Plant named for possible construction of the latest Russian aircraft carrier

The construction of a new aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy is planned to be carried out at Sevmash. This was announced on Tuesday by the general director of USC Alexei Rakhmanov.

In an interview with the Russia-24 TV channel, he said that the United Shipbuilding Company expects to build a new aircraft carrier at Sevmash, since this enterprise already has experience in building such ships. To start construction, only the decision of the Ministry of Defense is needed.

As soon as the Ministry of Defense makes a decision, we are ready to immediately take on its design and construction. Building an aircraft carrier for India shows that we have experience. This experience is concentrated at the Sevmash plant, and it is there that we expect to build an aircraft carrier if it is ordered by the military department

- explained Rakhmanov.

Earlier, a source in the defense industry complex said that the state armaments program for the period until 2027 does not provide funds for a new aircraft carrier, although construction projects already exist.

According to the concept, a promising Russian aircraft carrier will have a displacement of 65 to 70 tons. Two projects are currently being considered. The first is the aircraft carrier Lamantin, which was presented by the Nevsky Design Bureau. The displacement of this aircraft carrier is up to 90 thousand tons. Its dimensions make it possible to place on the ship an air wing of 60 aircraft and helicopters and a dozen drones.

The second project is the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Storm", proposed by the Krylov State Scientific Center. The ship's displacement should reach 100 thousand tons, length - up to 330 meters, maximum speed - 30 knots. The aircraft carrier is expected to accommodate 80–90 aircraft.

It is possible that there are other projects of promising aircraft carriers, but information about them is not provided to the general public.

Comments

[Machito]

The military have not yet decided whether they need an aircraft carrier, which costs colossal funds. The fleet really lacks corvettes, frigates, minesweepers, diesel and nuclear submarines. And the management of the USC dreams of cutting down the aircraft carrier. Well, what kind of budget can you master? Ogogo

[Victor_B]

Quote: Bearded

The military have not yet decided themselves whether they need an aircraft carrier.

The military does not perceive the word "aircraft carrier" as 1 piece.
Having one aircraft carrier means having nothing but expenses.
It is correct to say - "aircraft carrier fleet".
And from that moment on to the surface a simple question, like a shovel, "WHY?"
Name the TASKS in the military doctrine and after that everyone will understand HOW MUCH.
These are not just huge construction costs, but even more significant costs of "operating" and restructuring industry.
And the cost of maintaining these "suitcases" ... This is a fairy tale about a multiple increase in the Navy's budget.
The presence of several AUGs implies the construction of escort ships and aviation groups, which is many times higher than the cost of the "trough" itself.

[NDR-791]

And from that moment on to the surface a simple question, like a shovel, "WHY?"
Name the TASKS in the military doctrine and after that everyone will understand HOW MUCH.
Right now, our adherents of aircraft carrier kaaaak will make you for this question ... Here we have a whole galaxy of such. That's how many times I asked such a question, I never received intelligible answers. But the cons from the heart. Therefore, I immediately put you +

[Kart]

Quote: NDR-791

Right now our adherents of aircraft carrier kaaaak will make you for this question ...

So this is what they are.
Only in the news about American aircraft carriers they sing in chorus about "but we have not" and "stolen everything."
And here they will sing about "but we do not need", and naturally "they will steal everything."

[Civil]

Yes, yes ... the first step has already been taken, the prices for food have been raised, then we will drop the ruble, and now the aircraft carrier fleet is behind it

[Kart]

Yes Yes...
That's what I wrote about.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: NDR-791

That's how many times I asked such a question, I never received any intelligible answers

there is only one question and, accordingly, the answer to it. Do you need aviation? If needed, if ships need cover, then an aircraft carrier is also needed. Well, if the ships, in your opinion, can do without air support (I just can't imagine how), or will guard the coastal cliffs, then, of course, AB is not needed.
As you can see, everything is very good. simply. It rests on whether the fleet will sail across the seas and oceans, or exclusively protect the economic zone.

[ALEX_SHTURMAN]

Covering ships, as well as target designation, as well as target detection, can also be performed by fairly light and compact unmanned aerial vehicles, which can take off from these very ships. It is not necessary to build a huge iron GDP for this.

[Boris55]

Quote: Victor_B

And from that moment on to the surface a simple question, like a shovel, "WHY?"

Quote: NDR-791

That's how many times I asked such a question, I never received intelligible answers.

Because Russia is confidently becoming a global player in the World arena, and in order to promote its concept of building the world, it is necessary to be able. Aircraft carrier groups provide such an opportunity.

With the beginning of the fall of the United States (11.12.2020/10/15), as the gendarme of the planet, the redistribution of the World began. The war of civilizations (Western, Eastern and Russian) is going on on all six priorities of management, including the power one. We cannot ignore this. As Putin said, we cannot stop for a second. The next XNUMX-XNUMX years will be decisive.

