under control from the SU-57, and the fact that they do not build thousands of shock UAVs, so I ask - why? Is Russia waging a war with someone? Barmaley in Syria do not count, they have enough cast iron from the SU-34 and SU-25 for the tonsils, dozens of different UAVs and reconnaissance and shock ones are reportedly tested, ammunition for them is also the same, if there is still an opportunity to choose the best, improve the best, why not?
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 6 October 2020 11: 04
        -1
        Quote: KCA
        S-70 ... flew under control of the SU-57

        It is correct to write this - the Su-57 flew next to the S-70.
        Everything else is from the crafty TV.
        1. KCA
          KCA 6 October 2020 11: 11
          -1
          You also write about the cartoons of Putin, it will also be in the subject, and also that in 1988 a dwarf sat in the Buran and pressed pedals, according to signals from the MCC
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 6 October 2020 11: 14
            0
            Quote: KCA
            You still write about the cartoons of Putin ...

            Better you write where you picked up nonsense
            about the S-70 flights under the control of the Su-57.
            And if there is nothing to say on the topic, then nothing is needed
            write, all military-patriotic slogans I already
            learned.
            1. KCA
              KCA 6 October 2020 11: 26
              -6
              And where did you pick up the nonsense that there was no such flight? Did you personally fly the S-70 during a joint flight with the SU-57?
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 6 October 2020 11: 34
                0
                Quote: KCA
                there was no such flight?

                Sorry, I am not ready to communicate in such a way.
                This concludes.
        2. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 6 October 2020 12: 56
          0
          Quote: Bez 310
          Everything else is from the crafty TV.

          There are plenty of such enchanting uryaklov here. After the phrase “Russia is not lagging behind in the worldwide UAV race, in some issues even overtakes” there is nothing to say.
          The United States used massively shock drones in World War II, all our developments are at the level of 2-20 years ago.
          1. vVvAD
            vVvAD 6 October 2020 17: 32
            +1
            Well, well, let's not.
            There is a fact in the current backlog, but in the US shock drones in World War II ...
            how can I tell you: the 3rd Reich had shells and was developed in the USSR right after the war, and there was even a short period at the dawn of the UAV era (and not shells and missiles), when we were ahead of the United States in UAVs.
            And about the 20-30 year level, you also made a blunder - we are making up both in quantity and quality. While quality is being tested and communicated, it is unreasonable to talk about its quantity.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 6 October 2020 18: 25
              +1
              Quote: vVvAD
              There is a fact in the current lag, but in US shock drones in World War II ... how do you say: the third Reich had projectile aircraft, and were developed in the USSR immediately after the war

              That's exactly what was being developed. In the USA, Fletcher BG-1 and BG-2 purchased 500 pieces. Interstate TDR is a full-fledged drone, not a projectile aircraft, 195 pieces were fired.
              Quote: vVvAD
              And about the 20-30 year level, you also made a blunder

              MQ-1 first flight 1994, Orion first flight 2016. Difference 22 years
              MQ-1 accepted into service 1995, Orion 2020. The difference is 25 years
              X-45 first flight in 2002, C-70 in 2019. The difference is 17 years, okay I made a mistake here, I admit.
              1. ZEMCH
                ZEMCH 6 October 2020 19: 10
                +2
                Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                MQ-1 first flight 1994, Orion first flight 2016. Difference 22 years
                MQ-1 accepted into service 1995, Orion 2020. The difference is 25 years
                X-45 first flight in 2002, C-70 in 2019. The difference is 17 years, okay I made a mistake here, I admit.

                Tu-300 first flight 1991
                Tu-243 first flight in 1970
                Tu-143 "Flight" first flight in 1970
                Tu-141 first flight in 1974
                And these are only serial ones that were actually operated. There was also Tu 123, but with the advent of the MiG-25R it lost its relevance
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 6 October 2020 19: 35
                  -2
                  The USSR is another country, in that country the lag behind the United States in this area was less, 15-20 years.
                  Ryan Firebee series first flight 1951. It had a shock modification with V-V missiles, bombs and ATGM.
                  During the Vietnam War, over 1000 Firebees flew 3435 combat missions.
              2. vVvAD
                vVvAD 6 October 2020 19: 36
                +2
                Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                S-70 2019. The difference is 17 years, well, I made a mistake here, I admit.

