Military Review

The United States is ready to replace some of the nuclear aircraft carriers with lighter analogues

160

The US Navy is ready to replace part of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) with lighter counterparts (CVL). These will be smaller, conventional-fueled aircraft carriers.


Forbes reports.

The desire to develop smaller aircraft carriers in the US Navy arose several years ago. They will have a shorter range, power and speed than atomic ones. But at the same time, they will not cost $ 13 billion, as nuclear-powered supercarriers, but two or three times cheaper. In addition to the price, another reason for the reduction of nuclear aircraft carriers may be the high vulnerability of these warships to the new weaponscreated in Russia and China.

A 2017 study by Californian think tank RAND recommended that the Navy replace some of its 11 100-ton CVNs with CVLs, which would be 40 tonnes. In this case, one supercarrier should be replaced by two lighter, non-nuclear ones.

CVLs are now featured in the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan for the first time. It was published last week by the administration of outgoing President Donald Trump. It is possible that his successor Joe Biden, who takes office on January 20, may revise this plan or abandon it altogether.

On the other hand, Trump's plan reflects a consensus among the naval leadership that the fleet should grow at the expense of small ships that can quickly split up, avoiding an enemy strike.

There is no exact information yet on what the CVL will look like, but it is assumed that they will begin to be created on the basis of large amphibious assault ships of the "America" ​​class.
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/U.S. Navy
160 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 20 December 2020 17: 16
    0
    A logical solution. F35B with UAVs of various classes will provide capabilities comparable to large aircraft carriers, but at times cheaper and more maneuverable.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 December 2020 17: 20
      +3
      The Americans are clear! laughing
      Japanese experience in converting helicopter large landing craft into light aircraft carriers.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 20 December 2020 17: 38
        -7
        When they created the F35B, they didn't understand what kind of revolution they were making. The allies realized a little earlier. The British, Koreans, Turks except the Japanese realized this earlier.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 20 December 2020 17: 43
          +2
          If on "B" the wings were also folded, as on "C",
          to fit into the hold ... would be valuable on an aircraft carrier.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 20 December 2020 18: 00
            -4
            In such projects, it is impossible without compromise.
            In any case, UAVs will become the main strike means, they have fewer restrictions.
            In the photo Firebee, with new technologies, the ideas of the past are realizable today.

        2. FIR FIR
          FIR FIR 20 December 2020 18: 35
          +10
          Maybe the Harriers and Yaks made this revolution?
          But is it just a revolution?
          Is the VTOL aircraft capable of having the same radius and combat payload as a standard fighter?
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 20 December 2020 19: 32
            -7
            Quote: FIR FIR
            Maybe the Harriers and Yaks made this revolution?

            They are rubbish, not exterminators.
            F35B has parameters close to the A / C version and fully performs the same tasks.
            The combat radius of A / S is 1140 km and B is 840 km, not a big difference solved by refueling after takeoff and before landing.
            The combat load is 8,1 against 6,8. The difference is a little more than a ton and this only applies to weapons on the external sling, if you fly only with weapons in the internal compartments, there is no difference.
            So yes, they created an anthological VTOL aircraft to the deck and "land" ones. This is the revolution.
            1. FIR FIR
              FIR FIR 20 December 2020 19: 44
              +10
              They are rubbish, not exterminators.
              The F35B has ..

              They are separated by 45 years !!!
              But they are still inferior ...
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 20 December 2020 23: 35
            +4
            Harriers and Yaks were pioneers in this field.
            The F-35B developers relied on their experience and methods.
            Major breakthrough: full automation of the transition from horizontal
            flight to vertical and vice versa. Which was impossible in the era of Jacob.
            ----
            Takeoff and landing convenience far outweigh the weight and
            radius. Any small ship with a simple straight deck
            can become an aircraft carrier.
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 21 December 2020 09: 21
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Any small ship with a simple straight deck
              can become an aircraft carrier

              something tells me that a simple piece of deck for basing and using VTOL aircraft will not be enough.
              Why did the same Wasp undergo modernization for basing the F-35?
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 21 December 2020 10: 54
                +2
                One of the must-have additions: steel sheets with heat sink
                at the landing sites of the F-35B.
                Well, refueling and ammunition is different from helicopter refueling.
                1. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 21 December 2020 11: 07
                  +2
                  plus a navigation system, drive and aircraft landing on board (if it was not originally a military ship with aircraft weapons)
      2. Proxima
        Proxima 20 December 2020 17: 51
        -9
        In principle, everything is logical recourse , a huge aircraft carrier is eggs in one basket... An anti-ship missile does not care what displacement the ship is to destroy. And so, the other two, albeit smaller, will have a real chance to remain intact.
        1. Vladimir Mashkov
          Vladimir Mashkov 20 December 2020 18: 01
          -8
          Large aircraft carriers are wonderful affordable and tasty targets for today's prospective enemy missiles. yes The Americans understand this, but they cannot and do not want to completely abandon the use of aircraft carriers: their entire policy is based on this.
          1. Vladimir Mashkov
            Vladimir Mashkov 21 December 2020 12: 57
            0
            I look at a bunch of minuses for my comment - funny and sad: how many more frostbitten supporters of the use of giant aircraft carriers exist! Probably the same number of supporters of the use of battleships and cavalry were at one time when they outlived their days! yes

            There is no doubt that an aircraft carrier is an excellent means of "gunboat policy" against not very developed countries in peacetime. But in case world wars, aircraft carriers (and most of them from the Americans) become excellent attractive and priority targets for the supersonic missiles of China, India and Russia! And, maybe, someone else will find ... And in vain, I think, "aircraft carriers" carelessly brush off, relying on reconnaissance, air defense and missile defense. And how many wrote about it literate experts! All wasted, "aircraft carriers" are impenetrable! Maybe they know for sure that there will never be a world war? ... lol

            It seems that conservative members of the American naval headquarters have made their way to the site! lol So after all, reasonable Americans have already understood the perniciousness of using giant iron "coffins" - "mass graves" and are thinking how to find a way out of this difficult situation! laughing
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 20 December 2020 18: 34
          -7
          Quote: Proxima
          a huge aircraft carrier is eggs in one basket

          I support, but a couple of small missiles will also be found, so the concept of confrontation with a strong country is flawed in principle, and both large and small will come in handy for attacking the Papuans. And Russia does not need Av at all, we do not build aggressive plans against peaceful weak countries.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 20 December 2020 18: 45
            +9
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Quote: Proxima
            a huge aircraft carrier is eggs in one basket

            I support, but a couple of small missiles will also be found, so the concept of confrontation with a strong country is flawed in principle, and both large and small will come in handy for attacking the Papuans. And Russia does not need Av at all, we do not build aggressive plans against peaceful weak countries.

            I agree that for two 40kt. aircraft carrier there are missiles, as well as for one 100kt.
            But about "viciousness" and "not needed, since we are not aggressors" - I disagree.
            A good sword will come in handy both defensively and offensively ...
            It is very curious what the composition of the air group of this "cheap," 40-ton aircraft will be ...
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 20 December 2020 18: 50
              -6
              Quote: Doccor18
              I do not agree
              it's just your personal opinion, not supported by anything yet,
              Well, give a reasoned answer, what are the tasks of AB for the Russian Federation? have arguments?
              1. Doccor18
                Doccor18 20 December 2020 19: 11
                +10
                it's just your personal opinion ...

                Of course, this is my personal opinion.
                have arguments?

