Military Review

Analysis of critical comments to the article "The concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser"

71
At the beginning of my article "The concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser with a sixth generation UAV" the author warned that he is not a specialist in either aviation or shipbuilding, and this material is offered only as a concept that he hopes to improve with the help of readers. But hopes were not destined to come true. 2/3 of the comments turned out to be not criticism, but criticism.


Analysis of critical comments to the article "The concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser"

Commentary: With each article by this author, I am convinced that it is not worth reading it.

Answer:

"The mice were injected, crying, but they continued to eat the cacti."

If from the beginning of the article it is clear that this is only the author's fantasy, why bother and read to the end?

Commentary: Where does the website editorial office look, why are such articles skipped?

Answer: You did not report what the author's mistakes were. Or at least referred to an article describing the solution to the problem. The State Duma has not yet adopted the draft "On the introduction of like-mindedness in Russia" by Saltykov-Shchedrin, although it is trying.

Especially for such discussions, the author compiled a four-step self-test test:

1st stage: Absolutely everyone knows what should not be in the world.
2nd: Not everyone, but many know what should be in the world.
3rd: Few people know how to go from “shouldn't” to “should”.
4th: And no one will let it slip: what is the name of the guy who will make this transition?

Now everyone can decide for himself at what stage he intends to conduct the discussion and continue it in a calm tone. It's a shame to waste time on useless picks. There are also serious comments.

1. What will the AK cost?


Opinions have been expressed that the light AK cannot replace the classic aircraft carrier Storm. And the price of the AK, taking into account the development, will be only half the size of the Storm. The author does not know the Storm's price, but Nimitz is estimated at $ 10 billion. Whether we will be able to meet this price is unknown. In the USA, aircraft carriers are being built in series, and our shipyard in Nikolaev has ordered a long life. Where will the new one be, how will we build a slipway, how will we organize a large-block assembly, how will we build a dry dock, who will make a catapult? And all this for one single ship? Questions for the knowledgeable.

For AK, such questions do not arise. Once 2 UDCs have been laid, then the building berths of the UDCs can also be adapted for AK. The fact that a pair of UDCs was laid down at once suggests that the price of each of them is clearly not equal to half of the Storm price.

The AK is being built in a similar building, and there is no reason to value it more than the UDC. The difference is that the author considers it necessary to place on the AK air defense missile system a DB, the radar of which would also provide a missile defense system.

Some readers believe that the AFAR used in this radar will be unacceptably expensive. We can assure you that the cost of the AFAR missile defense radar, due to the use of the 70 cm wavelength range, will be very inexpensive. The total price of the radar will be no more than 10% of the cost of the ship itself. The number of SAMs should be very small, for example, 16. The main means of destruction of anti-ship missiles will be MD SAMs. Air defense against a previously detected enemy IS attack can also be provided by IS UAVs on duty.

There are also opinions that there is nothing for everyone and everyone to get involved in the issues that the minister must resolve. And what, the minister will be frightened by the fact that someone has suggested something? If you look at the facts, then according to GPV 2011-20, which was laid down under the previous minister, 8 frigates 22350 were to be built, and 2 were built. Note that Admiral Gorshkov is the only project that can at least partially compare with the destroyer Arlie Burke. The frigates Admiral Makarov have so weak air defense that they need to be transferred to the class of corvettes. So someone who, and the sailors could express their problems to the minister more energetically. If you listen to the president of USC Rakhmanov, you immediately realize that we are carrying out our plans brilliantly.

As a result, we get that there is no need to talk about any Storm. Stretch your legs over your clothes. Proposals for the design of a reduced Storm by 50-70 thousand tons also do not look convincing. The costs are almost the same, but we will get a new Kuznetsov, perhaps with a nuclear propulsion system.

Proposals to use UDC of the America type are not implemented for another reason. We do not have and are not developing our own F-35b and the mass of America is no longer 25, but 45 thousand tons.

For some reason, no one suggested copying Charles de Gaulle. It is smaller than Kuznetsov - only 42 thousand tons. Maybe because the French themselves do not copy it, but develop a new one. Maybe because they don't want to develop a catapult or nuclear propulsion system.

Someone claims that there is nothing to roll your lip. We do not need an aircraft carrier for strikes on the ground, the main thing is to accompany the KUGs. We have to argue that in the United States for KUGs they build URO destroyers, and aircraft carriers are universal, but they have priority on land. The author outlined proposals for the destroyer radar in a previous article, the cost of the radar turned out to be low. But something in GPV 2018-27 about the destroyers is not heard. However, about the Storm too. Of the two permanent allies of Russia, one already needs resuscitation. We have to quote the classic Vereshchagin:

"It's a shame for the state."

The result is not encouraging. For the last war of mankind, we have long been ready, 4000 warheads will destroy all of mankind with a guarantee. But we cheerfully continue to fund the Vanguards and Petrels. But there were no instructions about the penultimate war. What are we going to do if Turkish drones, for example, fly beyond Karabakh? Everyone will have to answer these questions on their own.

Realists won't even dream, they write:

"Author, do you understand that you are writing science fiction?"

Another classic, Zhvanetsky, understood everything about life. Understood and left. Who will now describe our situation like this:

“Yes, yes, yes, exactly, for everything you have to say thank you. Thank God, I had lunch, thank God, I slept, woke up - thank you, fell asleep - thank you. Thank God, dressed, on my feet, thank you, pants, on my head, thank you very much, hat. And no need to grumble, criticize, laugh. These shabby murmurs only spoil. You sit, listen - you tremble: how is he not afraid? Well, everyone is afraid, is he alone not afraid? He is probably even more afraid, but he cannot: in his soul he waxes and grows. Bloating from thoughts. I think: if it's better than it was - keep quiet so as not to jinx it, pah-pah-pah, pah-pah-pah.
What's the use of looking ahead when the whole experience is from behind ?! I remember everything: at first there was no salt, then there was no soap, then there was no uncle, then there was no aunt. Now they are all there. So thank me and my children forever and ever! "


2. Justification of the concept of AK


The author set himself the task of offering the AK the cost that our Navy will pull. That is, the cost of the ship itself should not be higher than the cost of the UDC. The cost of an air wing and the cost of a complex of weapons for it must be considered together. The possibility of using cheap ammunition should also be part of the concept.

Readers rightly note that the creation of a new ship, UAV and weapons carries a noticeable technical risk. In the USA, everything is worked out in stages. But we also have the opportunity to practice UAVs at the UDC after their commissioning. The concept must be considered as a whole, otherwise it will not be possible to parallelize the development process of individual components, and we will not eliminate the lag behind the United States.

You cannot argue with the statement that on aircraft carriers the air defense system of the database interferes with the main function. In the article "The Effectiveness of AUG Air Defense" the author pointed out that in the US AUGs, the task of Arleigh Burke's destroyers is to pull attacks from an aircraft carrier onto themselves. Here, fortunately, the author found a defender who said that in the absence of such destroyers we should not blame the author, but the government. Admiral Makarov does not defend for a long time with frigates, and Admiral Gorshkov does not solve the missile defense problem.

Let's consider each component of the AK.

2.1. Justification of the appearance of the ship


To reduce the cost of the ship, it is necessary to abandon the development of the catapult. Reducing the mass of the ship is achieved by lightening the deck and hangar when using fairly light UAVs. The limited spacecraft length of 220–240 m requires a decrease in the UAV's landing speed. For example, up to 130-150 km / h. To maintain the impact potential, the total number of UAVs must be large - for example, 40. The superstructure across the entire width of the deck (in accordance with the reader's note) can cause turbulence on the runway in case of unstable wind. The funnels created by the open gates of the superstructure will help structure the wind flow from bow to stern.

The question of the size of the springboard requires elaboration. Ideally, you need to do without it altogether, since if necessary, send the UAV to the second round, the springboard will only interfere. If the springboard remains, then the height of the superstructure's span will have to be increased.