[NDR-791]

and in order to promote your concept of building the World, you need to be able. Aircraft carrier groups provide such an opportunity.
Not sure, far from sure. Battleships left the battlefield with the confident formation of aviation, although a battleship is such a platform on which any air defense can be placed. And who said that the concept of building a world "our way" requires aircraft carriers? Maybe missile cruisers and large landing ships ??? Stalin loved battleships and built them (it was not his fault that he did not finish building). However, that concept at that time turned out to be wrong. Aircraft carriers entered the world. Who said that they are fully capable of solving problems tomorrow? Just because someone has them?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: NDR-791

Who said that they are fully capable of solving problems tomorrow?

You are looking at the problem from the wrong angle. Ask yourself the question: is aviation capable of solving problems? It all comes down to this. An aircraft carrier is just a floating airfield, nothing more. If you suggest another way to have planes "here and now" (for example, a portal for teleportation), then we will gladly use it instead of aircraft carriers.

If aviation is no longer capable of anything, then it's time to write it off. She is not needed, as are ships for her. Then everything is obvious and logical.

For some reason, many people do not associate the words airplane and aircraft carrier with each other. the first is very good. an important thing necessary in a war, but the second is almost an abusive one.

[NDR-791]

My answer will be similar to that of abc_alex (Alexey), this is below

[Grigory_45]

Quote: NDR-791

My answer will be similar to that of abc_alex (Alexey), this is below

I will not rummage through seven dozen comments to find your answer. I hope that there are no problems with logic so far, and you yourself have answered a very simple question.

[FRoman1984]

Quote: Gregory_45

Quote: NDR-791

Who said that they are fully capable of solving problems tomorrow?

You are looking at the problem from the wrong angle. Ask yourself the question: is aviation capable of solving problems? It all comes down to this. An aircraft carrier is just a floating airfield, nothing more. If you suggest another way to have planes "here and now" (for example, a portal for teleportation), then we will gladly use it instead of aircraft carriers.
.

Aviation is needed, but not all over the world. And everything depends on the Doctrine.
We have interests in Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia, Australia / Oceania? Enemies, I mean. No. So what for do we need aviation there (floating airfields)?
You can reach Japan, the Balts, Scandinavians and other "friends" from your territory.
And no one will fight the United States and the Britts with conventional weapons, and neither will they. Therefore, the answer is that Russia does not need an aircraft carrier.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: FRoman1984

And everything depends on the Doctrine.

Therefore, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the naval doctrine of the Russian Federation.

Quote: FRoman1984

And no one will fight the United States and the Britts with conventional weapons, and neither will they.

is not a fact. The question is: what are you going to fight after the exchange of nuclear strikes? Or did they shoot and disperse? It won't be ...

[Grigory_45]

Quote: NDR-791

a battleship is a platform on which any air defense can be placed

any?)) Are you aware that air defense is an integrated system? If you only have guns, or only missiles, or only aviation, will your air defense be swept away? Look at the WWII battleships - hundreds of anti-aircraft machine guns, dozens of medium and large caliber barrels. Radars. And all this did not save from air strikes.
At the same time, competent fighter cover significantly increased the chances of survival, but for the attackers, these chances were rapidly dwindling. A fighter plane is a much more effective means of air defense than anti-aircraft guns in all respects.

[NDR-791]

Who told you that the "next war" (conventional name) will require such tools as an aircraft carrier, a fighter from an aircraft carrier, etc. ??? And in general, that it will happen "somewhere in the ocean"?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: NDR-791

Who told you that the "next war" (conventional name) will require such tools as an aircraft carrier, a fighter from an aircraft carrier, etc. ???

if they didn't write off the aviation clean-up, they will be required. Or are you still hoping for the invention of the teleportation portal?

Quote: NDR-791

And in general that it will happen "somewhere in the ocean"

Do you know what percentage of our globe is oceans? And ... let me guess - will we fight exclusively in space?

[NDR-791]

Do you know what percentage of our globe is oceans?
Will we take Hawaii? Or just the states?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: NDR-791

Will we take Hawaii? Or just the states?

we will definitely) But - then.
Will you deign to answer my other questions?

[Machito]

We will definitely take Hawaii. And we will take surfboards in Hawaii.

[voyaka uh]

For Hawaii, Americans get pissed off
Better to take the Maldives. Less hassle ...
And the coral reefs are there ... paradise.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: NDR-791

Who told you that the "next war" (conventional name) will require such tools

Do you know what it will be like, the next war? Share the "military secret")

[Alanart]

Well, that is a given. But the battleship, the same Missouri, in half an hour can throw more landmines on the coast than the entire Nimitz air group for three bomb missions;) Moreover, the "cost of delivery" of a ton of a gift will be an order of magnitude less than aviation. I didn’t think of it, the Americans calculated the results of the “veteran's” performance in the Gulf;) Moreover, in any weather conditions.
That is, grandfathers are good for something in modern warfare. Well, they were good.

[Alf]

Quote: NDR-791

Who said that they are fully capable of solving problems tomorrow? Just because someone has them?

If you talk like that, then you can do nothing at all and not build - what if it won't be needed tomorrow?