                More blundered, more. The X-45 was originally conceived and implemented as a demonstrator, not a serial product, unlike the Hunter. X-47 is a tanker. The USA is only developing a jet attack UAV on the Skyborg theme (and whatnot), but the point is that they, like us, there are no such serial products.
                Don't forget about RQ-4 Global Hawk and Helios and MQ-9 Reaper and Altius lol, but keep in mind that the United States does not yet have an attack UAV with Altius range.
                All this says only one thing: we are developing UAVs of all categories and target purposes, except perhaps for the refueling tanker, which we do not need now. And with the entry of these machines into operation, all these 20-30 years of lag will turn into parity.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 6 October 2020 19: 45
                  -1
                  Quote: vVvAD
                  not a serial product - unlike the Hunter

                  And when did he enter the series? The model that flew did not have compartments for weapons, do not be ridiculous. The same demonstrator as the X-45.
                  Quote: vVvAD
                  RQ-4 Global Hawk and Helios

                  Helios mock that did not fly
                  Quote: vVvAD
                  MQ-9 Reaper and Altius

                  Altius first flight 2019, Reaper 2001. Reaper 13 years in service, Altius on trials.

                  Okay, okay, Russia has a lag of 17-25 years, they persuaded.
                  1. vVvAD
                    vVvAD 8 October 2020 08: 52
                    -1
                    You cling to words - not good. And you understand what I am talking about:
                    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                    Quote: vVvAD
                    not a serial product - unlike the Hunter

                    And when did he enter the series? The model that flew did not have compartments for weapons, do not be ridiculous. The same demonstrator as the X-45.

                    Okay, I chew so that they don't get caught on anything: the X-45 was originally conceived and implemented as a demonstrator. The hunter is designed with weapons bays - what kind of demonstrator is this? Will be released into the series - there will be no heap of unmasking sensors, they will apply a radio-absorbing coating - the geometry seems to be hinting.
                    Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                    Helios mock that did not fly

                    That's right, but the point is in the awareness of the need for such a machine. If there is a model, it means that the research work on the topic has most likely already been carried out.
                    Quote: quote = OgnennyiKotik
                    Altius first flight 2019, Reaper 2001. Reaper 13 years in service, Altius on trials.

                    Do not forget: (and I specifically mentioned this) this is a UAV with slightly different performance characteristics:
                    Quote: vVvAD
                    the US does not yet have a strike UAV with Altius range.
              3. vVvAD
                vVvAD 6 October 2020 19: 54
                +1
                That's exactly what was being developed. In the USA, Fletcher BG-1 and BG-2 purchased 500 pieces. Interstate TDR is a full-fledged drone, not a projectile aircraft, 195 pieces were fired.

                Catch - I'm kind today laughing
                https://topwar.ru/137169-otechestvennaya-bespilotnaya-aviaciya-chast-1.html
                https://topwar.ru/137561-otechestvennaya-bespilotnaya-aviaciya-chast-2.html

                And the United States was able to produce and use its UAVs in WW2 only because the war was not fought on their territory, they did not have a comparable number of participating manpower and technique of battles and losses, they did not need to evacuate industry and science to the opposite part of the country provide the armed forces with the protection of the 2nd capital and oil fields and oil refining facilities, defend their own country and their future in the end.
                Agree, our country then had tasks of a somewhat different order.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 6 October 2020 20: 00
                  0
                  Why are you drowning yourself? I'm talking about the lag of the USSR for 15-20 years.
                  First sentence from the article:
                  The first work on the creation of unmanned aerial vehicles in the USSR began in the early 30s of the last century.

                  The Sperry Flying Bomb is an unmanned projectile aircraft developed by order of the US Navy during the First World War. First flight 1917.
      2. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 6 October 2020 11: 28
        +3
        Quote: KCA
        they have enough cast iron with SU-34 and SU-25 up to their tonsils,

        For five years now, the cast-iron people have been throwing off their bearded heads, and there is no end or edge to be seen. One head of the barmaley accounts for half the sortie of military aviation. Result!
        1. KCA
          KCA 6 October 2020 11: 36
          +2
          The United States has been in Afghanistan since 2001, so that the barmaleevs were able to kill everyone? No? Oh, and they have the best drone UAVs that bomb weddings in Iraq since 2003, have they killed everyone? No? How so? They have the best in the world F-35, and how?
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 6 October 2020 11: 44
            +3
            Quote: KCA
            The United States has been in Afghanistan since 2001, so that the barmaleevs were able to kill everyone?

            And they interrupt them, or what? They sit on their bases, and that's all.
            Quote: KCA
            They have the best in the world F-35, and how?

            Spit. We also had the best planes in the world, but where were they on Minutka Square? One deputy Kovalev turned out to be stronger.
            1. KCA
              KCA 6 October 2020 11: 50
              -2
              In 1992, they flew over Minutka in the afterburner, immediately an empty area turned out to be, they were still going to put things in order there in 92-93, I personally saw the maps, everything was in their minds, no 1st RAP, and electronic warfare, and MI-24, and SU-25, everything was planned, but they didn't, they sent a lot of money to someone
              1. Mordvin 3
                Mordvin 3 6 October 2020 11: 56
                0
                Quote: KCA
                everything was planned, but did not, to see someone sent a lot of money

                It was originally a pipe battle. Our oligaphrens did not like that Dudayev asked for oil transit at world prices.
          2. novel66
            novel66 6 October 2020 12: 03
            -1
            The United States has been in Afghanistan since 2001, so that the barmaleevs were able to kill everyone? No? Oh, and they have the best drone UAVs that bomb weddings in Iraq since 2003, have they killed everyone? No? How so? They have the best in the world F-35, and how?