2.2. Justification of the appearance of the UAV


When choosing the type of UAV, you immediately have to discard supersonic. Otherwise, you will get a MiG-21 with a weight of 8 tons and an insufficient flight range. And the AK will turn into Charles de Gaulle or Kuznetsov. Therefore, the UAV should rather replace the subsonic Harrier, but in a reduced mass. Light UAVs (weighing less than 2 tons) are not suitable, since they will not provide the required range of 600 km and a combat load that allows long-range aerial combat or strikes at enemy concrete targets. A weight of 4 tons seems to be the best compromise.

Of course, one cannot argue with the remarks that a manned IS with a large AFAR provides a large target detection range. But here, too, the author outlined a way out. Firstly, at distances of up to 400 km, the illumination of the air situation will be provided by the AK radar, and then 400 km by the UAV AWACS. Secondly, group scanning of several IS UAV radars will provide a range no worse than that of a manned IS.

Readers' fears that cheap UAVs will not be allowed to install expensive AFARs is understandable. Wealthy Americans have switched their radars to AFAR. AFAR Su-57 or S-500 also cost millions of dollars. But here, too, a way out is offered. It is enough to transfer the radar from the 3–4 cm wavelength range to the 5–6 cm range, and the price of the AFAR will drop 2,5 times. At the same time, the characteristics of the radar will significantly improve due to the interaction with the ship's MF radar, operating in the same range.

The next comment states that the pilot will always outplay the UAV. Now he will replay, therefore UAVs and avoid close combat. But it should be noted that in the proposed concept, UAVs are not autonomous. They are connected to the operator on the ship by a high-speed anti-jamming communication line. That is, the situation is different from satellite control. Each UAV can be controlled by 2-3 operators who (by analyzing information from television cameras, radar, RTR, etc.) will outplay the lone pilot. With a flight altitude of 16 km, direct control of the UAV along the beam of the MF radar is possible up to a range of 500 km.

2.3. Justification of the concept of gliding ammunition


The American planning bomb (PB) GBU-39 turned out to be much cheaper than the V-p-class missile launcher of the same range. The first version of the PB had simple navigation (only from GPS). This PB cost $ 45 thousand. The accuracy and noise immunity of GPS guidance was low, and they decided to use the seeker, which increased the price several times.

However, the positive qualities of PB can be developed with less price increases. It is proposed to solve the problem of interference immunity of PB navigation if the GLONASS receiver is installed on an IS UAV. When flying at an altitude of 16 km or more, the GLONASS antenna installed on the upper part of the fuselage will be shielded from interference from the ground, that is, the coordinates of the UAV will be known exactly. Then a pair of UAVs, separated by 20–40 km, will be able to measure the PB coordinates (except for altitude) with an error of less than 10 m at ranges up to 150 km. The radars will be able to make accurate measurements if a transponder is installed on the PB. For the final aiming at the target, the PB will need to be equipped with a TV camera, the image from which will be transmitted to the operator through the transponder. The camera optics can be quite simple. It is necessary to ensure target detection from distances of more than 1,5–2 km. If the target is moving at a speed of more than 10 km / h, then the radar will be able to direct the PB to it.

Another gliding ammunition is the author's own proposal, which has not been tested by anyone. And, accordingly, it can be criticized by experts. These are gliding missiles (PR), which should replace the R-77 medium-range UR UAV. The essence of the proposal is that the UAV, having detected an enemy IS attack, launches a missile defense system at it and, without engaging in battle, return to the AK. IB will try to catch up with the UAV at supersonic. But the launch range of UR AMRAAM in pursuit is 3 times less than in the opposite direction. Therefore, the PR is not at all obliged to immediately attack the IS. It is enough to wait until the IB itself flies up to the PR. Suppose that the launch of the PR occurred when there was 150 km before the IS, and the IS speed was 600 m / s. Let the PR plan to meet the IS at a speed of 200 m / s. Then in 140 s the distance between them will be reduced to 40 km. PR can turn on the engine and, dropping the wing, accelerate, for example, up to 700-800 m / s. In 140 s the PR will lose 2,5 km in altitude, that is, it will be at an altitude of 14-15 km. If the IB is at a higher height, then the PR will easily rise to the required height.

Since there are almost no clouds at high altitudes, the PR can have an optical GOS (for example, TV). Almost all the time of the flight of the PR, it is guided by the radar using the command method, and only on the last 2-3 km there is a transition to homing. In such conditions, the mass of the PR of 60 kg will be quite sufficient. Consequently, a shock UAV can take a pair of PRs "just in case." Moreover, the PR can be used against attacking missiles and missiles.

3. Заключение


Many comments were devoted to the fact that evolutionary development should not be disturbed. It is necessary, like the Americans, to develop everything in stages. As a general statement, this is true, but our reality does not make it possible to calmly philosophize over a glass of tea.

The first article in the series argued that our defense industry is in a critical situation. In recent years, research funding has declined sharply. Developments that are declared to be the newest are often not. For example, the Dagger complex. You can't admit aviation version of the Soviet Iskander missile for the latest development. Of course, something was modernized, but there was no breakthrough. The Dagger MiG-31 carrier is also outdated and uncompetitive. It is so expensive and uneconomical that orders for it are not expected. And for some reason nobody liked the speed of 3000 km / h.

If you continue to declare that AK does not need to be developed due to the fact that there are no necessary technologies, then after a while you will notice that entire engineering schools are dying. Then, when you need to develop something really new and competitive, it turns out that there are no developers, and the experience is lost. If an engineer has not developed anything promising for 10 years, then he loses his qualifications. Therefore, ideas should be discussed and avant-garde projects should be carried out long before their implementation.