[Boris Chernikov]

everything rests on new types of weapons and tasks .. Linkors disappeared not because they were bad, but because missiles and ship aircraft appeared .. Perhaps aircraft carriers will disappear, but rather they will be replaced by UAV carriers, including vertical ones start

[pin_code]

maybe they will disappear ... but it will not be sooo soon. and whoever does not have them will sell oil and gas very cheaply. this is my personal opinion and does not oblige anyone to anything ... except to put a minus)))

[Boris Chernikov]

it's lucky if it's cheap, but how the Iraqis and Libyans ... for food to supply oil and gas

[Boris55]

Quote: NDR-791

Not sure, far from sure.

They negotiate with the strong, dictate their will to the weak.
Are there many countries on the planet capable of resisting an aircraft carrier group? No.
We will negotiate with those who are capable of this (China).

[pin_code]

that's why you need to have them, since there is nothing else left. and try to build Soviet GALOSHI. in all honesty, we cannot release them anymore, and the stocks are over.

[Revolver]

Quote: Boris55

With the beginning of the fall of the United States (11.12.2020/XNUMX/XNUMX), as the gendarme of the planet, the redistribution of the World began.

Generations of Russians are born, live, and die in the expectation that the dollar and America are about to collapse.

[Grits]

Quote: Nagan

Generations of Russians are born, live, and die in the expectation that the dollar and America are about to collapse.

And I still hope for the Yellow Stone ...

[Revolver]

Quote: Gritsa

And I still hope for the Yellow Stone ..

In vain you hope that Russia will not seem a little too if he explodes. There is such a volcano in Peru with an indecent and politically incorrect sounding in Russian name Huaynaputina, it will be smaller than Yellowstone in the other hemisphere. So when it exploded in 1600, the release of ash into the stratosphere was such that it eclipsed the sun, and the temperature dropped throughout the globe, especially in Russia. Snow fell on Trinity in Moscow. As a result, for three years in a row, a crop failure of ALL, a massive famine, in some places it reached cannibalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1601–03 This is how the Time of Troubles began in Russia. As a result, the population of Russia decreased either by 2/3, or by 3/4 - I don’t remember exactly, but to look for laziness. So, if Yellowstone explodes, it will be Russia, which is almost the entire zone of risky farming, will be sour, and in America only the northwest will be covered, and besides, to hell with this liberal Seattle.

[pin_code]

finish off and not repent, let them know why the pound is dashing in Russia. Sarazm. for those who did not understand ... but for those who understood, respect))

[pin_code]

hope for a yellow stone, but do not make a mistake yourself)).

[abc_alex]

Quote: Boris55

Because Russia is confidently becoming a global player in the World arena, and in order to promote its concept of building Peace, it is necessary to be able to. Aircraft carrier groups provide such an opportunity

Yes, not about that!
Look, shtatovs have shock carriers. Their fleet has no other weapons against enemy ships, except for planes with bombs and missiles. They even removed the Harpoon launchers from the destroyers. And whether the new anti-ship missile system will be known yet.
In our country, the strike function is performed by heavy anti-ship missiles, which the state officials never had. So why do we need a strike aircraft carrier? Our fleet has two tasks: to provide a salvo of the maximum number of anti-ship missiles and to prevent 20-30 US AUG aircraft from reaching the range of the Harpoon launch. And destroy US AWACS planes as early as possible.
So what kind of aircraft carrier do you need? Is it an air defense aircraft carrier? With an air wing, sharpened precisely to control the sky, and not to strike ships. If so, does he need Sukhoi's heavy fighters? Maybe it's better to collect more light MiGs? And supplement them with drones for search and destruction of AWACS aircraft? What kind of radar equipment do you need? Do you need a GAK? Should your own air defense be "personal" or at the connection level? In general, if it is available, are other ships with air defense connections needed? Or give him the whole sky? Then what kind of fire control system should this aircraft carrier have? Should it be the core of the system (decision server) or the periphery?
This is just what is on the surface. And do not think that "you give it to me, and the Moremans will figure it out". They won't figure it out. They cannot deal with the engines for their ships, and with the unification of the ship composition. And then the systemic task of naval construction ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: abc_alex

Our fleet has two tasks: to provide a salvo of the maximum number of anti-ship missiles and to prevent 20-30 US AUG aircraft from reaching the range of the Harpoon launch.

Minimum 120-160 aircraft. For American admirals will never give us such a gift as the use of AB alone. Only in small groups of 4-5 units.

Quote: abc_alex

With an air wing, sharpened specifically for controlling the sky, and not for striking ships. If so, does he need Sukhoi's heavy fighters?

Needed. Otherwise, we get "mast defense aircraft" again.
A heavy fighter means more fuel. And this is the radius and time of the patrol. And the combat load. With light vehicles, during combat work, you will have to arrange a hellish conveyor of refueling and reloading on the deck, like Nagumo at Midway.
So Heavy is good. Heaviness is reliable. ©

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alexey RA

Minimum 120-160 aircraft. For American admirals will never give us such a gift as the use of AB alone. Only in small groups of 4-5 units.