                The arguments are dark. And hundreds of Soviet specialists of the highest class can confirm that, despite the short-sightedness of the Soviet "emperors", they were still able to push through the construction of Soviet aircraft carriers of normal displacement (Kuznetsov, Varyag, Ulyanovsk). True, in order to do this, one had to make tricks and concessions.
                What are the tasks of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy? I will name one (one of the most important) - aviation and anti-submarine cover for SSBNs at hour X. In general, aircraft carriers have a lot of tasks that can be solved by other means, but either it will be done worse, or it will be more expensive ...
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 20 December 2020 23: 41
                  -5
                  about the words about specialists .... and a lot .... these are all steam, unsupported words, "a specialist is like a flux, its completeness is one-sided", and a lot of the USSR AVs never came in handy and rotted in eternal repairs .... specifically you gave only one reason
                  Quote: Doccor18
                  aviation and anti-submarine SSBN cover per hour X
                  let's analyze whether you know that nuclear submarines have their main advantage and the only thing = stealth, their exit is secret, they are quiet and invisible, they do not need escort and it is harmful because it unmasks, but it can be accompanied by a surface ship, but so that there are many ships and the enemy did not guess which of them was covering the nuclear submarine. there will not be many AVs, but it is possible and necessary to create many frigates, as it were, randomly patrolling 3000 km (under the protection of coastal aviation) from the base.
                  What is nuclear submarine air cover? I do not understand, that is, the plane is flying over the aircraft and covers it? from whom? they have different speeds and he unmasks it. very unreliable cover a little breeze and the planes do not take off, And AB has no anti-submarine weapons, the corvette and the frigate have them. and at AB only the PLO helicopter is the same as that of the corvette. AB is not reassigned for ASW, it is a strike weapon against weak coastal states that are not capable of destroying the AB itself, which is defenseless against mines and submarines of the enemy. AB, it would seem, can be used against the enemy's NK, but they are not very afraid of the SU in good weather, they have air defense, their aircraft are thicker than Kuzi's, coastal strike and front-line and long-range aviation, tactical submarines are effective against the enemy NK. and the su link is too weak. will not overcome the enemy's echeloned air defense, unless of course it is not the Papuans who attack the Russian Federation
                  1. K-612-O
                    K-612-O 21 December 2020 07: 34
                    -1
                    You are right, the nonsense about the air cover of the nuclear submarine does not stand up to criticism, the same Americans never put strategists on the order, yes, there are strike boats and it is for strikes on enemy territory
                    1. Grigory_45
                      Grigory_45 21 December 2020 12: 54
                      +1
                      Quote: K-612-O
                      Americans never put strategists on the warrant

                      Where did you hear this, or did you come up with it yourself? The cover for the deployment of SSBNs does not mean that strategic nuclear submarines must be dragged along. The task of the AUG is to isolate and close the area both from the enemy's strait submarine and patrol aircraft, and from its surface ships.
                      Quote: K-612-O
                      strike boats yes, they are present and it is for strikes against enemy territory

                      there are multipurpose nuclear submarines. And their task is not so much in striking along the coast (destroyers and escort cruisers, as well as carrier-based aircraft do an excellent job), as to protect the order from enemy submarines, i.e. anti-submarine defense.
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 20: 48
                        -2
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        And their task is not so much in striking along the coast (destroyers and escort cruisers, as well as carrier-based aircraft do an excellent job), as to protect the order from enemy submarines, i.e. anti-submarine defense.

                        everything is wrong, anti-submarine defense by submarines is very difficult, but aviation and NK are just effective ... about strikes on the coast, everything is the other way around, your destroyers are ephemeral (one old steamer Fast remained) and lone cruisers (one per ocean ) will not reach the enemy coast, they will drown, and all the more so your link SU with Kuzi will sink very far from the enemy coast, together with Kuzya defenseless, ..... only submarines can approach the enemy coast and hit it with missiles.
                      2. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 December 2020 20: 57
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        all around wrong

                        that's it)) scribbled a lot - but all by. I'm talking about American AUG. Vladimir, are you feeling well today?
                      3. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 21: 00
                        -1
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        I'm talking about American AUG

                        now I have twisted! What do I care about American Augs? They'll figure it out by themselves, their own shirt is closer to the body
                      4. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 December 2020 21: 04
                        +1
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        now I have twisted!

                        not in my rules. Read comments:
                        Quote: K-612-O
                        The same Americans never put strategists on the warrant, strike boats yes, they are present and it is for strikes against enemy territory

                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        there are multipurpose nuclear submarines. And their task is not so much in striking along the coast (destroyers and escort cruisers, as well as carrier-based aircraft do an excellent job), as to protect the order from enemy submarines, i.e. anti-submarine defense.

                        Well, where is there about Russia and Kuznetsov?
            2. Doccor18
              Doccor18 21 December 2020 08: 47
              +3
              What is nuclear submarine air cover? I do not understand, that is, the plane is flying over the aircraft and covers it? from whom? they have different speeds and he unmasks it.

              Yes, they have different speeds ... smile
              Air cover is a cover for our anti-submarine forces, nullifying the work of the enemy's anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft. Of course, coastal aviation is also capable of all this, but the outfit of its forces should be stunning. Yes, and in the range, it definitely loses to the floating airfield.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 09: 05
                -3
                Quote: Doccor18
                Yes, and in the range, it definitely loses to the floating airfield.

                but wins in all-weather and combat load
                1. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 21 December 2020 12: 56
                  +1
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  but wins in all-weather and combat load

                  a good plane is the plane that is at the right time in the right place, not a posh intercontinental missile carrier with a flight time of four hours.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 21 December 2020 13: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  but wins in all-weather and combat load

                  Uh-huh ... Italians at one time experienced this all-weather on their own skin: over the ships - the sun and "suordfish", and the Italian coastal airfields are closed for the weather.
            3. pin_code
              pin_code 21 December 2020 12: 47
              +2
              How many coastal aviation fighters do you need to have at least 500 units in the air for cover 8 km from the coast? count. and then "drown" about the aircraft carrier-weapon of the aggressor. second ... compare the corvette, frigate and avik and all have one helicopter PLO-hard ... on board there may be 8-16-24. and more likely, it all depends on the specific goal and task.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 21 December 2020 13: 57
                +2
                Quote: pin_code
                How many coastal aviation fighters do you need to have at least 500 units in the air for cover 8 km from the coast?

                You can also calculate the flight reserve flight time from the shore.
                And most importantly, if an enemy is detected even 400 km from the covered target, the coastal reserve simply will not have time to reinforce the duty forces 500 km from the airfield before the enemy launches an anti-ship missile.
                The effective radius of coastal aviation is determined not by the fuel supply, but by the detection and classification range of the enemy and the time of approach of the reserves to the duty unit. In a first approximation, this radius is equal to the distance from the covered forces to the border of the enemy aircraft detection zone minus 50 km (for takeoff and collecting a reserve in the air).
                1. pin_code
                  pin_code 21 December 2020 16: 14
                  0
                  You wrote absolutely everything correctly. The number of onshore services involved in the event will be much higher and the cost of such an event will be much more expensive. when everything can be placed on one platform, cheaper, faster, more efficient.
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 08: 18
            -3
            Quote: Doccor18
            hundreds of Soviet specialists of the highest class,

            unfortunately, you cannot imagine the methods of work and the size of the staffing table of departments (groups, departments, laboratories) of the design bureau and the headquarters of the Navy, it is good there if there is one specialist for the whole country who understands the issue more or less satisfactorily, 2-5 people work under his supervision there are already few versed, assistants, young specialists of yesterday's students, maybe women who draw, carry pieces of paper, count by formulas ...
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 21 December 2020 09: 41
              +3
              ..KB and the headquarters of the Navy, it is good there if there is one specialist for the whole country who understands the issue more or less satisfactorily ..

              Your pessimism is off the charts.
              How are ships designed and built with such and such teams ..?
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 20: 18
                0
                they are perfectly built, ideas do not like crowds, a multi-hundred crowd can scrub decks, and the design process is personal and creative only a few engineers, one is engaged in the engine, the other is the gearbox, the third is the stability of the fourth hull, someone is in charge of missiles, who is responsible for the PLO, the chief designer is all this connects together, so the ship will turn out and even good
                1. Doccor18
                  Doccor18 21 December 2020 20: 49
                  0
                  ..that ship will turn out and even good

                  ..there is good if there is one specialist in the whole country who understands the issue more or less satisfactorily

                  winked request
      3. K-612-O
        K-612-O 21 December 2020 07: 15
        0
        Well, look at Kuzya, there are no miracles. For a 40k tonne truck including helicopters, 25-30 vehicles, with placement of fuel, bk and necessary spare parts.
        It’s just interesting where is the numerous sect of fans of superraviks?
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 20 December 2020 19: 07
      +1
      CVLs are now featured in the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan for the first time. It was published last week by the administration of outgoing President Donald Trump.

      in a market country THERE ARE 30-YEAR PLANS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


      AND MY MINUSES SHOIGU WILL READ ME - for supporting his refusal to build aircraft carriers
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 20 December 2020 19: 25
        +7
        Quote: antivirus
        ..in a market country THERE ARE 30-YEAR PLANS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        The creators of the fleet must be "Vanga" and "Nostradamus", preferably both at the same time. You need to know ahead of time. The ship is under construction for years, and serves 30-50 years, and all this time it must constantly be at the "cutting edge" of progress. Perhaps this is what makes the Navy - the most expensive and complex system in the army.
      2. bayard
        bayard 20 December 2020 22: 11
        +2
        Quote: antivirus
        in a market country THERE ARE 30-YEAR PLANS !!!