The next article is supposed to consider the concept of an AWACS aircraft intended to replace the A-100 aircraft.
Author:
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 25 November 2020 12: 07
    +10
    Well, what is this article for?
    Prove that you are an artist and so you see?
    So the audience (readers), as you can see, did not perceive your talent in two-thirds of theirs.
    1. YOUR
      YOUR 25 November 2020 12: 33
      +10
      Pouring from empty to empty. One aircraft carrier cannot be repaired, there are no fifth generation aircraft, i.e. they seem to be there, but they are not. Nevertheless, an aircraft carrier with aircraft of the 6th generation is being discussed.
      One gets the impression that we have lost both personnel and factory capabilities for the construction of large ocean-going ships, with the exception of nuclear submarines.
      About this "Storm" talk has been going on for 10 years, but the Government has not yet issued any assignments, including at least a draft model.
      1. Nazar
        Nazar 29 November 2020 04: 41
        +2
        YOUR - these articles are variations on the theme - "and who would a grandmother be if she had male gender characteristics?" wassat
        It's amazing how many people (sane and far from stupid people) take part in the discussion of this idle talk. request
        1. YOUR
          YOUR 29 November 2020 10: 57
          +2
          Exactly. It's a shame that nothing is being done in the country to rectify the situation.
          1. Nazar
            Nazar 29 November 2020 11: 18
            +2
            YOUR - Yes, here it is not only offensive, how it becomes scary - recently, not a single anti-submarine ship, well, the Russian BOD will not master, but why is the IPC not being built? Anti-submarine aircraft are also in "out" - US - have placed sea wolves in Norway and this practically locked our submarine strategists at the base. The situation at the Pacific Fleet is no better. And the underwater strategists are so - the component of the nuclear "triad" is considered - and for us it is practically nullified.
            What kind of "aircraft carriers" nafig, IPC are needed, minesweepers, anti-submarine aircraft, multipurpose submarines and modern torpedoes for them, anti-torpedoes too. Without all this, the strategists cannot be brought to the launch area.
            And our "patrol" ships are being built for 40 billion worth and even in series (5 pieces).
            Tales about "Leaders", "Storms" and the like are nothing more than an attempt to cover up people's eyes. hi
            1. YOUR
              YOUR 29 November 2020 11: 47
              +2
              There are thousands of such examples, but what if we sell oil, gas, timber, electricity to China, and we buy high-tech equipment from them? Everything is lost.
              1. Nazar
                Nazar 29 November 2020 12: 36
                +2
                YOUR - Equipment is still good, it means that they will build something, but look in any shopping center 90% of "consumer goods" made in China, clothes, household electrical appliances, toys about phones, I don't even mention it - and all this in exchange for raw materials.
                I agree with you for 30 years after the USSR - completely degraded.
                1. YOUR
                  YOUR 29 November 2020 13: 20
                  +1
                  The vacuum cleaner was covered, today my wife and I went shopping, choosing which one to buy, all the production of Made in is not ours and the assembly is China. There are no Russian household appliances at all.
                  I don’t understand, the country doesn’t produce anything, on what account we live. Small-scale production and wood processing remained in the city. But we live, we get money, we buy, we sell - at what expense ??????????????????????
                  1. Nazar
                    Nazar 29 November 2020 13: 28
                    +3
                    YOUR = oil, gas, timber, coal, gold, fertilizers, steel ... all "to take away"
                    it is clear that the main money from this goes to the capitalist owners, but some crumbs fall to the rest, therefore we "live" or rather we survive, how long this system will last is hard to say.
    2. Alien From
      Alien From 25 November 2020 17: 20
      +3
      I agree with the Leader, the author should think ...
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri 26 November 2020 07: 07
        +5
        Well, at least the author's humor is all right. But in general...
        You know that the previous article, which I preferred not to comment on (and apparently did the right thing), that the current one, caused me a storm of nostalgia. Namely, the controversy between Oleg Kaptsov and Andrey from Chelyabinsk in the articles "The most absurd ships in the history of the navy" and "Ships of Armageddon. Heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of project 1143". Indeed, in essence, all that the author offers is Project 1143 in its modernized version (if we take into account the concept itself, and not a specific visual appearance). Even then, I offered to imagine what would happen if these ships continued to be part of the Russian Navy and I had ideas very similar to the author's vision.
        Further, my comment from 15.10.2015/XNUMX/XNUMX:
        Let's take, for example, the stumbling block of the air connection issue. All the arguments boiled down to "+" and "-" Yakov, however, being ships of pr. 1143 today in service, what is the probability that Yaks would continue to be based on them? I think it's zoomed in, tending to zero. The likelihood that an air wing would be based on helicopters is much higher. But here the argument of one of the commentators is appropriate that today helicopters, as a means of detecting enemy submarines, are morally obsolete (I admit this), in addition, Oleg's thesis that they are not capable of resisting enemy aircraft in the event of a threat, thereby strengthening The ship's air defense also has the right to objectivity. I will add on my own (without pretending to be true) that the size of the runway deck of pr. 1143, for the needs of helicopters only, will be clearly excessive. However, nothing stands still, the relatively recent class of unmanned aerial vehicles could well turn out to be that very golden mean between striking power and reconnaissance for ships of pr. 1143. By equipping these ships with unmanned aerial vehicles, we could significantly increase the air component of the ship without losing detection range and using the infrastructure of the premises and superstructures to the maximum: in particular, it seems that having the length of the take-off and landing deck would be optimal both for takeoff of the UAV (especially considering the possible installation of a powder catapult) and for its landing, which the aircraft will agree with, not equipped with vertical take-off and landing systems, I can not afford it, in view of the banal lack of runway length.


        Very similar to what the author suggests, is not it? Although without unnecessary phantasmagoria on the topic of a specific embodiment. However, further I was also somewhat "carried away" and if the requirement to install Onyx / Caliber instead of Granites was even more or less objectively clear, then a powerful air defense (and I now fully realize this) is not necessary for the aircraft-carrying cruiser, because then the question arises of the need for aviation on board.

        But what strikingly distinguishes my commentary and the author's reasoning is that the latter set himself the extremely laborious task of designing from scratch both the carrier ship itself and the aircraft based on it, while I was just thinking about what could turn heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1143, while they were still in the Russian Navy. Both, things are very speculative, in the sense that the ships of project 1143 now belong to anyone, but not Russia, but at least they were embodied in metal, they spent the resources of the state and time for production, and therefore my reasoning concerned first of all, what had to be done what should have been done so that these ships continue to benefit the state, thereby replenishing the resources spent on their production, which you will agree is a little closer to reality than the project of another aircraft-carrying cruiser.

        However, in any case, I express my gratitude to the author for the courage to share his ideas, as well as for the presence of some kind of "feedback" and I earnestly ask you not to be offended by the nickname "dreamer". After all, where would humanity be without all the "dreamers" like Daedalus, Leonardo da Vinci or Konstantin Eduardovich Tsialkovsky? We would sit in a cave and gnaw the bones of mammoths, under the relentless whisper of senior members of the tribe that everyone should be content with what they have, and therefore should not encroach on what is beyond our understanding.
        1. Alien From
          Alien From 26 November 2020 10: 24
          0
          I agree with you) from dream to stupidity one step!)
  2. Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 25 November 2020 12: 07
    +17
    Well, first of all, the author's previous article was pure projection.
    Moreover, a person is very far from the issue that he raised.
    Secondly and most importantly, in order to design an aircraft carrier at least conceptually, you need to work out in great detail the concept of its use. That is, to understand and describe what it is for. The concept is in style, because the United States has 10 of them and we don't have a single one. And only after it becomes clear what it is needed for, to start designing the forces and means for the implementation of this concept.
    Otherwise it is a thing in itself and for itself.
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 25 November 2020 12: 57
      +4
      The concept is in style, because the United States has 10 of them and we don't have a single one. And only after it becomes clear what it is needed for, start designing the forces and means for the implementation of this concept.
      Here is the problem that the adherents of "powerful aircraft carrier groups" have just such a formulation of the question and rolls. I don’t know is it stupidity or lobbyism (although lobbying is not necessary here) or just dreams? But songs about aircraft carriers do not subside !!!
      1. faiver
        faiver 25 November 2020 14: 09
        +6
        Whether we want it or not, but aircraft-carrying ships - UDC, helicopter carriers and aircraft carriers are tools for projecting power, and we will build them, otherwise we will fall out of the ranks of states with which the world is considered, it will not work to sit like a snail in a shell ...
        1. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 25 November 2020 14: 38
          -4
          Quote: faiver
          otherwise we will fall out of the ranks of states with which the world is considered,

          We have never had aircraft carriers and we are only building the UDC, but we are reckoned with before and now.
          UDC is understandable, it can land in Georgia, maybe in Japan ..
          But describe the situation in which the Russian Federation needs an aircraft carrier?hi
          And ALL US aircraft carriers can be nullified with one blow to the only US shipyard capable of building and repairing these ships. This shipyard is located in Newport, Virginia.
          The opinion is not mine, but Konstantin Sivkov. Actually a sailor knows what he is talking about.
          1. faiver
            faiver 25 November 2020 14: 59
            +8
            TAKRs and helicopter carriers were, this time, our world is no longer bipolar, where everything was decided by the nuclear confrontation between the USSR and the USA, and many are trying to bite the Russian Federation. And the nullification of US aircraft carriers by a strike on Newport would be a nullification of human civilization on the planet, before talking about strikes, it would be nice to think about the consequences ...
            1. Alexey Sommer
              Alexey Sommer 25 November 2020 18: 44
              +2
              Do you think you can get away with the blow to the US aircraft carrier?
              1. faiver
                faiver 25 November 2020 18: 48
                +2
                Do you think you can get away with the blow to the US aircraft carrier?
                - funny ...
          2. Per se.
            Per se. 26 November 2020 06: 08
            +6
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            we are considered both before and now.
            They are considered to know that "they will not get off with tomatoes" ... When Russia now has two loyal allies - oil and gas, and the Central Bank is under the IMF and FRS, why do we need aircraft carriers, right?
            It's strange to hear that "We never had aircraft carriers"as in the comment above -"understand and describe what it is for".