        2. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 6 October 2020 20: 28
          -1
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          For five years now, the cast-iron people have been throwing off their bearded heads, and there is no end or edge to be seen. One head of the barmaley accounts for half the sortie of military aviation. Result!

          There is now another fuss))) it is necessary to withdraw the barmaleev from Idlib and establish the power of the Syrian government there. There are also Kurds, with whom it is also necessary to negotiate, no one has removed the United States from the "blackboard", either let it go "nicely" or negotiate. Our military and diplomats participating in the reconciliation of the parties achieve a good result, with a kind word and Colt help to achieve peace
      3. Fizik M
        Fizik M 6 October 2020 11: 58
        +4
        Quote: KCA
        and the fact that they do not build thousands of shock UAVs, so I ask - why? Is Russia waging a war with someone?

        fool
        well, what is "logical", there is no war, so there is no need to produce rockets, shells too
        in general, cartridge factories need to be buried belay
        1. KCA
          KCA 6 October 2020 13: 07
          -3
          Are you sure that nothing is being produced? If they don't show it on TV and don't write on the Internet, that still doesn't mean anything, for example, yesterday the commander-in-chief of the air defense came to the Almaz-Antey training ground, I don't know whether it was troops or the country, what was shown there? The tyrnets are silent, but he did not come to fish, a test of something very significant, but silence, in the army and navy they love silence
          1. Fizik M
            Fizik M 6 October 2020 13: 12
            -1
            Quote: KCA
            Are you sure that nothing is being produced? If they do not show on TV and do not write on the Internet, this still does not mean anything.

            belay
            I understood you
            in our navy there is a "hundred-piZot" of the latest minesweepers and underwater vehicles
            they are simply "in the bins of the Motherland." HIDDEN (from "TV and Internet")
            lol
          2. Aag
            Aag 7 October 2020 15: 36
            +1
            "... testing something very significant ..."
            So it didn't take off ...
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. Vadim_888
        Vadim_888 6 October 2020 13: 19
        -2
        And the truth is, why use shock UAVs near Turkey, we have a lot of qualified pilots, one less than one more, women if they give birth to new ones?
    2. rocket757
      rocket757 6 October 2020 11: 09
      +2
      While here for years they have been arguing - to be or not to be a Russian aircraft carrier and what it will be GDP has already made its choice long ago

      In general, Khrushchev did about the same in his time.
      True, he developed one component of the armed forces, to the detriment of others! But at that moment, this approach did not seem bad. Everything, its time and place!
    3. Fizik M
      Fizik M 6 October 2020 11: 53
      +4
      Quote: Selevc
      While here they have been arguing for years - to be or not to be a Russian aircraft carrier and what it will be GDP has already made its choice long ago !!! Projects for the creation of new generations of missile weapons are widely financed - because these projects are thousands of times cheaper than building an aircraft carrier !!!
      And even with helicopter-class ships, Russia has problems

      Vikra showed that WE HAVE NO TECHNICAL PROBLEMS IN PART ABOUT AB
      but the fact that the topic was REALLY SLIDED, and with the filing of the United States - this is a fact
    4. vVvAD
      vVvAD 6 October 2020 17: 25
      0
      UAV ... oh, for sure: a light air defense and anti-aircraft missile escort aircraft carrier and an arsenal ship with anti-ship missiles, anti-aircraft missiles and UAVs wassat Option?
  4. Revolver
    Revolver 6 October 2020 10: 45
    +6
    As for the aircraft carrier, I will say right away that it must be atomic and catapult. But before building an aircraft carrier, you need to get a suitable escort for it, and from this all that is 1144 battle cruisers, and it is not known how many of them will eventually be repaired. And everything else will not stupidly hold the speed, as stated in the article. So until there is at least a couple of EVs, and a few newer and more modern frigates of the powered BOD, there is no point in even starting. And you also need a real carrier-based AWACS aircraft, not a helicopter or a fighter with a container. As for the alleged enemy, the Americans do not consider the Far East and Siberia as their ancestral territories, but some closer ones even think so.
    1. mark1
      mark1 6 October 2020 10: 55
      +5
      Quote: Nagan
      Americans do not consider Far East and Siberia as their ancestral territories