        In military, and even more so in naval development, long-term plans exist in all countries ... especially in the United States.
        Incidentally, the first five-year plan for the Land of Soviets was drawn up by American specialists. The fact is that at that time the United States supplied to the USSR not just complete turnkey factories, but entire industries. And tens, if not hundreds of thousands of American engineers and other specialists worked then in the USSR under contracts.
        And this is what it is about:

        Quote: antivirus
        AND MY MINUSES SHOIGU WILL READ ME - for supporting his refusal to build aircraft carriers

        You were happy against the construction of aircraft carriers 7
        And what caused such enthusiasm?
        The fact that the United States, after some time, may have twice as many aircraft carriers as it does now?
        After all, they do not abandon this type of ships, they simply optimize their costs, wanting to get twice the number of aircraft carriers for the same money. They will be able to be in a large number of places, it is more convenient to organize rotation and combat services. And they will VERY seriously save on operating costs.
        Another thing is that the choice in favor of medium non-nuclear aircraft carriers by the American Navy also indicates to us a trend for future plans for the construction of the Navy, because even to this day there are calls to build the atomic monster "Leader" or "Manatee" ... and as arguments poked into the US Navy.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 21 December 2020 09: 01
          -2
          years will pass - and my "against aircraft carriers" "will be cast in granite" - UAVs with UDC (20000 t VI) will operate 50 pieces each. and these are not modern aircraft carriers with catapult brakes and reactors
          + on the sides of the UDC there will be air defense-anti-ship missiles-KR (as on 5 escort ships).
          Scientific and technological revolution in action. miniaturization of gigantomania.

          business then ---- wait (wipe yourself with snot) for 10-15 years "shame": "they have no money for aircraft carriers."
          1. bayard
            bayard 21 December 2020 11: 44
            +2
            Quote: antivirus
            years will pass - and my "against aircraft carriers" "will be cast in granite"

            Years will definitely pass, but granite casting is definitely not a question now - you will definitely cast it.
            Quote: antivirus
            UAVs with UDC (20000 t VI) will operate 50 pieces each.

            Strongly. yes
            Only where will you place the hangar for these UAVs, if you have not an aircraft carrier (albeit with drones), but a UDC?
            And if you do, then where will the troops be with all their equipment and expeditionary equipment?
            After all, you christened your ship in the UDC.
            Quote: antivirus
            and these are not modern aircraft carriers with catapult brakes and reactors

            Well, in our sublunary world there are enough aircraft carriers without reactors ... just how do you intend to launch and land your drones (50 pieces)? Or will it be quadcopters?
            And what size and characteristics do you expect them to be?
            Will they be able to harm or even sink an enemy ship?
            And preferably not one?
            Quote: antivirus
            + on the sides of the UDC there will be air defense-anti-ship missiles-KR (as on 5 escort ships).

            bully It's good.
            It's just a missile cruiser coming out. good , and presented your UDC with a flight deck for quadcopters, missiles sticking out in all directions and 15 years of shame in granite casting ...
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 21 December 2020 13: 49
              0
              rocketing rockets in all directions and 15 years of shame in the granite casting ...


              + also snot ... wipe it off .. but about Shoigu and other "pests" from the Moscow region, you are silent now ...
              everything will change --- aircraft carriers will go to the tail of the cat.
              and there will be UDC with helicopter decks and the transformation of internal spaces from amphibious to "flight hangars". + strike missiles will be different (in size) - everything will fit. you just need to spit on aircraft carriers in 110 thousand TVI and burn such projects.
              1. bayard
                bayard 21 December 2020 14: 07
                +2
                Quote: antivirus
                + also snot ... wipe it off ..

                Do not glue without snot and UDC.
                Quote: antivirus
                but about Shoigu and other "pests" from the Moscow region, you are silent now ...

                Shoigu is just the Minister of Defense. request , and the Army has a Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
                Do you think He is the head of all sabotage?
                Quote: antivirus
                and there will be UDC with helicopter decks and the transformation of internal spaces from amphibious to "flight hangars".

                Transforms ... deformations ... why hangars for quadcopters?
                A couple of suitcases will be enough. yes
                Quote: antivirus
                + attack missiles will be different (in size)

                A-ah-ah, Chinese pyrotechnics? !!! fellow
                Quote: antivirus
                everything will fit.

                yes
                But not at once .
                We must also stock up on oars for the rowers. repeat

                Quote: antivirus
                spit on aircraft carriers

                But this cannot be done - they are on the snot, they will stick. recourse
                Quote: antivirus
                and burn projects like that.

                Firefighters are against.
                You can paste over the walls of a covid hospital as wallpaper.
                And give a subsidy to Deripaska - he is starving today.
                1. antivirus
                  antivirus 21 December 2020 15: 44
                  0
                  + To you for taking care of ODeripaska.
                  somehow we forgot about the suffering oligarchs.
                  THE RICH ALSO CRY, but not for aircraft carriers

                  For some reason I think that the GDP does not design and does not calculate at what distance from the coast and on which coast (?) of the country it will achieve political goals (war is the continuation of policy by other means), while the Strategic Missile Forces and the Aerospace Forces are DEVELOPING. why so much attention to air? and submarine under water!
                2. bayard
                  bayard 21 December 2020 16: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: antivirus
                  THE RICH ALSO CRY, but not for aircraft carriers

                  good
                  They have their own sorrows, they are more and more about the people - the new oil of our time.
                  Quote: antivirus
                  For some reason I think that the GDP does not design AB and does not calculate at what distance from the coast and on which coast (?) of the country it will achieve political goals

                  I would not say that, the industry is simply not ready, while corvettes with frigates are being built longer than aircraft carriers in the United States. But on the tab of two UDCs, he just said that if the case with the UDC goes and everything works out, then the next order will be for other, more serious ships. I think he hinted just about them - aircraft carriers. But not atomic, but those that the Krylovites offered in VI 40 - 000 tons.
                  Quote: antivirus
                  And the Strategic Missile Forces and the Aerospace Forces are DEVELOPING. why so much attention to air? and submarine under water!