            In order to understand what an aircraft carrier is for, you need to understand what aviation is for, as a type of weapon, and what aviation is for at sea (an aircraft carrier is only a carrier of carrier-based aviation).
            We can't even build more frigates, at the moment, even submarines, maybe Russia doesn't need a fleet?

            In general, the fleet is needed now not so much for the war itself as for preventing a global conflict, stopping problems in a timely manner, creating a projection of force at the right time and in the right place.
            The fleet is always in business, and nuclear weapons can be used, so you can generally blow up only your own nuclear power plants and the whole world is finished, continuous Chernobyl, and, "we, as martyrs, will go to heaven, and they will simply die."
            1. Alexey Sommer
              Alexey Sommer 26 November 2020 06: 55
              -6
              Today, any aircraft carrier is guaranteed to be disabled by the Dagger, or Zircon. I'm already silent about Onyx, or Calibers, which theoretically can be shot down
              So tell me, what is this big cabinet called Aircraft Carrier for?
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 26 November 2020 07: 47
                +5
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                So tell me, what is this big cabinet called Aircraft Carrier for?
                You can destroy everything, both a "large cabinet" and a small one. You go into logic, if a tank can be burnt with a cheap shell, why then do you need an expensive tank.
                This also applies to the aircraft carrier or the same frigate. In general, it is always easier and much cheaper to pierce the wheels of someone else's "Lexus" with a rusty stud, even if, they say, they also walk on foot.

                So why do we need an aircraft carrier as an aircraft carrier, which is a type of weaponry at sea? Let's immediately separate the "flies" from the "cutlets", speaking about aircraft carriers, without verbiage and speculation. Yes, we will not build more aircraft carriers than the United States, we will not build more destroyers and frigates, but the point is not in quantity, but in the quality of the fleet, as a full-fledged unit capable of solving all tasks at sea. Figuratively speaking, there is no need to agitate to play "chess" with "pawns" alone, "heavy pieces" are also needed. So, when solving these problems, on a separate "chessboard", our ships should have "all the power of the Soviet Union", and the point will no longer be in the number of these "boards" in the world ocean, but in creating the projection of force into the required time and place.

                If we need aviation at sea, we definitely need aircraft-carrying ships. Here I agree with the author of the article, than nothing, it is better to have the same UDC or light aircraft carrier (such as the Italian Conte di Cavour), especially a ship that our traders sold to the Indians (Vikramaditya, that is, our Admiral Gorshkov ).

                I also agree that the aircraft carrier is not only "valuable mech", it is also the development of technology, which after that you cannot get it from scratch. To build a new ocean-going fleet in the USSR, they had to cooperate before the war with Italy, then study captured ships, create scientific schools, and raise their own specialists. It is easy to lose everything, it takes a long time to create. As for the rest, it makes no sense to repeat what has been said, with missile boats and ships of the littoral zone alone, not to ensure the national interests and security of Russia.
                1. Alexey Sommer
                  Alexey Sommer 26 November 2020 17: 24
                  +1
                  Quote: Per se.
                  To build a new ocean-going fleet in the USSR, I had to cooperate before the war with Italy,

                  And that fleet was never built, because it suddenly became clear that the battleships were no longer needed. But everyone was sure that without battleships there was no way to win the war at sea.
                  The same story with aircraft carriers.
                  Not only airplanes are developing, but also missiles. And in the evolution of technical characteristics, there comes a moment of qualitative change. I mean rockets.
                  1. Per se.
                    Per se. 26 November 2020 21: 19
                    +2
                    Quote: Alexey Sommer
                    And that fleet was never built
                    Alexey, the fleet has been built, the ocean fleet. If it were not for Khrushchev, some heavy cruisers or battleships could have been completed. When the British committed a war crime, activating the old "gift" in the bow of the Novorossiysk on October 29, 1955, the battleship was relevant, the squadron was preparing to enter the Mediterranean Sea, "showdowns" for the Suez Canal were brewing. Battleships were also in demand during Desert Storm, when the Americans were withdrawing their Iowa-class battleships from the reserve.

                    Even now, "Admiral Nakhimov" after modernization, should turn, if not into a nuclear missile battleship, then a nuclear missile battle cruiser. I would not completely bury battleships here, let alone aircraft carriers.

                    If you are waiting for epic naval battles, such as the Second World War for the Midway Atoll, it is unlikely that it will be, in a global nuclear war, much that will no longer be required, cities, airfields and naval bases will be destroyed.
                    But, standing for years, decades, nuclear missiles in mines, stand useless, it seems, devour money, but thanks to them, there is a deterrent factor at its level.
                    Aircraft carriers, the navy, this is also a deterrent, also at its own level, so that it does not come to the need to still use these nuclear missiles.

                    This is suppression of conflicts in the bud, local wars, a demonstration of force, and, of course, the protection of national interests, under the cover of those missiles that are in the mines. We need a fleet, aircraft carriers in particular, and for the prelaunch period, if the threat of a big war is maximum. We also need a fleet to cover our strategic submarines.

                    You say rockets. It is not always possible and necessary to apply them. As an example, the Falklands, Britain sent a navy rather than a nuclear strike against Argentina. We also had a military conflict with China over Damansky, we fought without using nuclear weapons, but with a strong army. It is unlikely that we will bomb Japan, we will build a new Hiroshima, but without a strong fleet it will be very problematic with the Kuril Islands.

                    Also, the construction of the nuclear-powered Ulyanovsk would have been impossible without the experience of building new destroyers and cruisers, without starting in such ships as the Moskva and Leningrad.
                    If the aircraft carrier were useless, they would not have this class, they would not build all the significant fleets of the world.
                    I will not repeat myself about a cheap shell and an expensive tank.
                    1. Alexey Sommer
                      Alexey Sommer 27 November 2020 11: 52
                      0
                      Quote: Per se.
                      If not for Khrushchev, we could have completed building some heavy cruisers.

                      It was not about Babin (Khrushchev), these ships were no longer needed. Well, you should already understand this from the height of today.
                      Quote: Per se.
                      On October 9, 1955, the battleship was relevant, the squadron was preparing to enter the Mediterranean Sea, "showdowns" for the Suez Canal were brewing.

                      And what would have changed there if there was a battleship?
                      Quote: Per se.
                      Battleships were also in demand during Desert Storm, when the Americans were withdrawing their Iowa-class battleships from the reserve.

                      And where are they now? And why did they decide to send them back to the place?
                      Quote: Per se.
                      If you're looking for epic naval battles such as WWII over Midway Atoll

                      No, I don't write about it anywhere and it won't happen. That is why I say the Avik star has sunk.
                      There will be a short and sudden exchange of missile strikes and EVERYTHING.
                      The battle will end there. On both sides, there will be a maximum of "undead" incapable of combat. Those who are no longer able to fulfill the task of supporting the landing, just as they will not be able to strike on land with aircraft.
                      The war of the 21st century between the superpowers will last 6-12 hours.
              2. Dante Alighieri
                Dante Alighieri 26 November 2020 08: 17
                +1
                Today, any aircraft carrier is guaranteed to be disabled by the Dagger, or Zircon

                Oh, not a fact ... In Soviet times, it was believed that a salvo of 1164 was guaranteed to send any aircraft carrier to the bottom. Volley. 16 supersonic anti-ship missiles. Those who had more warheads than Zircon, which means the latter will need more. Whether we have so many carriers for these same Zircons is a big question. And I still do not take into account the fact that over the past 30 years, jamming and ship air defense systems have advanced significantly. The Dagger argument is of course "more weighty", but one MIG-31 carries exactly one Dagger, and only 10 aircraft of the "K" modification. So count it.
                So tell me, what is this big cabinet called Aircraft Carrier for?