      They do not count it, but they will declare about the "common human heritage" no, yes.
    2. Airdefense
      Airdefense 6 October 2020 10: 58
      0
      Anyone who is closer to the next hundred years will be busy with problems with Taiwan for this China and build their aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, etc., as long as there is Taiwan there is a threat from the CCP, but it is clear that the United States is behind Taiwan.
      The second headache of the one who is closer to this India has been a tense confrontation for more than half a century. The third problem is the territorial disputes in the South China Sea, the fourth is the problem of the Uighurs, Tibet, the fifth is Hong Kong, the sixth is Japan, hatred and disagreements are not weaker than that of Armenians and Azerbaijanis.
      1. URAL72
        URAL72 6 October 2020 11: 28
        -1
        For all of these problems, aircraft carriers are not needed. China needs them to counter the United States without going into a nuclear conflict.
        An article or nonsense, or a feuilleton. Now it is more important for us to build up fighter aircraft and start producing strategic unmanned strike systems. Something like a Hunter, but bigger. It is cheaper than the Tu-160, since there are no pilots, no raid. Enough simulators. Less weight, more airfields, less fuel. We cannot afford the aircraft carrier yet, there are other problems.
        1. Fizik M
          Fizik M 6 October 2020 11: 59
          +1
          Quote: URAL72
          We can't afford the aircraft carrier yet

          affordable
          only now the loot "SMELL" into the submarine
  5. Bez 310
    Bez 310 6 October 2020 10: 49
    +1
    So what?
    It is interestingly written, so perky, there is intrigue and groundwork for the continuation.
    Very readable, and the benefits of this article are about the same as
    from the "Manifesto of the Courtois Mannerists". I look forward to continuing ...
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 6 October 2020 23: 44
      -1
      Colleague, I am ready to support your "ironic humor" with more serious claims to the author, with aviation epaulettes, who seriously discusses the problems of the fleet.
      But, in order. As, so to speak, nonsense arrives ... bully
      1. RPK SN do not "break through" the PLO lines. They "force" them. And this, as they say in Odessa, is a big difference.
      2. I don’t know about the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, but the Kola Bay and the Barents Sea do not freeze, yes thanks to the warm Gulf Stream. Author!!! If you don't know this, then it's time to return to grade 5 and read the textbook "Natural Science".
      3. About 4-month TAKR hikes in winter. Exclusively for the sake of maintaining the flying condition of the flyers.
      4. Autonomy 30 days? Isn't there a KKS of the Berezina type to refuel ships on the move? to transfer them all the required cargo and even missiles? Therefore, it is possible to speak conditionally about the autonomy of the NK in our waters ...
      5. Is Mediterranean a mousetrap? Maybe, but at least there is Tartus there and you can count on the support of the Black Sea Fleet ships, aviation, boats ... But off the coast of Cuba, this will be ... much more difficult. Therefore, your "MOGAKA" is still that "kaka"! TAKR is there, like a gladiator in the arena: he is alone, and around there are predators and praetorians with pikes ...
      6. The very controversial thesis that "the SF command does not want to learn how to use AV" is taken from the ceiling by the author, without facts and substantiations. It's fake!
      7. Stupidity: aircraft carrier on the transition to the Atlantic coast of the United States. Further - nonsense! - speculations about speed, air defense and other things, because this is about the same as the hunt of the British fleet for the Bismarck in May 1941 ... Apparently only the author is unable to understand that this is not even a gamble, but "suicide in sophisticated form "!
      8. Lack of experience (or narrow-mindedness?) Does not allow the author to represent the entire US naval intelligence system on the MTVD! Apparently, therefore, he gave the honor of "detecting" AUG to Poseidon R-8 ... Neither boats, nor spacecraft, nor BRC, nor GA surveillance system (SOSUS at least!) The poor Yankees, apparently, never had a birth! Well, then there is nothing to take into account ... Like the RZK and other forces of NATO countries in the Atlantic ...
      9. "To break away from the US AUG ..." - in this one phrase one can immediately see the psychology of not a sailor, but of a landowner! And that's it...
      10. The idea of ​​an air defense aircraft carrier was buried by the amami (unlike the author!) At the turn of the 70s of the last century. With the advent of anti-ship missiles, long-range torpedoes, the MRSTs and KS systems ...
      Another drawback of the article, in my opinion, is that the author, even for the sake of decency, never mentioned the enemy's submarine ... But they are planned to have only Virginia, about 62 units! "Virgins" (even without NK and AV) are capable of seriously puzzling any fleet, even Chinese, even ours. And this is problematic for everyone!
      And the last thing. In the navy, ships and aircraft are not counted as "pieces"! Not in the bazaar, tea!
      And so the article, like everything on the site lately, is for students of a very high school ... EGE, in a word.
      IMHO.
      1. Fizik M
        Fizik M 7 October 2020 09: 47
        +1
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        but the Kola Bay and the Barents Sea do not freeze

        actually freeze
        see the boundary of ice in winter in Barents, and the Kola in cold winters "rises" (he personally observed this in 1998)
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The very controversial thesis that "the SF command does not want to learn how to use AV" is taken from the ceiling by the author, without facts and substantiations. It's fake!

        yes, as it were - "facts on the face" ...
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The idea of ​​an air defense aircraft carrier was buried by the amami (unlike the author!) At the turn of the 70s of the last century. With the advent of anti-ship missiles, long-range torpedoes, the MRSTs and KS systems ...

        THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT SO !!! - see the book of GosNII AS, etc.
  6. Vadim_888
    Vadim_888 6 October 2020 11: 26
    -2
    We are waiting for the main specialist in aircraft carriers, Mr. Timokhin
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 6 October 2020 11: 56
      +2
      Quote: Vadim_888
      We are waiting for the main specialist in aircraft carriers, Mr. Timokhin

      https://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/58851
  7. Vadim_888
    Vadim_888 6 October 2020 11: 27
    -3
    And it's time for Kuza to have a well-deserved rest, to continue working as a museum next to Aurora
  8. Vadim_888
    Vadim_888 6 October 2020 11: 32
    -3
    The Chinese are transferring Liaoning to a training ship, they have already become convinced of the inexpediency of operating ships in a similar configuration and the Syrian campaign of Kuzi confirmed this, but the leadership of the Russian Navy continues to cling to the disabled person, realizing that they will not receive anything like this in the next 10 years
  9. K-50
    K-50 6 October 2020 11: 37
    0
    Is it okay to choose a chase from a fascist cruiser? belay fool
    Idiocy is booming! negative
    1. Andy
      Andy 6 October 2020 12: 01
      -2
      do not tell me, but who drove the fascist cruiser from whom?
      1. Andy
        Andy 6 October 2020 12: 17
        -1
        clear. go. from silently minus ... I advise you to break the history textbook there the Germans named the dude in honor of the future fascist battleship ... as they knew in the 19th century :))
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 6 October 2020 22: 23
        +1
        The cruiser received the name of Gerhard Johann David von Scharnhorst, a Prussian general and military reformer. Since July 1807 - chief of staff and chairman of the commission for the reorganization of the army.
  10. Fizik M
    Fizik M 6 October 2020 11: 54
    +4
    Quote: Selevc
    Projects for the creation of new generations of missile weapons are widely financed - because these projects are thousands of times cheaper than building an aircraft carrier !!!

    fool
    First of all, YOU LIE.
    Secondly, without "air", YOU will have neither control unit nor control unit for any "fine missiles"
  11. Fizik M
    Fizik M 6 October 2020 12: 01
    0
    In general, advice to the author - before publicly talk nonsense, all the same, take and read the State Research Institute of the ASN book on naval aviation. There it is far from being possible to agree on everything, but the STRUCTURE FOR JUSTIFICATION OF SUCH SYSTEMS, modeling their appearance and application are fully described
  12. Maks1995
    Maks1995 6 October 2020 12: 13
    0
    Uh ...
    And what, the aircraft carrier will already be?
    bullshit ...

    There is no money, but you hold on - remember?
  13. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 6 October 2020 12: 26
    0
    Do you need ..? Now the state of affairs is as follows - now we do not have such a strong and healthy economy to allow us to have large and mobile forces. In the near future, it will most likely worsen even more, due to increased spending on aviation, air defense / pro, updating the satellite constellation and updating the nuclear shield. For defense tasks, isn't it easier for us to rely on island airfields, because in the event of day X we will most likely get stuck in defense, for tactical and logistical reasons.
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 6 October 2020 12: 31
      +1
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      For defense tasks, isn't it easier for us to rely on island airfields, because in the event of day X we will most likely get stuck in defense, for tactical and logistical reasons.

      they will simply impose a fight where such airfields will not be close (or they will be shot with artillery)
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 6 October 2020 12: 47
        0
        Well, so the enemy will know where this 1-2 TARKR is hanging out and will simply prepare a thorough operation to eliminate them. Given the size of the target, you know. And the efficiency of an aircraft carrier is a very conventional thing, given the length of our maritime borders.
    2. frog
      frog 6 October 2020 12: 36
      +1
      now we do not have such a strong and healthy economy to allow us to have large and mobile forces.