                  Yes, things are not going very well there, and the pace of deliveries to the troops is falling, the deadlines are being postponed ... Looks like the oligarchs do not care about defense capability from a high minaret - their homeland is where there is money, and money is where the missiles should fly ... Theoretically. .. For their children, dachas and businesses ... do not shoot.
                3. antivirus
                  antivirus 21 December 2020 23: 40
                  0
                  I didn’t want to write, maybe I wasn’t discussing with you "the financial-industrial group in the military-industrial complex" and "Shoigu asset manager"
                  by GDP: "Ak-Bars (ZelenyDol) will receive other orders if it goes with the UDC to Kerch" - loyal guys (and already proven ones) took up a new business, the old shipbuilders were pushed aside (apparently in the PM and tied to the outskirts).
                  - what is the probability that the UDC will be successfully built?
                  - what kind of av can then build?
                  - they don’t give money to strangers!
                  the Naval Mace was also adopted, with a small delay.
                4. bayard
                  bayard 22 December 2020 00: 02
                  +1
                  The contractor's choice of "Ak-Bars" turned out to be scandalously surprising, but apparently really - his own. Regardless of competencies.
                  Judging by the fact that the money was allocated IMMEDIATELY and IN FULL, we are not talking about the final product. We are talking about the earliest possible development of their entire budget. After all, there is not even a draft design of these UDCs.
                  There is not even their sane picture.
                  There is no power plant for these ships, and only guesses what it will be.
                  Roughly the same picture with the beginning of construction of an icebreaker of the "Leader" type in Bolshoy Kamen, where even tankers have not yet learned to build a full cycle. And here is such a prohibitive complexity for the not yet completed plant.
                  All this and much more is more like a global sawmill than a "breakthrough" into a bright future.
                  Therefore, I wrote that in 4 - 5 years it will become clear whether we will be able (we will not want to, namely, we will be able - according to our competencies) to build such ships, and if by some miracle the UDC will be built, and the head "Leader" will go to break the ice, although would be on tests ... then the potential for the appearance of an aircraft carrier fleet in the Russian Federation will appear.
                  And if such will and opportunities are manifested, then AB can be built on both CVDs at the same time, so as not to stretch the program - 3 pcs. on each.
                  There they will then serve.
                  There and serviced / repaired.
                5. antivirus
                  antivirus 22 December 2020 00: 07
                  -1
                  the will has already been shown and without hope for the liberal oligarchs .. there is a plan. no project. let's break through. fire on headquarters ..
                  conventionally, the Kremlin decided not to wait until the hand of the market grows. but just do what is necessary, even if not all conditions are ripe.
                  state capitalism instead of commercial expediency.
                  at least some result is needed - about 0% it is impossible to "develop" more
    3. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 21 December 2020 14: 57
      -1
      Only where will you place the hangar for these UAVs, if you have not an aircraft carrier (albeit with drones), but a UDC?


      You can have tanks with metal, ceramic and organic composites and print robotic aircraft on board on printers. Printed parts of aircraft turbines and rocket engines are already being used in practice. In principle, this means that missile cruisers and submarines will also be able to print missiles and torpedoes for themselves. Well, if you do not return such aircraft robots, sending them one way, then landing systems are also not needed.
      1. bayard
        bayard 21 December 2020 15: 16
        -1
        Strong offer!
        And you can also sculpt quadrocopters from dried algae and fish glue. Catch algae and fish directly from the UDC. And fill with fish oil.
        In general, you won't have to enter the port.
        UDC can also be filled with fish oil.
        And set the sails.
        1. ycuce234-san
          ycuce234-san 21 December 2020 15: 24
          0
          Let's wait and see the wonders of science and technology.
          In principle, the printable SuperDraco engine has been putting the payload into orbit since 2014 and there is no miracle in printing a ballistic missile in an underground or submarine shaft.
        2. bayard
          bayard 21 December 2020 15: 54
          +1
          Firstly, a rocket engine is printed, not a turbojet or internal combustion. Secondly, only a part of this engine is printed - not all of its component parts. Thirdly, you will print the engine components (hundreds of different materials), the fuselage, get the electronic and optical components from the stellades ... But you still need to assemble it. Test. This requires workshops, assembly lines and test benches ...
          Is this exactly what you need in a war?
          On a warship?
          And of course it's fun.
        3. ycuce234-san
          ycuce234-san 22 December 2020 10: 32
          -1
          The important thing is that the key components were printed, and even cheaply.
          The turbojet engine was generally printed before the rocket (in 2013, the students made a working prototype, and in 2015, they printed a copy of a real long-flying auxiliary turbo-avia engine in CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization)).
          Printed electronics have been around since the 90s, as have some other components. It's not a fact that such a new technique will be a national team at all, it will probably soon be able to do it entirely - print everything at the same time - an engine, an electric battery, fuel, etc., etc. ...
          Automotive manufacturers, I know, are already printing commercial auto parts for sale, racing cars and trying on auto engines - developing and creating a prototype of a brushed engine using traditional production methods can take up to four months and cost about half a million dollars. Thanks to 3D printing this year, Ford was able to develop multiple variants in just 4 days and 99,4% cheaper at just $ 3000.
          Apparently, no one will soon continue to make such equipment "according to the classics" if the efforts of students and their computers and the corresponding industries in the world are enough, apparently, imminent grand shocks await - all these grand workshops, assembly lines and test stands of the aviation industry, the rocket industry and shipbuilding, engine building, machine tool building, automobile manufacturing, production of space satellites, and much more - people who worked there, like sailors or pilots, will be almost completely sent to the labor market and the workshops will be overgrown with grass.
          On the other hand, all poor countries will be able to economically afford themselves to produce normal equipment, have normal air defense, for example; Yes, at least Africans, Afghans, residents of Asian countries will be able to print cheap robots out of plastic to clear the old minefields left on land and at sea, which are abundant there.
  • K-612-O
    K-612-O 21 December 2020 07: 30
    0
    For the construction of the fleet, the plan should have been for 25-30 years, otherwise it will not be understood. See when Burkes are scheduled and how many years they have been built.
  • Tusv
    Tusv 20 December 2020 21: 38
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The Americans are clear! laughing
    Japanese experience in converting helicopter large landing craft into light aircraft carriers.

    No. All good, well forgotten old. These are British and Soviet UDC type Moscow, armed with Harriers and Yaks. The British won the war for the Falklands / Maldives among other things. And here is the F-35, the best derivative of these machines. Not a frail addition to 10 aircraft carriers under the US Constitution. In vain that Onyx is not enough for us. Looking for Zircons
  • Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 21 December 2020 09: 17
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The Americans are clear!
    Japanese experience of converting helicopter large landing craft into light aircraft carriers

    they had their own ideas, long before the Japanese, since the 60s, the Sea Control Ship (SCS) program. According to calculations, for the amount that one nuclear multipurpose aircraft carrier cost, it was possible to build eight SCS, which would make it possible to use them where air support is needed, and the super aircraft carrier's air group would be redundant - for example, in escort missions (then they were seriously preparing to fight with the USSR and conduct convoys across the Atlantic, similar to WWII). There was no F-35B aircraft. That was the problem.
  • nnm
    nnm 20 December 2020 17: 59
    +2
    I doubt very much that the monsters from the American military-industrial complex will do this. There's too much money at stake.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 20 December 2020 18: 05
      -5
      What difference does it make to them? The budgets will be utilized anyway.
    2. Tusv
      Tusv 20 December 2020 21: 58
      +1
      Quote: nnm
      I doubt very much that the monsters from the American military-industrial complex will do this. There's too much money at stake.

      Even as they will go and theirs, the KMP already ordered a vertical takeoff on the UDC F-15. There is no equipment yet, but there is already an antidote
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 21 December 2020 12: 59
        +1
        Quote: Tusv
        F-15 vertical takeoff

        I suppose I meant the F-35? I have never heard of Eagles starting vertically
  • Dmitry Makarov
    Dmitry Makarov 20 December 2020 18: 59
    -5
    A small F-35, with a low speed, low bomb load and short flight range, needs a small aircraft carrier, this is logical.
  • The Word of the Word
    The Word of the Word 20 December 2020 22: 36
    +2
    Rather, it suggests that the United States in the future will not be able to maintain full-fledged aircraft carriers and will switch to economy mode with ertsats-aircraft carriers).
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 December 2020 13: 02
      +1
      Quote: Word Rule
      Rather, it suggests that the United States in the future will not be able to maintain full-fledged aircraft carriers and will switch to economy mode with ertsats-aircraft carriers)

      "small aircraft carriers" will be built not instead of, but in addition to the available ones. They are a kind of modern hypostasis of escort aircraft carriers during the Second World War. Americans are very good. learned the lesson well that the main thing is air supremacy. And they are preparing for a possible war - escort aircraft carriers will be very suitable for escorting convoys. The Nimitz are redundant, and not enough for everyone. They have their own task.
  • Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 21 December 2020 02: 43
    +2
    American aircraft carriers have an optimal displacement in the context of current tasks and technical capabilities and will not give up until such sizes. With an increased threat, they will add, perhaps, a pair of light escorts to the ship group to the main aircraft carrier.
    1. K-612-O
      K-612-O 21 December 2020 07: 38
      -3
      They can no longer maintain combat readiness and constant deployment of even 5 aircraft carriers, not counting the huge operating costs. A fuel oil or gas turbine ship can be serviced and maintained on any naval base.
      1. Yuri V.A
        Yuri V.A 21 December 2020 10: 19
        0
        In May of this year, they deployed 7. The costs of kerosene will be even greater.
        1. bayard
          bayard 21 December 2020 11: 50
          +2
          Quote: Yuri V.A
          The costs of kerosene will be even greater.