I agree. Therefore, the conclusion immediately suggests itself: building Russian aircraft carriers simply does not make sense. In a direct "stupid" collision of aircraft carriers against one of ours, the shtatovites will have 4. That is, one or two "Russian Nimitz" do not make any sense. Moreover, they will require a reorientation of part of the naval personnel from strike missions to the function of protecting the aircraft carrier. Obviously, the solution to the "aircraft carrier problem" should not be head-on.

Quote: Alexey RA

Needed. Otherwise, we get "mast defense aircraft" again.
A heavy fighter means more fuel. And this is the radius and time of the patrol. And the combat load. With light vehicles, during combat work, you will have to arrange a hellish conveyor of refueling and reloading on the deck, like Nagumo at Midway.
So Severity is good. Heaviness is reliable.

The MiG-29M2, aka MiG29K, aka MiG-35, has a combat radius of 1000 km. This is similar to the Su-27. The only missiles from the dry arsenal that the MiG cannot take are long-range V-V and heavy anti-ship missiles of the Mosquito and Onyx class. But the Dry Onyxes are not worn yet, if not in the form of Brahmos in India. The MiG-28M2 is an open system and it will calmly accept any missile system that fits on its hardpoints. Domestic light fighters have gone far from the first releases of the MiG-29. And they will not fly over the mast, I assure you. They can fly off 200-300 km and wait there for an attacking wave of Hornets, no worse than dry ones.
Yes, the severity inspires. But we do not need to inspire, but to destroy. What is better when meeting an AUG shock wave, 10 heavy or 15 light? I don’t know, do you?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: abc_alex

Look, the shtatovs have shock carriers

Multipurpose aircraft carriers. The composition of their air wing allows them to solve strike missions, and air defense, and anti-aircraft defense

Quote: abc_alex

And whether the new anti-ship missile system will be known yet

will be. Rather, there will be - Tomahawks Block 5 in the version of anti-ship missiles and LRASM. The contract for the first provides for the start of production from next year, the second is already being produced. The Air Force has already received the missile, the LRASM is expected to be commissioned by the US Navy, on the Super Hornets

Quote: abc_alex

Our fleet has two tasks: to provide a salvo of the maximum number of anti-ship missiles and to prevent 20-30 US AUG aircraft from reaching the range of the Harpoon launch. And destroy US AWACS planes as early as possible.
So what kind of aircraft carrier do you need? Is it an air defense aircraft carrier?

not 20-30, but a strike group from at least two AB, and even from a greater number of them. In peacetime, the AUG includes 1 AW, during the BD there can be 4 or more.
Now we need to prepare not for Harpoons, but at least for LRASM.
And this is the trick - both anti-ship missiles and AWACS will need to be "made" at long distances. We need a heavy fighter. Better yet, not to repel enemy air raids, but to inflict a preemptive strike on the AUG (an aircraft that has not taken off is the best enemy aircraft). So the air defense aircraft carrier cannot get off. We also need a multipurpose ship.

Quote: abc_alex

If so, does he need Sukhoi's heavy fighters?

unequivocally, they are exactly what is needed - for the reasons indicated above. As having a larger radius, larger load, etc. Light vehicles are applicable only to small aircraft, such as escort vehicles, in which the main task is the anti-aircraft defense and air defense of the convoy.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Gregory_45

And this is the trick - both anti-ship missiles and AWACS will need to be "made" at long distances.

Well, yes - you need to deal with the causes (carriers), and not with the consequences (a large number of small-sized and inconspicuous anti-ship missiles, going to the target on the PMA).

Quote: Gregory_45

Better yet, not to repel the raids of enemy aircraft, but to inflict a preemptive strike on the AUG (an aircraft that has not taken off is the best enemy aircraft).

Moreover, the threat of the possibility of such an automatic attack weakens the striking capabilities of the enemy's AUG, due to the fact that some of the potential strikers will be forced to remain on the deck and in the CAP, providing the AUG air defense against this very possible strike.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Gregory_45

Multipurpose aircraft carriers. The composition of their air wing allows them to solve strike missions, and air defense, and anti-aircraft defense

Read carefully. I'm talking about the implementation of the strike function of the fleet. Not about the composition of the wing.

Quote: Gregory_45

the latter are already being produced. The Air Force has already received the missile, the LRASM is expected to be accepted into service and the US Navy, on the "Super Hornets"

Yes, already 73 pieces have been made and are trying. The US military-industrial complex "expects" so many things that it looks like waiting. In any case, both of these missiles are subsonic and cannot be compared with Onyx and Granites. Especially with Zircons. The US Navy remains an aircraft carrier. The US ships do not perform the strike function.

Quote: Gregory_45

Better yet, not to repel the raids of enemy aircraft, but to inflict a preemptive strike on the AUG (an aircraft that has not taken off is the best enemy aircraft). So you can't get off with an air defense aircraft carrier. We also need a multipurpose ship.