                In general, this question can be reformulated: "why do we need aviation?" For an aircraft carrier is inseparable from its wing. The aircraft carrier itself is nothing more than a mobile airport and is necessary to push back the border of its own defense and (or) attack, thereby gaining time to prepare a commensurate response, as well as as a tool for broadcasting its strength to where there is no corresponding infrastructure (hello Falklands) ... In relation to a defensive strategy, aircraft carriers, like the fleet as a whole, are needed in order to protect the coastal infrastructure, before an attack on which, a potential enemy will have to deal with ships located at sea. Moreover, by the time they do this, there will be little point in destroying the coastal infrastructure, because there will be no one left on the shore: the calculations will take positions in accordance with the schedule and go to avenge those who remain forever at sea. However, it is not possible to realize this scenario exclusively by the air defense forces of the ship group, since even the most advanced shipborne radar sees no further than 150-200 km, while a reconnaissance aircraft lifted from the deck of an aircraft carrier increases this distance almost twice (despite the fact that the radar detection aircraft itself is capable of going to a distance of up to 150-300 km, if you push off on the flight characteristics of Hockey). I am already silent about the very fact of the presence of carrier-based aircraft, which can help so robustly in any confrontation.
                1. Alexey Sommer
                  Alexey Sommer 26 November 2020 17: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: Dante
                  Volley. 16 supersonic anti-ship missiles. Those who had more warheads than Zircon, which means the latter will need more.

                  This does not mean that a total weight of a warhead of 16 missiles is needed, it means that out of an outfit of 16 missiles, one is guaranteed to break through the air defense / missile defense orders and damage the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. After that, it cannot be used for its intended purpose until undergoing a major overhaul. hi
                  1. Dante Alighieri
                    Dante Alighieri 27 November 2020 08: 11
                    +1
                    this means that out of a squad of 16 missiles, one is guaranteed to break through an air defense / missile defense order and damage the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. After that, it cannot be used for its intended purpose until it undergoes a major overhaul.

                    It meant that the alignment of the outcome of the battle between the American AUG, led by AV Nimitz, and the Soviet KUG, led by any of the 1143 operating at that time, both by us and by probable opponents, was estimated as approximately 0,5 to 0,0 in favor of the USSR Navy. Of course, this is all purely mathematical calculations and the reality could be somewhat different, but the chances that half of the ships from the Soviet KUG would remain afloat was still higher. But on the other hand, there would be no "shortfalls" from the word at all: the Soviet ships remaining in service would simply "reset" everyone who was lucky enough to survive the first blow either by YAKs or by banal art.

                    All this, of course, is very speculative and proceeds from the fact that the opponents discovered each other at the same time. Although we must give the Yankers their due due to a full-fledged aircraft carrier, they had a higher chance of being the first to find the Soviet KUG, which means that the right of the first strike would be theirs. But all the same, you must agree, knowing this alignment, they did not live very calmly at that time. And again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these are, in fact, the results of a duel between two groups, which include aircraft carrying ships. Without these, the results were completely different, and quite sad for the American side.
                    1. Alexey Sommer
                      Alexey Sommer 27 November 2020 11: 33
                      0
                      Quote: Dante
                      But on the other hand, there would be no "shortcomings" from the word at all:

                      You must understand that in modern naval combat there are no imperfections, just as there are no drowned ones.
                      There are disabled ones. And it's all. The ship is no longer combat-ready, just the same that it is not. Even worse, if there is no ship, then they forget about it, if it exists, but if it is damaged, it is necessary to spend resources on it, drag it to the base, and repair it there. Nightmare!
  3. iouris
    iouris 25 November 2020 12: 09
    0
    Quote: "It is necessary, as Americans, to develop everything in stages." End of quote.
    As Americans (!)
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 25 November 2020 12: 35
      -1
      1. counted and shed tears (not the military-Kudrin, for example) - construction and 50 years of operation.
      1A. 1 thousand km \ 1 ammunition = xkhrub (Kudrin and Serdyukov) -RVSN missile is cheaper
      2. The United States defends its coastal cities, the whole country with AUGami, can we defend Rostov / Papa, Novosibirsk, Moscow?
      3. the confrontation (in the pub?) Of submariners and sea flyers ended in favor of the nuclear submarine.-Psychology-subconsciousness.
      Komoedov and others.
      4. AK survived until 2014 without Crimea, only development began.
      5.what to protect? which countries will pay us? Venezuela? and..?
      6. The United States sells its AUG technology (part). Who are we to?
      7.The verdict of the opponents of the fleet was also passed by the NSKhr in favor of missiles.
      Rogozin's failures are not a reason to abandon the Strategic Missile Forces.
      8.
      9.
      10
      add your own
      27.construction of highways and high-speed railways (railway)
      28. Will the salaries of teachers and janitors grow from the presence of AUG in the Russian Federation?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 November 2020 16: 16
        +7
        Quote: antivirus
        1. counted and shed tears (not the military-Kudrin, for example) - construction and 50 years of operation.
        1A. 1 thousand km \ 1 ammunition = xkhrub (Kudrin and Serdyukov) -RVSN missile is cheaper

        Cheaper. But you can apply it once in a lifetime - and you still have to think a lot.
        Yes, and the Strategic Missile Forces do not guarantee anything - won, limes had to be assembled in 1982 wherever possible and sail to another hemisphere. But they were a nuclear power.
        Quote: antivirus
        2. The United States defends its coastal cities, the whole country with AUGami, can we defend Rostov / Papa, Novosibirsk, Moscow?

        Gadzhievo and Vilyuchinsk. Or, more precisely, the carriers of SLBMs, on which we have 40% of the strategic SBS and which must somehow reach the positional areas and survive there before launch.
        Quote: antivirus
        7.The verdict of the opponents of the fleet was also passed by the NSKhr in favor of missiles.

        Yeah ... and as a result, the USSR spent on the navy "asymmetric response" funds, which could build and operate 8-9 AUG. Investing them for the most part either in highly specialized or in stupid ships.
        And most importantly, how did it end? That's right - the same aircraft carriers: springboard 11435 and 11436 and ejection 11437. Moreover, 11437 was the development of projects 1160 and 1153, developed in the late 60s - early 70s.
        1. bayard
          bayard 26 November 2020 00: 33
          +3
          The question of the uselessness / necessity of aircraft carriers is raised for the hundredth time and is already tired of it. The fleet is generally an expensive toy, and the ocean-going aircraft-carrying fleet can only be afforded by the Great Economic Power, for which such a fleet is necessary to protect its economic and geopolitical interests.
          Is Russia such today?
          Does she aspire to become such?
          Is she ready to go to those huge efforts and expenses that are inevitable in the implementation of such ambitions?
          ... Suppose there is such a political desire ... Suppose there is a desire to declare their ambitions and make efforts and means to realize it ...
          The first thing that the state must decide is the economy (not only finances), technical competence, experience in building an ocean-going fleet and GENUINE SOVEREIGNTY in making and implementing such decisions.
          If YES, then ... Russia will be able to start building aircraft carriers no earlier than in 5 years - when the Zaliv shipyard gains experience and develops its capacities, when the shipyard in Bolshoi Kamen is completed and gains confidence in its strength.
          If we talk about aircraft carriers, then you should immediately understand that we do not need ONE aircraft carrier, as amateurs like to dream, we will need them from 3 to 6. In order to be able to keep one or two such ships constantly at sea. At the Pacific Fleet and possibly at the Northern Fleet (on duty in the North Atlantic or even in the Mediterranean Sea).
          You should immediately understand for yourself that we will not be able to have so many atomic AB, either technically or financially. And we need them to ensure the stability of the ship groupings, that is, to ensure the air defense of the KUG. Impact functions will be auxiliary.
          Therefore, our aircraft carriers should not have excess VI, 45 - 50 thousand tons will be quite enough.
          GEM on gas turbines and it is desirable to provide electric propulsion. For two reasons:
          - for the ability to power the EM catapult,
          - to get rid of the headache of creating complex travel gearboxes.
          And also to save the internal space of the ship, because such does not need extended shaft lines and there will be freedom in the internal arrangement of units.
          AWACS aircraft are desirable but not required. Their basing on AV medium VI will be difficult, but AWACS helicopters will be able to take over their functions.
          Such ships should be built in full series at once, and preferably at 2 shipyards at once. At the same shipyards, in the future, they must undergo repair and modernization, and not run across three oceans for repairs.
          I estimate the cost of such AB at 3 - 4 billion dollars (although our shipbuilders are ready to build a similar one for 2 - 2,5 billion dollars, but let's be realistic.
          The issue of escort, if the current shipbuilding programs remain in force and are carried out, will not pose a particular problem. In 5 years, when it will be possible to conduct serious work on the construction of such ships, we will already have enough 22350 frigates in service for at least 2 - 3 AUG (including the modernized BOD). The next 10 - 15 years required for the implementation of the construction program for a series of these ABs will allow us to bring the number of necessary pennants to the required norm.