          They have calculated for 15 years already - operating costs are much lower than at nuclear ones. If you calculate the entire life cycle ... you have to take.
          But of course they will not give up the heavy ones, they will simply build less "Fords" - about six, and about 12 light ones.
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 21 December 2020 13: 07
        +1
        Quote: K-612-O
        They can no longer maintain combat readiness and constant deployment of even 5 aircraft carriers

        where does the information come from? did the grandmother whisper on the bench?
        As for carrying out combat service, they carry as much as is necessary at the moment, as the situation requires. During the Cold War, up to half of the available AB staff were simultaneously taken out to sea. Now there is no USSR, Russia is not a threat at sea, but enough for the rest.
        But even now they have large-scale "walks in the fresh air." In May 2020, six ABs were simultaneously withdrawn - Ford, Truman, Reagan, Lincoln, Eisenhower and Nimitz.
  • APASUS
    APASUS 20 December 2020 17: 20
    +6
    The desire to develop smaller aircraft carriers in the US Navy arose several years ago. They will have a shorter range, power and speed than atomic ones. But at the same time, they will not cost $ 13 billion, like nuclear-powered supercarriers, but two or three times cheaper.

    What the Americans are not building lately is all super stealth technology, and it cannot be cheap a priori.
  • Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 20 December 2020 17: 23
    +2
    It is possible that his successor Joe Biden, who takes office on January 20, may revise this plan or abandon it altogether.

    Well, with such enmity between them, such an option is not excluded.
    Especially if the trap instructs him
    1. cniza
      cniza 20 December 2020 18: 42
      +2
      Especially if the trap instructs him


      He is already working tirelessly ... hi
    2. FIR FIR
      FIR FIR 20 December 2020 18: 51
      +2
      If the American presidents decided EVERYTHING in the naval strategy, then maybe it became easier for everyone on earth ...
      Quote: Lipchanin
      It is possible that his successor Joe Biden, who takes office on January 20, may revise this plan or abandon it altogether.

      Well, with such enmity between them, such an option is not excluded.
      Especially if the trap instructs him
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 20 December 2020 17: 25
    -3
    targets become more and more)) ...
    but according to the trend)) so it turns out the USSR was right ... with the projects of small aircraft carriers))) what sagacity however
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 20 December 2020 17: 50
      0
      The USSR built ships of this class, because they understood that the economy would no longer pull it! Therefore, they created the optimal and maximum armed.
      Name at least one ship of the "super ..." class, created during the USSR? They tried "Soviet Union", but after the war the epiphany came - yesterday. So they built ships that were unique in their data.
      1. Eroma
        Eroma 20 December 2020 19: 18
        +4
        The cruiser that "Peter the Great" is called today! Largest warship in the world, excluding aircraft carriers. This ship is quite suitable for the class "Super"
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 20 December 2020 19: 27
          -1
          Even if we assume that he is "super". We built 4, only one remained in the ranks (under repair).
          That is, everything again depends on finances. The formula is correct.
          1. Eroma
            Eroma 20 December 2020 19: 32
            +1
            Marx also said about this that the main thing is CAPITAL laughing
            And the ancients also used to say: money is the blood of war!
          2. Doccor18
            Doccor18 20 December 2020 20: 11
            +4
            Quote: Leader of the Redskins
            Even if we assume that he is "super". We built 4, only one remained in the ranks (under repair).
            That is, everything again depends on finances. The formula is correct.

            Where is the formula correct? And what is this formula?
            Project 1144 has a series of deep, long-term, not always objective reasons. We have no right to "blame" the creators of the 1144 project. Although, in my opinion, the ship was and is at the level "beyond what is necessary." But I was thinking about it 20 years after it was laid ...
            And now, after more than half a century from this idea ...
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 21 December 2020 13: 37
        +1
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        The USSR built ships of this class, because they understood that the economy would no longer pull it!

        Not only. There were also political motives. After all, AB is "the weapon of aggression of the decaying West" (oddly enough, nowadays you hear such statements more often than they were uttered then). And I wanted my own AV, but it was injected. So they built sub-ships - TAVKR with VTOL aircraft. And only to the very collapse of the country did the inspiration come - they were able to finish the "Kuznetsov" and lay the "Varyag" and the nuclear "Ulyanovsk".
        Silenok, of course, was also not enough, but instead of six "Kievs" it was easy to build four full-fledged AV.
        The most offensive thing is that there were projects. But then, at the stage of consideration, the project so rapidly lost its displacement, it was loaded with strike weapons, that the output turned out what we know - from a normal AB with catapults - TAVKR with VTOL aircraft.
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        Name at least one ship of the "super ..." class, created during the USSR?

        Nuclear cruisers of project 1144 as an example for you. Four of these mastodons were built.

        RPKSN pr941 is also no worse
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 20 December 2020 20: 53
      +2
      The USSR was not right, but the states are doing stupid things now.
  • paul3390
    paul3390 20 December 2020 17: 29
    +4
    Something seems to me that after a while light aircraft carriers will cost the same as heavy ones .. The experience of the same F-35 hints .. Also, after all, they originally wanted a type of cheap mass aircraft .. Capitalism, sir .. Loot needs to be mastered ..
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 20 December 2020 17: 45
      +2
      Capitalism, sir .. Loot must be mastered ..

      Well yes. Don't you have other thoughts?
      About the technological difficulties in creating a universal aircraft?
      Difficulties in writing the right software?
      It's so simple - they wanted to master the money. And that's all. lol
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 20 December 2020 18: 10
        +6
        The holy faith of some characters in the righteousness of capitalism is shaking .. Even if you steal the entire planet before our eyes, there will still be a trend about the type of objective difficulties for which you have to pay orders of magnitude more ..
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 20 December 2020 18: 15
          -6
          Funny. lol
          Are you going to tell me about the country in which I have lived for almost 10 years?
          Tryndi himself further.
          1. antivirus
            antivirus 20 December 2020 19: 11
            +1
            about the country in which I have lived for almost 10 years?

            -you know everything about everything? and aircraft carriers designed for the Pentagon? but how were you released ("lived for 10 years" in the past tense) and not immediately stolen by the SVR and put in a sharashka?
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 20 December 2020 17: 35
    -1
    What is the problem with atoms?
    Strictly speaking, they are atomic.
    There is also a bunch of related events taking place.
    At least protection of l / s from radiation.
    Already, through this, they cannot be light and small in displacement.
    If the reactor is put on a steamer, then in principle it will not be small.
    But it gives the opportunity to the domestic (for example, shipbuilding - to turn around).
    In this situation, we can already play with weapons, habitability and other issues that must be considered when designing a ship.
    By the way, the term habitability is quite important.
    Bo many comrades, in general, do not take it into account ...
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 20 December 2020 17: 48
      +1
      What is the problem with atoms?
      Strictly speaking, they are atomic.
      There is also a bunch of related events taking place.
      At least protection of l / s from radiation.
      Already, through this, they cannot be light and small in displacement.

      If the reactor is put on a steamer, then in principle it will not be small.

      1144 with VI of 25000 tons exist quietly.
      De Gaulle, a nuclear power plant with a VI of 42000 tons, lives just as quietly. wink
      All problems begin when you determine how many sorties an aircraft carrier should support and for how long. bully
    2. common man
      common man 20 December 2020 18: 17
      +2
      Quote: Benzorez
      If the reactor is put on a steamer, then in principle it will not be small.

      Nuclear submarines with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons don't know about THIS?
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 20 December 2020 18: 40
        +2
        I speak for the surface watermen
        The boats are there without much options.
        1. Reviews
          Reviews 20 December 2020 19: 11
          +3
          Nuclear icebreaker "50 Years of Victory". 25 thousand tons.
        2. common man
          common man 20 December 2020 20: 58
          0
          And what about the surface reactors of the "wrong system"?
    3. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 December 2020 13: 45
      +1
      Quote: Benzorez
      they cannot be light and small in size.