I agree, but the question is what. In my opinion, it is better to lose 50 anti-ship missiles in such an impact in a missile defense breakthrough than 20 aircraft with pilots. We need both a multipurpose ship and attack nuclear submarines, and anti-ship missile carriers and high-speed carriers of heavy anti-ship missiles. The question is, if we have a missile-carrying fleet capable of firing 3-4 volleys of hundreds of anti-ship missiles at the US AUG in each pre-emptive strike, what should the aircraft carrier do in this case? Embody the power? So far, I have only one consideration - carrier-based AWACS aircraft. And you?

Quote: Gregory_45

As having a larger radius, larger load, etc. Light vehicles are applicable only to small aircraft, such as escort vehicles, in which the main task is the anti-aircraft defense and air defense of the convoy.

So that's what I'm talking about. In our model of the missile-carrying fleet, an aircraft carrier needs a specific one. Not to destroy ships. And for protection from enemy aircraft and submarines. And he needs an air wing rather numerous than singularly powerful. So it can be done by a ship carrying not heavy fighters, but kamikaze drones meeting enemy aircraft at a distance of 200-300 km. And guidance drones capable of directing RCC volleys to the AUG?

[Grigory_45]

Quote: abc_alex

I'm talking about the implementation of the strike function of the fleet. And not about the composition of the wing.

so, in fact, the US fleet is capable of solving both shock and defensive tasks. It all depends on the composition of the air wing (or rather, even on the ammunition suspended under the aircraft), and the loading of the NK VPU (you can shove Tomahawks, or you can SAM and PLUR).

Quote: abc_alex

In any case, both of these missiles are subsonic and cannot be compared with Onyx and Granites. Especially with Zircons.

yes, especially with Zircons. Which are de facto not in the fleet. Testing is not a rocket that has been adopted for service, and even less a rocket in the launcher of combat ships. I wouldn't talk about this rocket at all.

Quote: abc_alex

Yes, already 73 pieces have been made and are trying. The US military-industrial complex "expects" so many things that it looks like waiting. In any case, both of these missiles are subsonic and cannot be compared with Onyx and Granites.

So we do not have so many modern anti-ship missiles. In fact - only Onyx. If there are calibers, then in a scanty amount, and the X-35 is an analogue of Harpoon. Granites are out of production, the fleet will finish shooting the remains - and that's it. And the industrial potential of the United States is known. If they start churning out rockets, then in a couple of years they will make six or seven hundred of them. This is already serious.
Well, the fact that the US anti-ship missiles are subsonic is a reasonable price to pay for their merits. They fit into the standard ships' UVP without any problems - no need to alter the carriers. Even the Super Hornet can take a couple of these. Well, they have their own vision of ways to break through air defense - stealth missiles, low-altitude flight profile, the use of electronic warfare, massive use. And for LRASM, the absence of the need for external target designation is also declared. This is also a huge plus. Our anti-ship missiles need it.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: abc_alex

The question is, if we have a missile-carrying fleet capable of firing 3-4 volleys of hundreds of anti-ship missiles at the US AUG in each pre-emptive strike, what should the aircraft carrier do in this case?

) we do not have such a number of fires, and, more sadly, such a number of carriers to fire a salvo of four hundred anti-ship missiles.
What will the aircraft carrier's aviation do? Issue target designation. Rockets fly farther and farther, there is not much hope for satellites, even less for coastal Tu-95RTs. Cover your ships, provide reconnaissance, AWACS, conduct electronic warfare, as an option - strike at the enemy with a second wave (while he fights off anti-ship missiles and is fighting for the survivability of those ships that are unlucky)

Quote: abc_alex

And for protection from enemy aircraft and submarines.

here it already turns out that not from aviation, but from those "gifts" that it brings. It is always more difficult to deal with the consequence than with the cause. It is more effective to destroy carriers than to fight off hundreds of anti-ship missiles flying from all sides (and if there are several waves of them, and you have planes refueling and re-arming?)

[Boris Chernikov]

Well, for me, an aircraft carrier is a universal thing .. in fact, it is a floating airfield, and what will take off from it is a separate conversation, in terms of size, there is no big difference between light and heavy fighters will take off (anyway, some of the machines will be "heavy", but part of the light, here the question is what can be hung under them .. now you can hang either V-V missiles with a range of up to 300 km, or VP missiles with a range of 265 km, but already on the way missiles with a range of 900-1 km plan VP, and this is already very much changing the rules of the game .. in any case, in view of the limited budget, you must first make submarines / corvettes / frigates, and then lay down the aircraft carrier "within the strength" of the shipyards ..

[pin_code]

read up to the moment, we have attack missiles, amers do not, but they have aircraft carriers. there is no question ... to destroy them, you need their weapons-aircraft carriers. otherwise, they simply cannot be reached. and nonsense about coastal drills and cover, I don't even want to listen. I didn’t want to. READ ... (I didn’t delete what was written earlier). The same Kuznetsov was built as an Aircraft Carrier ... it has medium and low-level air defense ... and granites. and the planes ... and all the fighters ... the question arises ... are they not "Kuzi's distant hand"? Alexey, with respect!