          But these are, of course, tasks for a completely different State.
          First of all - the SOVEREIGNER.
          Mighty.
          Strong-willed.
          And Purposeful.

          And if NO ... then there is nothing to shake the forums with dreams of the impossible. lol
          bully soldier
          1. frog
            frog 26 November 2020 09: 58
            +2
            And if NO ... then there is nothing to shake the forums with dreams of the impossible.

            Especially IMHO, but for a start it would be nice to just revive the trivial common sense in the country. Create normal conditions for the development of industry, and so on. Look, why is it suddenly this or it costs so much ... And only then think and shake the air on any issue ...
            The aircraft carrier is there or something else .... But the actual aircraft carrier is still needed, if at all. For AUG is local air domination / supremacy. No more. And domination is, first of all, ensuring the deployment of the submarine forces of the fleet. To which individual citizens are so juicy ...... .... morph
  4. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 25 November 2020 12: 19
    +1
    Perhaps not on the topic .. Yesterday I looked at the Notes of a Dead Man, took it as a close reality ..
  5. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 25 November 2020 12: 26
    +5
    When criticizing, suggest: I suggest indicating the author at the beginning of the article, as well as banning authors based on the rating of their articles.
  6. Doctor
    Doctor 25 November 2020 12: 33
    +3
    aircraft carriers are universal, but land is their priority

    The main mistake.
    The plane is cooler than the cannon. He sees further and finishes further.
    The aircraft carrier is a delivery aircraft to the open ocean, so he defeated the battleship.

    Pearl Harbor was a disaster because the ships were hit.
    We have 3 such pearl harbors on the western front every day.

    Nothing, we won. wink
  7. Avior
    Avior 25 November 2020 12: 40
    +3
    in the author's articles there is an acute lack of specifics, in my opinion.
    UAV offered? Indicate the type, creation possibility and main characteristics.
    Runway length, the ability to land at the finish line, the ability to reproduce it in Russia.
    Radar is offered? Indicate the type, characteristics, capabilities, both in range and in weight and size, of a suitable prototype, and the possibility of implementation.
    And then, according to the plan, air defense will be provided by unmanned fighters, which do not exist in nature.
    Without such a rationale, all these proposals do not look very serious.
  8. certero
    certero 25 November 2020 12: 53
    +3
    Russia simply has no money for aircraft carriers.
    But the development of unmanned aerial vehicles is absolutely necessary. By the way, such drones can provide support for the fleet.
    1. faiver
      faiver 25 November 2020 14: 01
      +2
      Russia simply has no money for aircraft carriers
      - there is money, but not there ...
  9. Thrifty
    Thrifty 25 November 2020 12: 53
    +5
    The author is right in his own right, we need to live for today, but constantly think about tomorrow! Today and now it is possible that an aircraft carrier is not needed, but tomorrow it will turn out that we missed yesterday, without having built an aircraft carrier today! There are, of course, also remarks, but these are purely technical issues, for example, a heavy drone on an aircraft carrier must have a refueling system in the air, like a medium drone, for a small, light drone due to a shorter range of action, such a system is not needed so that there is no increase apparatus in the price. By the way, aircraft carriers are needed not by members of the forum, but by the Russian fleet, and they need 4 pennants only yesterday! This is a good tool not only for showing the flag of Russia, but also for the forceful backwardness of the country's interests in the world.
    1. Hwostatij
      Hwostatij 25 November 2020 13: 10
      0
      Today and now it is possible that an aircraft carrier is not needed, but tomorrow it will turn out that we missed yesterday without having built an aircraft carrier today!

      That is, you propose to build an aircraft carrier just in case - suddenly, tomorrow it will be needed. I won't even ask about the expected characteristics of such a device.
      By the way, aircraft carriers are needed not by members of the forum, but by the Russian fleet, and they need 4 pennants only yesterday!

      And what would have changed yesterday if Russia had 4 AUG costing 50 lard of greenery, except for a hole in the budget?
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 25 November 2020 15: 06
        +3
        That is, you propose to build an aircraft carrier just in case - suddenly, tomorrow it will be needed. I won't even ask about the expected characteristics of such a device.

        Offer, don't offer, they won't build it anyway. Not any.
        The aircraft carrier is the most powerful means of war at sea, but it alone is "not a warrior." We need destroyers with reliable air defense / missile defense, integrated supply ships and much more. None of this is, and never will be. With great difficulty we are dragging the program of frigates and corvettes ... All this, no matter how sorry it may seem, is only the dreams of patriotic sailors.
        And what would have changed yesterday if Russia had 4 AUG costing 50 lard of greenery, except for a hole in the budget?

        Some sporting events cost about the same amount. Nothing. The country lives on.
        But seriously, Russia does not need an aircraft carrier or 1 ... Russia needs a fleet, a strong fleet that would meet the country's needs in its defense capability as much as possible. But to have such a fleet, developed science and industry are needed. The Navy is a VERY expensive and flexible military-political tool. And every year its importance only increases.
        1. Hwostatij
          Hwostatij 25 November 2020 16: 29
          -1
          Some sporting events cost about the same amount. Nothing. The country lives on.
          But seriously, Russia does not need an aircraft carrier or 1 ... Russia needs a fleet, a strong fleet that would meet the country's needs in its defense capability as much as possible. But to have such a fleet, developed science and industry are needed. The Navy is a VERY expensive and flexible military-political tool. And every year its importance only increases.

          And what can we do useful with this necessary strong fleet that we cannot now?
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 25 November 2020 17: 46
            +2
            Quote: Hwostatij
            Some sporting events cost about the same amount. Nothing. The country lives on.
            But seriously, Russia does not need an aircraft carrier or 1 ... Russia needs a fleet, a strong fleet that would meet the country's needs in its defense capability as much as possible. But to have such a fleet, developed science and industry are needed. The Navy is a VERY expensive and flexible military-political tool. And every year its importance only increases.

            And what can we do useful with this necessary strong fleet that we cannot now?

            There are a lot of answers to this question. Both in books and on the Internet. The smartest people analyze this topic in detail. I see no reason to write a whole article now ..
            Your question is rather provocative.
            They took a hundred tourists hostage in a distant country, arrested a gas carrier, bad guys attacked the union state, announced a blockade of trade traffic or ports, submarines of potential opponents dart wherever they want, other bad guys captured a couple of their home islands ... ..
            How and how to solve these problems?
            Without a navy, the country will face inevitable isolation, extinction and slow suffocation.
            1. Hwostatij
              Hwostatij 25 November 2020 17: 50
              -2
              There are a lot of answers to this question. Both in books and on the Internet. The smartest people analyze this topic in detail. I see no reason to write a whole article now ..
              Your question is rather provocative.
              They took a hundred tourists hostage in a distant country, arrested a gas carrier, bad guys attacked the union state, announced a blockade of trade traffic or ports, submarines of potential opponents dart wherever they want, other bad guys captured a couple of their home islands ... ..
              How and how to solve these problems?
              Without a navy, the country will face inevitable isolation, extinction and slow suffocation.