      Now you can build a destroyer with nuclear weapons. But why?
      Of the military surface nuclear-powered ships, there were 16-thousand-ton nuclear cruisers Long Beach, 10-thousand-ton cruisers of the California type and 8 thousand ton (!) Bainbridge.

      From domestic - 28 thousand-ton cruisers of Project 1144 (type "Kirov")
  • V1er
    V1er 20 December 2020 17: 43
    -1
    So we do not need to dream about supercarriers, but first, to master the construction of lungs. And we will build it faster and spend less money.
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 20 December 2020 18: 18
      -3
      In this case, an OUVP is needed. Borisov said that they started doing it 2 years ago. hi
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 20 December 2020 20: 59
      +5
      Quote: V1er
      So we do not need to dream of supercarriers, but first to master the construction of lungs
      No lungs needed. Absolutely. Better to spend money on something else. There is no need for an aircraft carrier that will not be able to provide constant watch in the air of an AWACS aircraft (and for us also PLO, because the states have boats, like a fool of candy wrappers), or will not be able to lift an armed and fueled aircraft, or will not have time to raise help for the duty officer vapors for the required time in the required amount, or will not provide its aviation with fuel and means of destruction to complete the main task, etc. Light aircraft carriers previously could not provide all this at once.
      1. V1er
        V1er 21 December 2020 12: 07
        +1
        Light aircraft carriers previously could not provide all this at once.

        It used to be. In my thoughts, I imagined a light aircraft carrier for Russia as a modern ship with all the achievements of the fleet over these 20 years. Well, in your words, there is no point in building aircraft carriers at all. Lacking a test of the pen, we can lay down a super aircraft carrier with huge investments and master this money for 10-15 years. This is inconceivable. I am not suggesting that we abandon normal aircraft carriers, but in our situation of fishlessness, cancer is a fish.

        PS For miners: And it's enough to put minuses if you don't understand the topic and can't grasp the meaning of what was written. I ask you to keep your emotions and so on, or pour it on paper (website) in the form of text. Your cons looks childish and silly enough. I already wrote here to one "comrade" that the truth and thoughts minus me, but the rating only grew. So you give up this pointless business. Always open to debate.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 22 December 2020 00: 22
          +1
          I will say more: building less than 8 aircraft carriers is a waste of money. The aircraft carrier is under repair most of the time (the states spend 6 months out of 33 at sea). Therefore, if we want to entrust the aircraft carrier with the solution of the permanent tasks of the fleet, and not just make hemorrhoids for enemy admirals, then we need to make sure that 1 aircraft carrier is constantly at sea (otherwise, to perform the same tasks, you will still have to build additional other ships, which is generally expensive and ridiculous), which means that you need at least 4 of them per fleet.
          1. V1er
            V1er 22 December 2020 13: 10
            0
            I agree. You need to immediately build a series of aircraft carriers, for a start 3-4. Then, when the industry is mastered, these aircraft carriers will become a temporary help, the next series can be built for larger and more expensive ships. As we did with the frigate 22350. First, a series of frigates, only then a variant of 22350m with a large displacement and weapons.
  • bar
    bar 20 December 2020 17: 52
    +1
    These will be smaller, conventional-fuel aircraft carriers.

    To make it harder to get in? laughing
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 20 December 2020 18: 20
      +2
      For quantity to add quality. wink
      Although they certainly won't be much cheaper.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 20 December 2020 20: 30
        +4
        Quote: Alex777
        For quantity to add quality. wink
        Although they certainly won't be much cheaper.

        hi
        This is yes ...
        But there are people, unfortunately, there are quite a few of them, who think that a ship of 50.000 tons is worth 2 times less than a ship of 100.000 tons. This is the whole problem ... And it would be okay for these people to sit at home and write on their favorite sites, but they are also in power structures .. For some reason they do not know that the cost of the ship's hull is from 11 to 21 % of the total cost of a warship ...
        1. Lex_is
          Lex_is 20 December 2020 22: 30
          +1
          that the cost of the ship's hull ranges from 11 to 21% of the total cost of a warship ...


          Therefore, in the west, they build OPVs of 2000-3000 tons and patrol frigates of 6000 tons.
          "Steel is cheap and air is free"
          As a result, they get cheap ships, with a large amount of space reserved for weapons, quite suitable for performing peacetime tasks, into which, when the situation aggravates, it is much faster and easier to cram additional weapons than to build new hulls.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 20 December 2020 22: 39
            +4
            ... on which, in case of aggravation of the situation, to shove additional weapons ...

            The main thing is to have time ... to shove ...
            And who is there "in the west"? Denmark? Norway or the Netherlands?
            This is the problem forever. The tasks and problems of a country the size of a mainland are very far from those of countries the size of "half the area" ...
            1. Lex_is
              Lex_is 21 December 2020 08: 15
              +1
              And the UK.
              It is clear that the tasks are different and the fleet is different.
              But this does not in any way affect the fact that it is necessary to have a reserve for modernization and installation of new weapons at the present time, and that if it is really impatient to build something anti-piracy, you need to build large and as cheap platforms as possible, so that when it turns out that pirates are not relevant, they could have been converted into vital PLO corvettes, and not thoughtfully scratching turnips, as now this miracle of engineering is applied.
        2. Avior
          Avior 21 December 2020 00: 23
          +3
          But there are people, unfortunately, not a few of them, who think that a ship of 50.000 tons costs 2 times less than a ship of 100.000 tons.

          It depends on what to compare with.
          If a light Italian aircraft carrier is compared with a modern American nuclear one, the difference is 8-10 times.
          If with the American UDC like America, in fact, a ready-made light aircraft carrier, then the difference with the atomic one will be 4-5 times.
          And it can be even cheaper.
          The American Wasp-class Boxer amphibious assault vehicle will be able to carry fifth-generation F-35B fighters with short takeoff and vertical landing. According to Defense World, for this in June 2020, "Boxer" will go for an upgrade, which is designed for a year and a half .... It is expected that the upgrade will last until December 2021. The cost of the work is estimated at $ 207,48 million.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 21 December 2020 00: 31
            -1
            Quote: Avior
            UDC type America, actually a ready-made light aircraft carrier

            The first ships of the series are, in fact, light AB. They don't have dock cameras. At maximum load they can carry up to 22 F35V.
            1. Avior
              Avior 21 December 2020 00: 41
              +2
              There are no docks, but there are landing opportunities and planning restrictions due to the fact that the next ones are with a dock camera. If you make a completely aircraft carrier, it will be possible to base up to 2 combat squadrons, about 24 pieces, and Ospre, both transport and AWACS, if any. The result is a fully functional aircraft carrier at a price 4 times cheaper than Ford.
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik 21 December 2020 01: 00
                -1
                Of course, a light AB will be more expensive than America, but not fundamentally 2-3 times cheaper than a Ford.
                Part of the wing will go to UAVs, refuellers, AWACS. They can be mixed, a lot depends on the development of Loyal Wingman.
                And so yes, 24 F35B, 4-6 "Osprey" AWACS and tankers, several transport helicopters are quite real.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 21 December 2020 01: 09
                  +3
                  Or maybe not very different in price from the UDC.
                  There are no dock cameras in the Americas, but there is a full complex for the landing party, counting on its quick delivery with light equipment to the Osprey shoreline, and this is money and space on the ship, which reduce its optimal layout as an aircraft carrier.
                  If, on the basis of the hull, the internal placement is changed optimally strictly for the aircraft carrier, I do not see why the price needs to change significantly. The result is a very good ship, suitable for most of the functions of attack multipurpose American aircraft carriers.
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 21 December 2020 01: 22
                    0
                    It depends on what they want, it is always possible to increase the requirements and, accordingly, the price tag.
                    If they really want to save money, they can make UDC cheaper.
                    And the picture is very bad if they are 4-5 times cheaper.
                    They reduce heavy AB from 11 to 6, build 20-25 light AB instead, plus 11 (according to current plans) UDC America. 42 ships carrying fighters, instead of the current 20.
                    If you take 2-3 times cheaper, at least 32 (6 + 5 * 3 + 11) comes out. smile
                  2. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 21 December 2020 01: 35
                    0
                    Another point.
                    They have plans to build an entire fleet of unmanned surface and submarine ships. It is a logical step to make control centers for these ships on light AV. Light AB with an unmanned escort group + several destroyers and / or frigates is an extremely maneuverable and dangerous group.
        3. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 08: 32
          0
          Quote: Doccor18
          they are also in power structures ..