      That is, holding world championships with stadiums abandoned afterwards - is it strong? There are various Olympics ... True, then medals are awarded, but that is ... Apparently, sane "sports lawyers" are too expensive. To feed Moldova, to feed Abkhazia and others is quite. But what about the sane aircraft - the economy is not so hot. What a grief, isn't it? As one participant of the round table on TV said (in that era, not everything was directed there yet)))) - and did you try to steal less? IChSKh, it's been 20 years and everything is traditional ...
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 6 October 2020 12: 57
        -2
        Well, I didn't build the stadiums and I didn't steal either ;-) For the most part, all this was created on what they call "petrodollars" - but they exist today, tomorrow they will not. On this it is difficult to build an adequate strategy for military development - with design and long-term R&D - there will be a drop in price and it will be necessary to tear off funds from the citizenry.
        And at the moments of these drops, we are very cool sausage - if oil reaches the ceiling, then we walk and shed gold and pathos, if not, then we have a little man in line for toilet paper.
        Our country lacks the ability to save wisely - and in my opinion, an aircraft carrier is not something that could be attributed to reasonable savings.
        1. frog
          frog 6 October 2020 13: 03
          -1
          In the fact that you have the right jigsaw, I did not seem to suspect you))) However, no one interferes with the sovereign))) the state to engage in a normal economy. Or do reptilians still radiate? In the presence of a normal economy and other cucumbers, it is quite possible to think about everything else. if there is a desire, of course repeat
        2. frog
          frog 6 October 2020 20: 07
          +1
          Oh, the backers on duty pulled up)))))
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 6 October 2020 20: 40
            0
            Well, there is a category of passionate fans of RedAlert 2 who firmly believe that the better the good and different ships-cannon-tanks and the thicker the missiles, the steeper. And that all this needs to be put in a hundred years of painstaking cultivation of the economy and domestic industry - this is already beyond their perception of the world.
            1. frog
              frog 6 October 2020 21: 17
              0
              There are some. Certainly. Moreover, it would be strange if they were not there))) But there are also those who no less firmly believe that talking badly about mother is no way. Comparing it thereby to the deceased. But they can't count to two wink
    3. Vadim_888
      Vadim_888 6 October 2020 13: 05
      -1
      Most commentators at the moment have little idea of ​​the modern tasks of the fleet in connection with the nuclear triad
      1. Fizik M
        Fizik M 6 October 2020 13: 10
        0
        Quote: Vadim_888
        in conjunction with the nuclear triad

        how "nuclear triad" will help in case of:
        1 Japan
        2 Poland
        3. Turkey
        ?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 8 October 2020 10: 18
          0
          Quote: Fizik M
          how "nuclear triad" will help in case of:
          1 Japan
          2 Poland
          3. Turkey
          ?

          it is only the nuclear triad that will help in these three cases ... On June 2, President Vladimir Putin approved by his decree the "Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence." The criteria for the use of nuclear weapons by Russia have not changed in comparison with the military doctrine approved in 2010: Moscow can use it in response to an attack on it or its allies with the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, or in the event of aggression with conventional weapons, if “ the very existence of the state is threatened. " That is, the Russian Federation can and must use nuclear weapons in all cases of military aggression, but cannot use it to attack peaceful countries. I hope you agree that we are not going to attack anyone, so any war with the Russian Federation is a nuclear war, except for the case of an attack on the Russian Federation of a deliberately weak enemy, which is not NATO and Japan ... the curtain
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 7 October 2020 11: 57
        -2
        Quote: Vadim_888
        Most commentators at the moment have little idea of ​​the modern tasks of the fleet in connection with the nuclear triad

        Yes, even in Soviet times, they did not understand a damn thing, so they tried to compete with the Americans in the number of pennants until the USSR collapsed. Now a new growth has approached - again delusional speech began that we should control the world ocean with our fleet. And to think with our heads that we and the coastal waters do not really know how to control, and in general, as far as we are now, this is not the case for them as a rule. That is why they will pound water in a mortar, telling what the fleet should be in the 21st century, but at the same time not considering that Russia is far from the USSR, and the country's economic situation will not allow them to solve their wishes. Let them amuse themselves at the forum - in the main command of the Navy, no one takes them seriously anyway.
        1. Fizik M
          Fizik M 7 October 2020 13: 44
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          again delusional speeches began that we must control the world's oceans with our fleet.

          do not attribute "voices" wassat in YOUR "head" lol other
          Quote: ccsr
          And to think with my head that we and the coastal waters do not really know how to control

          YOU face about the table in hard publications on VO on this issue
          Quote: ccsr
          in the main command of the Navy, no one takes them seriously anyway.

          incl. which had a very serious resonance there
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 8 October 2020 10: 07
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          Yes, even in Soviet times, they did not understand a damn thing, so they tried to compete with the Americans in the number of pennants until the USSR collapsed. Now a new growth has approached - again delusional speech began that we should control the world ocean with our fleet. And to think with our heads that we and the coastal waters do not really know how to control, and in general, as far as we are now, this is not the case for them as a rule. That is why they will pound water in a mortar, telling what the fleet should be in the 21st century, but at the same time not considering that Russia is far from the USSR, and the country's economic situation will not allow them to solve their wishes. Let them amuse themselves at the forum - in the main command of the Navy, no one takes them seriously anyway.