              Are you serious now, or is this such subtle humor? Which of these problems will you solve by building a VERY expensive, in your words, a fleet?
  10. sleeve
    sleeve 25 November 2020 13: 28
    -1
    They will build a UDC for you. They will "put on" the UAV and everything will be fine. Why worry then?
  11. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 25 November 2020 13: 43
    0
    The dimensions of the dry dock in Kerch allow the construction of a full-size aircraft carrier. The problem is that those who built them - engineers and ship assemblers - stayed in Nikolaev, and some left in search of work for Poland and beyond. Events in Syria have shown that UDC is needed, however, they can be used in other situations. With the aircraft carrier, alas, it is not so obvious yet, especially with a small one. This may well be noticed by the UDC with the SVPP.
  12. Kushka
    Kushka 25 November 2020 14: 25
    -2
    Super popular topic. 1000 commentators
    1000 opinions. The eye caught on two.
    On the first: today it is very sharp in the fleet (far zone,
    naval aviation. mine-sweeping group. Very acute
    on aviation (the adversary riveted 500 penguins, and we have ...)
    Hence, all questions about 17 sput., By retirement age
    and others. The government responds - you need to be patient, tighten your belts.
    One even writes - it's okay, there are potatoes, let's be patient.
    Imagine that magically we and AUG have how many
    it is necessary, and the planes and vanguards with the Poseidons became darkness ...
    We all get up at once, but as we say - GIVE! And in response ...
    Raikin was wise - let us have everything, but let there always be something
    not enough - very little diffsit.
    On the second, well, how did we all lean at once, but how did we work-
    and it became our ALL OGOGO!
    And in the USA, blacks and whites killed each other, and the colored ones
    both were piled on and became BBBR (a) -Bagamo - Bermuda Banana Republic.
    And in Germany, blue and pink, old woman Merkel was retired and
    chose Tikhanovskaya and became BBBR (e) - Brandenburg - Belarusian
    banana republic.
    And Erdogan sat down on a twine, his pants burst and it turned out BB (b) BR
    - Balkan Birobidzhan banana republic.

    Well, how will the kukuhu blow away from our tower and they will plunge us into such a city ...
    And what was not - the red flag from Nicaragua to Yemen
    hoisted. They walked so wide that their pants were torn and they turned
    they are ......... in elegant shorts).
    And here Raikin is right - let everything be, but the path will be a little difsit.
  13. Undecim
    Undecim 25 November 2020 15: 11
    +4
    At the beginning of his article "The concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser with a sixth generation UAV," the author warned that he is not an expert either in aviation or in shipbuilding.
    What has changed during this time and the author has become a specialist?
    There are dozens of examples of what the presence of people "who are not specialists" turns into at every step - from space to the bowels of the earth. It is unlikely that in the case of aircraft carriers, the author will be able to refute the trend.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 25 November 2020 21: 59
      -2
      Quote: Undecim
      What has changed during this time and the author has become a specialist?

      Mr. Gorbachevsky is a very BROAD-PROFILE "specialist". He selflessly argued to the Novaya Gazeta that Avangard was a waste of money. Then he preached the same thing about the Tu-160M2, proving that we did not need them. Now the MiG-31BM with the Dagger stood across his gut ... The Poseidon remained not cut off.
      Actually, he positions himself as a "specialist in the development of (?) Radar", mind you - not a "design engineer", but a specialist! (I mean, junior researcher is also special)
      At first, I conscientiously noted the bloopers and absurdities, but then I realized the futility of my venture and decided to look: is the author of the HTO like that? After the response of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to his opus on new equipment and weapons, I understood the status of this "pissaki specialist".
      ABOUT NOTHING! you shouldn't talk to him seriously. Moreover, with closed data.
      But.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 25 November 2020 22: 29
        +2
        And this: "Andrey Gorbachevsky, engineer, radar developer. After graduating from Phystech (1973) he worked in the defense industry all his life. He developed radars for anti-aircraft missile systems, started with shipborne ones, then moved to the Research Institute of Aviation Systems (now GosNIIAS). defense of strategic aviation? "
        Is it really a linden tree?
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 25 November 2020 22: 45
          -3
          Quote: Undecim
          Andrey Gorbachevsky, engineer, radar developer.

          Yep, this is the one who wrote in Novaya Gazeta: "The mythical Zircon: debunking Putin's worthless bragging." yes
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 25 November 2020 23: 13
            +3
            Well, if he is such a spy as an expert, then I am calm for military secrets.
          2. aagor
            26 November 2020 23: 46
            0
            You are quoting a provocateur. My article was called: But we can own "Zircons". Link:
            https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/03/21/79948-no-mozhem-sobstvennyh-tsirkonov
  14. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 25 November 2020 15: 30
    0
    if you don't like it, don't read it. Kaptsov's delirium also caused a stir, so what? the author writes, articles are moderated. saw something suspicious, went down the article, saw the author, did not finish reading. an elementary algorithm.
  15. faiver
    faiver 25 November 2020 17: 23
    0
    Dagger carrier MiG-31
    - there will be no orders because we cannot build ...
    1. agond
      agond 25 November 2020 18: 01
      0
      One gets the impression that someone really wants to push through the idea of ​​building, if not an aircraft carrier, then at least an AK, even if not with planes, even with a UAV, with something that flies, a useless proposal, or rather a bad one, is thrown by the enemies of our homeland, if we want to protect our sea borders we need normal airfields with runways not 200-250m long, but 2.5 km long, plus taxiing, plus underground shelter, all this must be built on islands that do not sink, do not rust, do not become obsolete, build a full-fledged airfield on the same island of Matua will come out much cheaper and faster than the construction of an AK, a normal takeoff will allow not only an unmanned aircraft, but the Tu-160 to be accepted if necessary
      1. faiver
        faiver 25 November 2020 18: 12
        +1
        if we want to defend our maritime borders
        - aircraft carriers, or aircraft carrier cruisers are not needed to protect the borders, they are needed to project force just at a distance from the borders, and it’s not worth saying that everyone else in the world is fools, but we alone are smart, so smart that we sold Kiev for 1,6, 4million dollars, and "Minsk" with "Novorossiysk" for XNUMX million. dollars and kopecks apiece ...
        1 mln. dollars weighs 10kg, i.e. in total, for three TAKRs, we received a little less than a hundred kilograms of cut paper ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 25 November 2020 19: 41
          +3
          Quote: faiver
          - aircraft carriers or aircraft carrier cruisers are not needed to defend borders, they are needed to project force just at a distance from the borders

          Not only. The USSR Navy also needed them for defense: to provide air cover for ship groups of "bastions" outside the effective radius of coastal fighters (350-400 km).
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 November 2020 19: 40
        +3
        Quote: agond
        if we want to protect our maritime borders, we need normal airfields with runways not 200-250m long, but 2.5 km long, plus taxiing, plus underground shelter, all this must be built on islands that do not sink, do not rust, do not become obsolete, on that on the island of Matua, it will be much cheaper and faster to build a full-fledged airfield than building an AK, a normal takeoff will allow not only an unmanned aircraft, but Tu-160 to be accepted if necessary