          that's how long I live in St. Petersburg, I watch how, well, the same street .... then they will remove the dividing curbs, then, on the contrary, they will remove the asphalt and make the curbs ... officials periodically need to give out ideas for solutions, and for what they receive a salary, resizing = such a move, and after a few years they will decide to wish big and so on ad infinitum
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 20 December 2020 17: 58
    +7
    Atomic aviks will not go anywhere, they will wait in the wings with us or China, but for banana countries, an ordinary one will do. I do not think that they are with the caronovirus, the Khrushchev virus struck: Cut the combat-ready fleet, we will manage with missiles! An ordinary trick with the ears. hi
    1. Quadro
      Quadro 20 December 2020 19: 56
      -5
      Khrushch at least still that shot (more precisely, a power-hungry and touchy shit), but as it turned out, the missiles were the right step, or was it necessary to leave the artillery cruisers?
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 20 December 2020 20: 06
        +3
        Read the memoirs of admirals of those times when they chased Aviks, 4 missile cruisers for all fleets. You had to sit on the tail of the aircraft carrier, in the event of an attempt at a mass takeoff to demolish everything clean from the deck with artillery of the main caliber and anti-aircraft missiles too. hiWhat was done and written off when they armed themselves with missiles. When the art cruiser Murmansk began to sail in the sea in 79, it stood against Belokamenka in the Kola Bay, just in case.
      2. Doccor18
        Doccor18 20 December 2020 21: 21
        +4
        Quote: Quadro
        ... but as the missiles turned out to be the right step, or did you have to leave the artillery cruiser?

        Rockets are the evolution of the fleet. AU is the present, and with proper attention, it is all the same - the development of the fleet.
        Despite the real successes of missile systems, not a single country has abandoned naval artillery ... Why would it ...?
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 20 December 2020 20: 34
      +4
      The usual trick with the ears. 

      Or ... planned misinformation ... towards the Chinese comrades ...
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 20 December 2020 22: 57
        +4
        Quote: Doccor18
        Or .. planned misinformation ..

        There is such a feeling ... It reminded me of the 70s of the last century, the time when the Yankees were fully describing the "advantages" of small AVMs with VTOL aircraft, and they themselves continued to build heavy AVMs. By the way, they talk about small AVMs, and the order was placed for 4 AVMAs of the J. Ford type. Does that remind you of anything?
        Quote: Doccor18
        misinformation ... towards the Chinese comrades ...

        whales understand this too. Therefore, they are going to build their type 03 already at 70 Kt and with a normal deck and an electromagnetic catapult.
        Our "Zvezda" is certified for the construction of ships with nuclear power plants. Sevmash too. Therefore - everything is still ahead!
        IMHO.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 20 December 2020 23: 00
          +3
          Our "Zvezda" is certified for the construction of ships with nuclear power plants. Sevmash too. Therefore - everything is still ahead!

          And I believe in it ...
        2. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 21 December 2020 00: 49
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          It reminded me of the 70s of the last century, the time when the Yankees were describing the "advantages" of small AVMs with VTOL aircraft in full, and they themselves continued to build heavy AVMs.

          They do not speak about the rejection of heavy AV only about the reduction. The light AB simply cannot replace the heavy one, not all types of aircraft can be used. The price of 1 Ford is equal to the price of 4-5 UDC America (up to 22 F35B), even if a new light AB will cost 2-3 times cheaper, this means having reduced heavy AB from 11 to 6, you can build 10-15 light ones, plus 11 (by plans) UDC America.
          32 ships carrying fighters, against 20 current ones. Serious gain.
        3. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 21 December 2020 13: 49
          +1
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          By the way, they talk about small AVMs, and the order was placed for 4 AVMAs of the J. Ford type. Does that remind you of anything?

          they are also re-equipping part of their UDCs for basing the F-35 VTOL aircraft. This is, in fact, a light aircraft carrier. Those. they have not given up on the idea, they are working in that direction.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 20 December 2020 18: 01
    +5
    Well, it's still written with a pitchfork, with a replacement. The aug's guards and servants will still not go anywhere. One avik does not go, even a small one. It can be much more expensive in the end.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 20 December 2020 18: 28
    0
    Now we will rush to the sorties ..
    Tired of explaining, I'm not a pilot! Pilots have no right to write here! I am working on a related topic.
    So that I - - - do not get pushed by the way for our sincere conversations.
    1. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 20 December 2020 18: 51
      0
      By the way about the birds! And where are the gentlemen commentators planning to base the most powerful vessels?! ..
      Do you have a naval base ready to receive them?
      If you are ready, then where? ...
      Tomorrow (thyme to your office) will come
      aircraft carrier RF! What will you do with him?! ..
      Desirable point by point ...
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 20 December 2020 18: 59
        +7
        During the design and construction of the aircraft carrier, and even with our haste, it is possible not only to build a berthing infrastructure for it, but to build a second Vostochny cosmodrome in Anadyr.
        1. Petrol cutter
          Petrol cutter 20 December 2020 19: 26
          +4
          Why do you mention the aircraft carrier in the singular?
          At least two of them are needed. Better three.
          And ideally, they should be built at my factory.
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 20 December 2020 19: 32
            +5
            The lion's share of the time will be spent on the design and construction of the headquarters. And then the curve will lead to.
            1. Petrol cutter
              Petrol cutter 20 December 2020 19: 53
              +4
              That is why, as a shipbuilding company, I strongly welcome the placement of orders at our factories / productions
              I just want it so badly.
              We need sounds / orders are important ...
              Just like air ...
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 20 December 2020 20: 33
                0
                What factory do you work in?
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 08: 35
                -2
                Quote: Benzorez
                We need sounds / orders are important to us.

                make minesweepers and submarines
        2. Petrol cutter
          Petrol cutter 20 December 2020 19: 30
          0
          Not without it.
      2. Doccor18
        Doccor18 20 December 2020 22: 18
        +2
        Quote: Benzorez
        By the way about the birds! And where are the gentlemen commentators planning to base the most powerful vessels?! ..
        Do you have a naval base ready to receive them?
        If you are ready, then where? ...

        Should we go to the jetty for the aircraft carrier?
        Can give an idea, who can how much ... "for the basing of the aircraft carrier group of the Pacific Fleet of the Russian Navy" ...
        Not funny...
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 20 December 2020 18: 31
    -3
    not all Americans turn out to be as stupid as our Urya patriots argue for bulky and vulnerable AV
    1. Quadro
      Quadro 20 December 2020 19: 59
      -7
      Another saucepan with nonsense about "urya patriots". Balda, it is you all the propals whimpering forever that you need like amer 10 Aviks or at least 5 and that atomic. And the "urya patriots" just said that these barges and groins in this form are not needed and we will not pull.
  • Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 20 December 2020 18: 59
    +1
    They change the concept, as was the case with giant cruisers with monstrous cannons during the 2nd World War.
    Then they turned out to be stupidly unnecessary.
    1. Eroma
      Eroma 20 December 2020 19: 26
      +1
      Battlecruisers were in demand in WWI, and WWII aircraft carriers decommissioned all battleships this time, and two battleships themselves became just as fast. This is progress ... everything is changing
  • zenion
    zenion 20 December 2020 19: 01
    0
    Of course you can, I give permission. But what would be paid for boats, as for nuclear aircraft carriers. There will be no body lamb.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 20 December 2020 19: 59
    +4
    Double-edged stick. request Let's omit the performance characteristics of flying penguins Phi-35. And let's see the pros and cons of atomic AB. Well it's from my bell tower what
    Pros:
    1. Oddly enough, but a large ship is more stable in combat. Whatever they say about the different super-super missiles there, they still need to get to it through the umbrella of air defense and electronic warfare aircraft. And if one or two successful hits in the area of ​​catapults and it is possible to disable it, then it will not work. With a competent fight for survivability, more than a dozen missiles will be needed ...
    2. Fuel autonomy. Nuclear reactors give an unlimited cruising range, which allows you to maintain a high speed during the entire
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 20 December 2020 20: 17
      +4
      .... the operation being performed.
      3. A large air group allows a long time to be in the area of ​​operation, even with the current available percentage of losses.
      Minuses. Naturally high cost and limited maintainability (you need to have the appropriate infrastructure in the form of docks.
      This is so, on a jump, that the commentators would think a little, and not act on the principle "just to blurt out" hi
      1. Avior
        Avior 21 December 2020 00: 13
        +3
        A large air group allows a long time to be in the area of ​​operation, even with the current available percentage of losses.