          unfortunately, in the spheres of decision-making, they are often subject to emotions and are not inclined to objective and professional analysis (a politician cannot be a professional in everything at once) and parquet admirals are afraid to even utter their opinions, but tend only to assent to their superiors ... an example is a bookmark two UDC, with unclear goals and objectives, in a catastrophic situation with minesweepers (there are less of them than seas) and BE200 PLO (1 pennant), in conditions of an unsatisfactory situation with the number and combat readiness of nuclear submarines ...
  14. Fizik M
    Fizik M 6 October 2020 12: 54
    0
    Quote: URAL72
    For all of these problems, aircraft carriers are not needed.

    we have a real military danger (in terms of severity)
    1 Japan
    2 Poland
    3. Turkey
    and in all these scenarios AB is not just "needed", but without it there will be "pitchforks"
    + factor of the USA - provision of BU NSNF and implementation of the strike potential of the anti-ship missile and the Kyrgyz Republic
    1. Andy
      Andy 6 October 2020 14: 04
      -2
      disagree with your rating. according to the degree of danger: 1- Turkey 2- Japan 3- ... in any case, Poland will not go to war without NATO.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 8 October 2020 09: 58
      +3
      dear Maxim, explain why AB in the waters you indicated? tiny seas Baltic, Black and Japanese?
      Quote: Fizik M
      . Japan
      2 Poland
      3. Turkey
      and in all these AB scenarios

      for a start, how does it get there? and what awaits him there? and how many minutes will he live there from coastal missiles and massive airstrikes? and who will protect him there? and why is there a floating airfield if there are a lot of coastal concrete ones there? answer at least one question, otherwise you are not serious in your judgments ... do not swear, be objective
  15. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 6 October 2020 14: 19
    +1
    Most commentators at the moment have little idea of ​​the modern tasks of the fleet.
    apparently, not only commentators.
    The author, by the way, offered only one sane task - to threaten the "Swede", in spite of the arrogant neighbor.
    And then he himself drew a very bleak picture that even with this task our current missile carrier would not be able to cope.
    Yes, in general, and promising too.
    Well, the comments are just a fountain.
    Thanks especially to the aircraft carrier in the Black and Baltic Seas.

    What kind of aircraft carrier is it when we have been building missile boats for 5 years? And there are no destroyers at all.
  16. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 6 October 2020 21: 15
    -1
    how Kuzi's campaign for fear of enemies in Cuba is artistically described (for this reason, patriots dream of AB, show off on it, it is better with admiral's shoulder straps, albeit in a dream) ... the truth will not go anywhere. How can you talk about an air defense aircraft carrier, for air defense there are coast-based interceptors and s400, AV Russia does not need money and tasks for it, and if you scare the Yankees in the Atlantic and cause them to grin, then Kuzya will do, why does he need a pair ...
  17. SVD68
    SVD68 7 October 2020 06: 27
    +3
    First of all, we need coast-based naval aviation:
    1) long-range reconnaissance. A-100 or / and something like MQ-4. Necessarily subordinate to the fleet, and not allocated by VKS;
    2-3) fighters and attack aircraft. Combined functions, because the Su-30 is capable of being both. Although separation is possible;
    4) anti-submarine aircraft.
    The creation of such an aircraft at this stage will be more effective than the construction of aircraft carriers.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 7 October 2020 09: 37
      +1
      Quote: SVD68
      First of all, we need coast-based naval aviation:
      1) long-range reconnaissance. A-100 or / and something like MQ-4. Necessarily subordinate to the fleet, and not allocated by VKS;
      2-3) fighters and attack aircraft. Combined functions, because the Su-30 is capable of being both. Although separation is possible;
      4) anti-submarine aircraft.
      The creation of such an aircraft at this stage will be more effective than the construction of aircraft carriers.

      yes it is, is it really possible to compare a link of old aircraft with Kuzi with weather restrictions ... with coastal aircraft of all types and their huge capabilities, the A-100 generally needs more than it is now, also long-range and front-line aviation. As for the PLO BE200 aircraft, even ask the Aerospace Forces for them, it will not work, this is an urgent task the Russian PLO aircraft are aging.
  18. Scharnhorst
    7 October 2020 13: 06
    0
    As far as I remember, after the first war, the latest air defense systems were deployed in the Gulf, which completely covered the capital from all the American CDs. And then, the flight time of ship-borne missile launchers over our territory was such that our fighter aircraft managed to hit them.