        Gorgeous. And now we remember that AB do not walk alone. Therefore, we will need to create groups of airfields for 60-80 vehicles at all important points of the coast. And keep them ready.
        And secondly, the effective radius of coastal aviation is determined not by the combat radius of fighters, but by the detection range of the enemy and the time of arrival of reinforcements to the duty group. That is, there is no point in sending duty units further 350-400 km from the airfield - they will be shot down before the regiment comes to their aid. How are we going to build groups of airfields in 500-600 km? wink
  16. bk0010
    bk0010 25 November 2020 18: 32
    +3
    Let's break it down point by point.
    Opinions have been expressed that the light AK cannot replace the classic aircraft carrier Storm.
    This is not an opinion, this is an experience. The states had dozens of aircraft carriers. But after the war all the little things went under the knife. And heavy aircraft carriers were re-equipped with jet aircraft and they served for many more decades. You will understand that the size of an aircraft carrier determines the capabilities of their carrier-based aircraft and their ability to supply them during an operation. The aircraft carrier is small - a dozen Swordfish can take off from it a couple of times, the aircraft carrier is large - a group of 10 Hornets with Cats can perform 30 sorties from it, plus AWACS and PLO forces are constantly on duty. A small aircraft carrier is a waste of money. It will be able to lift planes with a load, like that of Baikatar, or a range, like that of the An-2, which will lead to the fact that it will not be able to fight strongly against the coast or against the sea, but the chances of raking a otvetku grow illusory.
    For the last war of mankind, we have everything ready for a long time, 4000 warheads will destroy all of mankind with a guarantee.
    We have about 1500 warheads, they will not be enough for all primary targets, not that for all mankind with a guarantee. We need at least 4 times more, and a maximum of 20 times.
    To reduce the cost of the ship, it is necessary to abandon the development of the catapult.
    The absence of a catapult means that either under-refueled or under-loaded planes (well, or completely miserable) will take off. You also lose sane AWACS means (a powerful engine required for takeoff will lead to a sharp reduction in duty time, or the aircraft must be so light that its radar capabilities will be like that of a helicopter), PLO (the same reasons), tankers, transport workers, normal subsonic attack aircraft (such as Intruder).
    Therefore, the UAV should rather replace the subsonic Harrier, but in a reduced mass.
    A weight of 4 tons seems to be the best compromise.
    4 tons is nothing at all. You are not on land, you are at sea. You must be able to simultaneously deliver a lot of explosives over long distances or you will be destroyed. You are not a penny UAV, you are an aircraft carrier or the entire AUG.
    The American planning bomb (PB) GBU-39 turned out to be much cheaper than the V-p-class missile launcher of the same range.
    This is a high-flying, low-speed target with high visibility (yes, the Americans claim that the bomb has an RCS of about 0,015 m2, but how this is combined with high aerodynamic characteristics do not say, IMHO is lying). For naval battles, it is not suitable at all (already because of the GPS). For work on the ground - only after the suppression of air defense, that is, when you can get by with ordinary JDAMs.
    The essence of the proposal is that the UAV, having detected an enemy IS attack, launches a missile defense system at it and, without engaging in battle, return to the AK.
    And the enemy, after maneuvering (your missile loses its target), simply puts the anti-ship missile into your aircraft carrier.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 November 2020 19: 51
      +4
      Quote: bk0010
      This is not an opinion, this is an experience. The states had dozens of aircraft carriers. But after the war all the little things went under the knife. And heavy aircraft carriers were re-equipped with jet aircraft and they served for many more decades.

      The best examples are Essex and Midway. Both are wartime AB. But the Essex, despite all the modernizations, was transferred to the anti-submarine class in the 60s, after which it was written off. And "Midway" served until the 90s, repeatedly changing its air group - it started with "Corsairs" and "Hellkets", and ended with "Hornets".

      In addition, the large AB has better seaworthiness, and can carry out takeoff and landing operations in greater seas. On the tube there was a video from AB: someone from the "Burks" of the escort is already trying to portray a submarine, but AB does not even swing. smile
  17. PSih2097
    PSih2097 25 November 2020 20: 44
    +1
    the mistake that was once explained to me ...
    nuclear propulsion

    nuclear can only be a power plant (YSU), DU - that is, a propulsion system - a propeller or a water cannon ...
    1. agond
      agond 25 November 2020 22: 21
      0
      Quote: PSih2097
      In addition, the large AB has better seaworthiness, and can carry out takeoff and landing operations in greater seas. There was a video on the tube from AB: someone from the "Burks" of the escort is already trying to portray a submarine, and AB is not even swinging

      We decided - in comparison with a large aircraft carrier, an aircraft carrier to a cruiser, even with a catapult, even though it’s about nothing, but the aircraft carrier has neither money nor aircraft for them, and we are not going to project force at the other end of the ocean, but "project" at its own coast it is possible without aircraft-carrying ships, and then they need more than one or two, and the bases for them are ice-free once or twice, and then no matter what aircraft carrier it may be, it can be at sea all year round, and the airfield on the island may
  18. Iskazi
    Iskazi 26 November 2020 03: 46
    +1
    The material is not indisputable, but it is quite adequate. Naturally, there are no prophets in their homeland, evolutionary development is a rather controversial issue ... because - the human factor, generals are always preparing for the last war, the traditional Russian-intiligent groveling before the West, complicated by corruption and groveling. The question is more psychological and political. From this point of view, the author is right, it is better to be first in the second city than second in the first. Unfortunately, the Kremlin leadership is far from Caesar ...
  19. Intruder
    Intruder 26 November 2020 13: 03
    -2
    Another gliding ammunition is the author's own proposal, which has not been tested by anyone.
    :) but what about the Roketsan MAM-C, MAM-L, only the caliber must be increased with the warhead ...
    if the GLONASS receiver is installed on an IB UAV. When flying at an altitude of 16 km or more, the GLONASS antenna mounted on the upper part of the fuselage will be shielded from interference from the ground
    and from the air carrier GPS spoofing has not been canceled yet, from a height of 10-12 km, with the coverage of the DB area !?
    Suppose that the launch of the PR occurred when there was 150 km before the IS, and the IS speed was 600 m / s. Let the PR plan to meet the IS at a speed of 200 m / s.
    something long range for arming the UAV "PR" - 150 km, plus difficulties with aerodynamics, for gliding at a speed of 200 m / s .., such a promising (with a detachable stage) PR will cost like an anti-ship missile with similar characteristics and worked out for decades already, circuit solutions!
  20. Tektor
    Tektor 26 November 2020 15: 00
    0
    Several nuances that hint ... At a recent meeting between Putin and Sechin, a question was asked about the largest dry dock: "Will the aircraft carrier enter?" The answer is yes ... Even SKD is possible because there is a Goliath crane with a lifting capacity of 1200 tons. According to the GPV, the aircraft carrier should be laid down by 2025. The estimate for it is about 200 billion rubles, and together with the air group and all weapons - 500 billion.
    1. agond
      agond 26 November 2020 18: 55
      0
      Quote: Tektor
      The estimate for it is about 200 billion rubles, and together with the air group and all weapons - 500 billion.

      Yes, to understand a lot or a little it is necessary to compare it with something, for example, let's take the cost of cement in some kind of concrete runway 2000 m long, 70 m wide 0.5 m thick, and so let's start
      for the preparation of 1m3 of concrete, 0.4t of cement is required, at a wholesale price of 4000 rubles per ton, that is, the cube of concrete laid in a strip of cement contains 1600 rubles, which means that the entire strip will go away
      2000m x 70m x 0.5m = 70000 m3 of concrete, multiply 1600 rubles / m3, we get 112 million rubles, of course, in addition to cement, concrete contains sand and crushed stone (which can be obtained on site), all this must be delivered to the place, mixed, laid on the previously prepared surface, but all this costs money, but now they do not work with shovels, because for a long time there have been small rotary excavators and mining dump trucks and much more, working in three shifts, they not only plan the takeoff, they can roll the whole island into a pancake together with the hills and a volcano, and now the most interesting thing, how many kilometers of concrete strip can be built for 500 mlr?
      1. alstr
        alstr 26 November 2020 23: 17
        +1
        Little. only 10 lanes can be built.
        "The construction of the third lane at Sheremetyevo took 3 billion rubles and 55,7 years."
        1. agond
          agond 28 November 2020 11: 11
          0
          Quote: alstr
          Little. only 10 lanes can be built.
          "The construction of the third lane at Sheremetyevo took 3 billion rubles and 55,7 years."

          And let's divide 57.000.000.000 rubles by the area of ​​the runway with a length of 2500m and a width of 80m = 200.000 m / 2, we get 278.500 rubles per 1 m2, they built it for eight years !!! , is this how it is? and this is in the center of the country not far from the suppliers of building materials, and despite the fact that 8 years ago the average annual salary of builders was close to this level. The conclusion suggests itself that the price characteristics of the object, the construction time could be different in a different order of things.