[TAMBU]

the concept of building the World

more?
PS I am without jokes ... I just do not know what kind of unique concept Russia has for building the World ...

[Alf]

Quote: TAMBU

I just don't know what kind of a unique concept of building the World is in Russia ...

Russia does not have its own ideology, but what about the concept of Peace ... Although no, there is one ideology - grab with your mouth and booty and take it out.

[lis-ik]

Quote: Boris55

because Russia is confidently becoming a global player on the world stage

What kind of player is Russia becoming?

[Paragraph Epitafievich Y.]

Quote: Boris55

Because Russia is confidently becoming a global player on the world stage

it is by the confident facial expressions of comrade Putin judging? Or, as proof of "globality", will you put the sick Syria in again?

Quote: Boris55

but in order to promote your concept of building the World,

there is no concept, stop raving and eating hallucinogens from Solovyov.

Quote: Boris55

With the beginning of the fall of the United States (11.12.2020/XNUMX/XNUMX)

Bayans are ready? I must tear something at Omerika's funeral tomorrow.

Quote: Boris55

As Putin said, we cannot stop for a second. The next 10-15 years will be decisive.

yes, this is your president.

[RUSS]

Quote: Boris55

Because Russia is confidently becoming a global player on the world stage

What are the victories of our diplomacy abroad, and what economic achievements do we have thanks to our global games? We cannot find a common language with our neighbors, but you about the World

[Vadim237]

In the next 15 years, the Navy will definitely not be engaged in the construction of an aircraft carrier, and the Navy will not be full of other more important priorities.

[Machnamh]

Quote: Boris55

With the beginning of the fall of the United States (11.12.2020/XNUMX/XNUMX)

Huh, why did they bank on the day of 11.12.2020/2020/21.12.2012? States? By what parameters? Here one imperial technocrat was inflamed this summer, banging himself in his chest that in November 21.12.2012, right for the elections, a new civil massacre would begin for the US civilians and they would collapse like a colossus on clay ... from the strength of six months left .... Well, November has already passed and December is running out ... A new civil war in the mattress mats something is not visible or audible. Or it flows very quietly, imperceptibly. That comrade, presumably, is like a fish keeping quiet about its forecast. Probably, he pushed the end of the year and a half away, gave the mattress mats some more trosh to play with ... But is he the only soothsayer! All these dates are reminiscent of XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. Exactly eight years have passed. And people did not notice how the Kali Yuga had already ended on that day XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX ... in their new world-dimension they did not notice ...

[Alf]

Quote: Boris55

As Putin said, we cannot stop for a second.

"There is no time to swing." 20 years have passed ... There is no longer any strength to speak about his statements about age and the Constitution ...

Quote: Boris55

The next 10-15 years will be decisive.

One great figure in the 30s stated that

but that was really a GREAT figure, not a great storyteller.

[Fmax]

We Azerbaijan lost Turkey, defeated Georgians in the war and did not use the results. Which global player?

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Victor_B

Having one aircraft carrier means having nothing but expenses.

The name was invented back in tsarist Russia: Mimonose!
And where will he be based? Except for the Pacific Fleet - there is nowhere ... And there is a base needed.

[Stepan S]

Back in 1984, he personally participated in the construction of a pier in Strelok Bay for basing our aircraft-carrying cruisers.

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Stepan S

for the basing of our aircraft-carrying cruisers.

This is great, only almost 40 years have passed ... Is there anything left there? What about the coastal infrastructure? And the depths?

[Grits]

Quote from Uncle Lee

This is great, only almost 40 years have passed ... Is there anything left there? What about the coastal infrastructure? And the depths?

So there was nothing for aircraft carriers there. "Novorossiysk" was standing not far from "New Pier" in Fokino and threshing stupidly in the roadstead. Like SSV-30 "Ural"

[RUSS]

Quote: Stepan S

Back in 1984, he personally participated in the construction of a pier in Strelok Bay for basing our aircraft-carrying cruisers.

It was cruisers, not full-fledged aircraft carriers

[The leader of the Redskins]

There is no exact project ... There is no money ... There is not even a clear concept for application, but! ...
As in the joke:
- Zhora! Fry the fish!
- So there is no fish!
- I say, fry! The fish will ...

[Uncle lee]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

will be...

- Go !
-It won't start, Comrade Major!
-Let's go, then you'll start!

[URAL72]

You're right, as long as we don't have a fleet as such, an aircraft carrier is a fleet assassination. First, corvettes, frigates, destroyers or cruisers - there is almost no difference between them, if you do not take Peter, and then we'll see. Now they spend reasonably on strategic nuclear forces and air defense, and then I think they will balance the budget a little.

[Revolver]

Quote: URAL72

destroyers or cruisers - there is almost no difference between them, if you do not take Peter

In the West, Peter is generally classified as a battlecruiser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battlecruiser_Pyotr_Velikiy

[Nikon O'Conor]

In in, it would be better to have something like the "Eagles" cut down, there would be more sense.
In the photo there is a model of an aircraft carrier, and on the deck, as I understand it, the SU-57K, which are not found in nature. How much dough do you need to add to the air wing?