    The Leningrad Air Defense Army and the Moscow Air Defense District in 1987 did not besiege Rust on a light-engine aircraft, which will have a larger EPR compared to the KR, whose flight speed was three times slower (read the reaction time to the detected target), which could not go with bypassing the terrain on the PMV. KR will be used in volleys (as in Syria, up to 60 units in the breakthrough area) and it is not a fact that even in case of timely detection or target designation, even a modern complex will have enough firing channels and ammunition. Having a significant margin in flight range, the routes of the KR are selected taking into account the intelligence on the location of the means of detecting and destroying the enemy. And modern aviation is not on duty in the air, and air defense systems are on duty in readiness number 2 with the radar off.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 October 2020 17: 16
      +2
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      The Leningrad Air Defense Army and the Moscow Air Defense District in 1987 did not besiege Rust on a light-engine aircraft, which will have a larger EPR compared to the KR, whose flight speed was three times slower (read the reaction time to the detected target), which could not go with bypassing the terrain on the PMV.

      There it was not a matter of technology, but of political will. Rust was seen and led. But there were already times of Gorby with his new thinking, to spend it, together with perestroika and the next detente - so they were playing for time, not wanting to risk warm places and tossing hot potatoes to each other "who will give the order." Plus organizational conclusions after the downing of the Korean Boeing, which tightened the procedure for making a decision to open fire.
      But everything turned out strictly according to Churchill: choosing between the shame of missing a target and resignation when giving the order to destroy it, they chose shame - and received both him and massive resignations.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 8 October 2020 09: 49
      0
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      it is not a fact that even in the case of timely detection or target designation, even a modern complex will have enough firing channels and ammunition

      it means more air defense systems are needed, all the same, coastal complexes are an order of magnitude more effective than their lone counterparts on ships that can be counted on one hand
  19. Scharnhorst
    7 October 2020 13: 17
    -1
    But you do not seem to be able to grasp a simple idea - while these missiles were flying to Moscow, only ruins would remain of the United States. This is what the Americans knew better than you, and therefore they have long understood that the CD is not a first strike weapon, but only an unmasking sign of preparation for war.

    Even before the signing of the INF Treaty, the land, air and sea-based KRs were considered a weapon of a preventive or disarming strike. It should be a shame not to know this. And in a dispute, refrain from labeling opponents, be polite ...
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 7 October 2020 19: 04
      -1
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      Even before the signing of the INF Treaty, the land, air and sea-based KRs were considered a weapon of a preventive or disarming strike.

      Was it you personally considered or was it an explanation for housewives? You do not seem to be in the subject at all, since you do not even know the approximate standards for opening the preparation of our main enemy for war, nor what was the flight time of the same Pershing and CD of different bases in the capital region from the main starting positions of the Americans at that time. And the Americans put on the Treaties even then - you are just a naive person, and you are still trying to tell tales on military topics here, and even the unilateral withdrawal of the Americans from almost all the agreements did not teach you anything.
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      And in a dispute, refrain from labeling opponents, be polite ...

      Do you think your politeness is a guarantee of your knowledge of the truth? I think that the point is not in the labels, but in the fact that here various amateurs are talking nonsense on military issues, and when you point them out to them inadequacy, they immediately take a pose - like you, for example. You even managed to distort the story with Rust, which Alexey RA (Alexey) told you in a mild form, and after that you want to be respected? Why are you doing this?
  20. kig
    kig 12 October 2020 13: 24
    0
    http://fantasy-worlds.org/lib/
    you there, dear Scharnhorst.
  21. brostem_2019
    brostem_2019 12 October 2020 14: 58
    0
    The author would write fantastic stories. How Papua New Guinea became great and strong. One night after writing the article. lol That kind of talent is lost. How long can history be ignored. We meet almost all wars not ready. And we are saved only by the fact that the people in Russia, that the sand and it will take a long time to dig up this sand. But soon this universal remedy will also end. You look at our families where there are 1, well, a maximum of 2 children and next to them are guest workers from Asia who have 5 children and you understand that in 25 years there will be no one to protect us ...
  22. EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 October 2020 13: 25
    0
    the return of Russia to its natural historical borders in an increasingly tough confrontation with the weakening world hegemon would require the return of the island of St. Lawrence


    Why not California? There, a Russian colonist also built a warm toilet for himself at one time.

    In the Pacific, we have either an empty ocean east of Kamchatka, or an inland Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Internal because of the ridge of islands on which the air defense network is being built. The reasoning about patrolling 250 km is, of course, great, but this patrol of yours from a pair of "dryers" will not do anything when a formation of 20-40 cars goes to it. And no one forbids launching cruise missiles not from 250, but from 500, or 1000 km. That is, there is no way to prevent the salvo, only if you constantly keep 2-4 aircraft carriers in the zone of possible launches. Without this, we can only monitor the water area east of Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands, straining if someone too strong enters there, and prepare for the scenario that the air defense should shoot down missiles, and the aircraft launching their ships should be drowned.