        In case of losses, they can add an aircraft fleet on board with refueling flights.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 21 December 2020 06: 26
          0
          Complicated logistics request
          1. Avior
            Avior 21 December 2020 06: 38
            +3
            They have it so worked out that even for ordinary airstrikes it is used, and even more so for a one-time flight, nothing new needs to be prepared, everything is there, for them it is not a problem
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 21 December 2020 06: 46
              +2
              From the airfield to the airfield is understandable. But on an aircraft carrier ... No. If only you will remove the TRAINED pilots from other ships, wait for the weather by the sea and hope that the enemy's opposition will not be serious.
              You can polemize forever, but there is no time - you have to go for a penny and sell your labor to the state smile
              PS During a battle, every plane counts, not a hypothetical one after 12 hours wink
              1. Avior
                Avior 21 December 2020 07: 26
                +2
                Directly during the battle, it is difficult, but after it, no problem. For example, after completing a strike mission, land on the Ship, and not return to the shore. As well as having a prepared supply of pilots and aircraft, there are marines, besides, all the same, not all ships are involved in hostilities at the same time.
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 20 December 2020 22: 29
      +3
      A double-edged sword ...

      A stick with one end ...
      How many nuclear aircraft carriers have sunk anti-ship missiles? Not one yet ...
      How much RCC does it take to "nail" the AUG?
      There are many .. Dozens, if not hundreds ... and this is in the presence of very good reconnaissance, naval and aviation grouping and ... the presence of these very missiles ...
      Many countries have this capability ..?
    3. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 December 2020 13: 55
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Nuclear reactors provide an unlimited cruising range, which allows you to keep high speed

      in addition, the NU provides a high performance of catapults. Incl. electromagnetic. Well, of course, on a large ship, catapults and aircraft lifts are not the only number, which affects not only the greater combat stability, but also the speed of the air group's rise is also higher. Plus, having a large deck available, it is possible to organize the simultaneous reception and release of aircraft. A large ship has many advantages, except for its cost and the need to have a developed infrastructure. But nothing is free)
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 23 December 2020 10: 43
        0
        And this including, just not enough time to paint every nuance repeat
  • Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 20 December 2020 20: 25
    +6
    For the Papuans, small aviks will also do.
    For us with China, both are the same eggs, only in profile.
    An aircraft carrier of 40 kTn compared to an avik of 100 kTn will not be proportionally cheaper. I think only 1,5 times, at best.
    But the air wing of such an avik will be 3-4 times less
    The fuel and ammunition on board a 40kTn non-nuclear aircraft will also be 3-4 times less. One small one will need more supply and support ships than one large one. It needs to be fed more often.
    In short, in the end, they will spend even more.
    Therefore, the flag is in their hands. Let the little ones build. I support.
  • 7,62x54
    7,62x54 20 December 2020 21: 03
    -2
    Cheaper will fit into the furnace of war.
  • Avior
    Avior 21 December 2020 00: 11
    +3
    A logical decision for Americans.
    Nuclear aircraft carriers are redundant for many tasks.
    But there are 4 variants of the aircraft carrier.
    1.With a couple of catapults, F-35S and Hokai.
    The positive side is an aircraft carrier with AWACS aviation, that says it all. Plus convenient possibilities for UAV basing.
    Negative - an aircraft carrier of 40 thousand tons without a nuclear power plant will have a very limited number of combat aircraft on board.
    2. An aircraft carrier with one catapult purely for Hawkeye and F-35V is not a very bad idea.
    The equipment for steam preparation (or generators and storage devices for electromagnetic catapults) and finishers are all the same, and the non-folding wings of the F-35V are even smaller than combat aircraft. And one catapult is unreliable.
    3. Aircraft carrier with F-35V and AWACS based on Osprey. Osprey has close enough capabilities to C-2 and Hokai so that on existing aircraft carriers C-2 is already being replaced by Osprey.
    It is enough to create an AWACS on its basis - and there have been such projects for a long time - this will greatly expand the capabilities of the new aircraft carrier.
    Disadvantages - the F-35V has non-folding wings, a smaller radius and an insignificantly lower combat load than the F-35S. It will be more difficult to foresee the basing of the UAV.
    Advantage - it will be a full-fledged aircraft carrier smaller than a nuclear one, having additional space in place of catapults, finishers and steam boilers (or generators and storage devices for electromagnetic catapults), and it will have a higher readiness for immediate use - you will not need to constantly keep warm or prepared catapults for this.
    AWACS based on Osprey will surely find its market as AWACS for various light aircraft carriers and UDCs in the world, and even stimulate their production from US allies.
    4. Aircraft carrier with F-35V without AWACS aircraft.
    Option is more mundane than option 3, while the Americans can use it either independently, without AWACS, or in combination with shore-based AWACS, if possible, or use it as an addition to enhance the capabilities of nuclear aircraft carriers with their AWACS. There will be restrictions on the use of UAVs. But this option is the simplest, cheapest and most feasible in a short time.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 21 December 2020 02: 12
      -2
      On the basis of Osprey, you can create a refueller. The speeds of the tiltrotor and the F35B allow you to do this. Of course, if the MQ-25 cannot accommodate.
      As for the UAVs, they can be launched separately, using catapults for "light" aircraft or jet boosters from the lower deck or other sections of the upper. To parallelize launches of heavy and light aircraft. The same UTAP-22 Mako and XQ-58A Valkyrie are launched this way.
      1. Avior
        Avior 21 December 2020 06: 11
        +3
        The refueling project - Osprey was also being worked out, but then the drone was decided.
        UAVs require not only devices for take-off, but also for landing, and this additionally requires space.
      2. Avior
        Avior 21 December 2020 06: 41
        +3
        On the other hand, in the near future it is difficult to imagine an aircraft carrier or an aircraft carrier without a UAV, so something will be for sure
  • Runway
    Runway 21 December 2020 00: 46
    +1
    Plan for 30 years. By 2050, nuclear-powered air ships will enter retirement age. By that time, new technical solutions are possible (energy / aviation / asp).
    The prospect of a doubling of air platforms should discourage a potential opponent (PRC).
  • tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 21 December 2020 04: 04
    0
    Everything has its time - they are a thing of the past, horror stories for vassals, such as AUG. There is money, build new ones. Just why !?
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 21 December 2020 07: 01
    0
    laughing Hehemon is not the same wassat
  • Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 21 December 2020 09: 13
    +2
    The desire to develop smaller aircraft carriers in the US Navy arose several years ago. They will have a shorter range, power and speed than atomic ones. But at the same time they will cost ... two or three times cheaper.

    Such a desire arose several decades ago, back in the 60s. But the Americans had no planes for small ships. the development of a supersonic deck VTOL aircraft Konver Model 200 ended in nothing. With the advent of the F-35B, the problem was solved.
  • Decimalegio
    Decimalegio 21 December 2020 22: 53
    +1
    Fortunately, aircraft carriers are under construction, otherwise what are we going to talk about? I see many adherents of rocket weapons, a new tank comes out, and immediately the believers say that it will not resist an anti-tank missile, every helicopter or counter-guerrilla plane will collide with a shell with his name written on it. Of course, every ship will be sunk by some missile. In short, every soldier will soon be hit by a missile.