[URAL72]

Sorry, but this is an outdated term for hackers. The military has no such cruisers for a long time ........

[Alf]

Quote: URAL72

and then I think they will balance the budget a little.

Yeah, balance. How much has the 21st year military budget been CUTTING? Or are there real shifts in economics and finance?

[URAL72]

I talked about the prospects for about 2030, a new weapons program. Let's live and then we bet?

[Alf]

Quote: URAL72

I talked about the prospects for about 2030, a new weapons program. Let's live and then we bet?

I don’t want to offend you, but all sorts of programs-concepts for the development of everything have already been mentioned so many times, and then they quietly forgot about them and developed new concepts, which is very hard to believe, to put it mildly.

[lis-ik]

Quote: Victor_B

The presence of several AUGs implies the construction of escort ships and aviation groups, which is many times higher than the cost of the "trough" itself

Ships such as destroyers, frigates, corvettes are needed for anyone, even without AUG.

[Max-ttr]

Obviously why!
Aircraft carriers are needed to project their strength on the far lines. For example, with some banana republic in Africa, you want to conclude lucrative contracts for the development of minerals, and this republic has a lot of problems with the rebels or someone else. An agreement on military cooperation is concluded, an escorted aircraft carrier arrives and a "tasty" contract in your pocket.
Remember on which ship Haftar was received ;-)

[pin_code]

and in truth WHY? and we have brawlers and karakurt! here they will tear everyone like a hot water bottle! They are unrivaled outsiders with missiles in the world's oceans - we will get it everywhere. horror takes on such prospects ... and the RKPSN will shoot straight from the pier ... only their missiles will definitely be destroyed. will be able to get only those boats that "washed away or helped them to do it." And in truth Avik chumadan without a handle, or better a handle without Chumadan. me filyaletovo on minusers, God forbid what happens, I will know what happened. and they will rely on fsyak non-guaranty.

[halpat]

And what kind of mustache on the sides of the aircraft carrier model?
Mooring lines ...? does not look like it
Maybe oars?

[Eldorado]

These are the antennas, it seems, from the Mars Passat radar or its modernization. The Kuzi have the same.

[Avior]

hardly Mars is a trade wind

[Eldorado]

Quote: Avior

hardly Mars is a trade wind

Yes, this is a different complex.

[Avior]

these are communication antennas. There are both on American aircraft carriers and on their other ships, including frigates and destroyers.
Powered, can be raised and lowered if needed.

[halpat]

Very similar to fishing rods :))

[Errr]

Quote: Halpat

And what kind of mustache on the sides of the aircraft carrier model?

Antennas. They have drives for changing the position. In the photos of the US aircraft carrier USS Ranger (CV-61) below, they are captured in the raised and lowered positions.

They are related to various ship systems, i.e. are not all en masse a part of something single whole (except for the ship itself, as a single system, of course ). If it's very interesting, then you yourself translate from English. I'm lazy. Link to the first photo with explanations http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/archives/cv61-10.jpg

[pin_code]

two dimons on the sides, and as oars and as sheaths can be used.

[figwam]

Quote: Bearded

The military have not yet decided whether they need an aircraft carrier, which costs colossal funds.

There have already been talks about the revival of a full-fledged oceanic fleet, then aircraft carriers will be needed, especially since they have already started talking about the deck version of the Su-57, then apparently the whole point is towards this. The largest country in the world, washed by 3 oceans, and not to have such a fleet, as it is not decent.

[Machito]

To revive a full-fledged ocean-going navy, you must first revive the merchant and fishing fleet. The USSR had a large civilian fleet, and the Navy guarded it.

[pin_code]

judging by the downsides, some consider it decent. it is better to have an extra pair of AK lemons for a thousand armatures than a full-fledged AUG (((. Thank you for your position!

[Baloo]

Quote: Bearded

The military have not yet decided whether they need an aircraft carrier, which costs colossal funds. The fleet really lacks corvettes, frigates, minesweepers, diesel and nuclear submarines

I don't need your aircraft carrier as a civilian ... I need a decent salary, affordable healthcare, education for my grandchildren. Are we going to conquer Africa, or are we aiming at Australia.

[halpat]

Quote: Balu

Quote: Bearded

The military have not yet decided whether they need an aircraft carrier, which costs colossal funds. The fleet really lacks corvettes, frigates, minesweepers, diesel and nuclear submarines

I don't need your aircraft carrier as a civilian ... I need a decent salary, affordable healthcare, education for my grandchildren. Are we going to conquer Africa, or are we aiming at Australia.

The point is, dear "civilian", that without the ability to adequately defend yourself and defend geopolitical interests, including the country's independence, you will not have what you have now.
You don't have to go far for examples, there are a lot of them. From 404 to other Libyas, Sudans, etc.

[Baloo]

Quote: Halpat

The point is, dear "civilian", that without the ability to adequately defend yourself and defend geopolitical interests, including the country's independence, you will not have what you have now.

I do not need a foreign shore, I need now and here order in everything, and not useless metal rubbish. Realistically it is necessary to approach the state of the economy. What percentage of the military-industrial complex is under the control of foreigners? And what is the percentage of foreigners on the board of Rosneft and Gazprom? Behind the words about the goal of improving the well-being of citizens should be actions. Given the potential of the Strategic Missile Forces, to hell with an aircraft carrier? Why a trough that can sink with all the airplanes from a pair of torpedoes?

[Dart2027]

Quote: Balu

I don't need a foreign shore, I need it now and here

Experience shows that the best defense of a country is on foreign shores, because it is much more expensive to defend your own shores.

[Baloo]

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: Balu

I don't need a foreign shore, I need it now and here

Experience shows that the best defense of a country is on foreign shores, because it is much more expensive to defend your own shores.

In the late thirties, too, some military leaders also reasoned like that, how did it end?
If the body lacks resources, they are centralized for vital functions.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Balu

In the late thirties, too, some military leaders also reasoned like that, how did it end?

The fact that the USSR could not begin to defend its border in Czechoslovakia, and then it had to be defended near Moscow.

[Baloo]

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: Balu

In the late thirties, too, some military leaders also reasoned like that, how did it end?

The fact that the USSR could not begin to defend its border in Czechoslovakia, and then it had to be defended near Moscow.

Stalin was given the exact date of 47 because of the river 1941 times, not to mention the defectors. It is difficult to say whether he believed that Germany would not attack in gold because of a loan of 100 million marks issued by it to the USSR, or whether there was really a certain envoy from Hitler in May, or Stalin deliberately wanted to involve Hitler in the war in order to defeat, but the miscalculations of the leadership of that time is available. everyone started to stir only a few hours before the attack, but due to poor communication, not everyone had time to prepare. However, Admiral Kuznetsov took action at his own risk. The very fact that a few days before the attack, Soviet ships were locked in ports and not allowed to go to sea, the same with trains loaded with cargo towards the USSR should have already alerted. You can build many versions, meaning. It is unlikely that the pension reform contributed to the growth of the authority's authority. How many millions of people have not lived and will not live to retire? And against this background, it is criminal to start an adventure with an aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier itself is not built, it's a whole escort flotilla.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Balu

Stalin was told the exact date in 47 because of the river 1941 times, not to mention the defectors.

Sorge alone mentioned ... 3 times. I do not know if it was deliberate disinformation or Hitler constantly postponed the attack, but the exact date could be established after the fact.
But this does not in any way change the fact that it would be better to start a war on the territory of Czechoslovakia than the USSR.

Quote: Balu

An aircraft carrier is not built by itself, it's a whole escort flotilla

That is, a fleet that will still have to be built.

Quote: Balu

It is unlikely that the pension reform contributed to the growth of the authority's authority.

I don’t remember how many times it was discussed - fertility problems in all developed countries, and welfare has nothing to do with it.

[Baloo]

Sorge alone mentioned ... 3 times. I do not know if it was deliberate disinformation or Hitler constantly postponed the attack, but the exact date could be established after the fact.

Not only Sorge. There were others. The date was postponed due to the backlog. Transport networks could not cope with timely delivery to the borders. The exact date was named 47 times, and all of them were provocateurs for Stalin. Admiral Kuznetsov is a fine fellow, he was not afraid to take action, because the fleet suffered the least in the first days. But when the Germans blocked our merchant ships in three days, supplies by the railroad stopped ... And the USSR continued to fulfill its obligations until the very end.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Balu

Not only Sorge. There were others.

That's it. Stalin was given different dates so many times that it was problematic to understand which one was correct.

Quote: Balu

And the USSR continued to fulfill its obligations to the last.

He needed the maximum reprieve of the war, so no surprise.

[Baloo]

Quote: Dart2027

He needed the maximum reprieve of the war, so no surprise.

This is true. Only now Sudoplatov proposed 4 times to eliminate Hitler before the war and after the start of the war. Stalin feared that Hitler's entourage would then be able to sniff out Britain and the Americans.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Balu

Stalin feared that Hitler's entourage would then be able to sniff out Britain and the Americans.

And absolutely right.

[Alf]

Quote: Balu

If the body lacks resources,

So, maybe they should be developed more? Maybe the problems are not with resources, but with the head?

[Alf]

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: Balu

I don't need a foreign shore, I need it now and here

Experience shows that the best defense of a country is on foreign shores, because it is much more expensive to defend your own shores.

The best air defense means are our tanks at their airfields.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Alf

these are our tanks at their airfields

And this too, but first you need to get there.

[Baloo]

Quote: Alf

Quote: Dart2027

Quote: Balu

I don't need a foreign shore, I need it now and here

Experience shows that the best defense of a country is on foreign shores, because it is much more expensive to defend your own shores.

The best air defense means are our tanks at their airfields.

comfortable targets.

[Alf]

Quote: Balu

What percentage of the military-industrial complex is under the control of foreigners? And what is the percentage of foreigners on the board of Rosneft and Gazprom? Behind the words about the goal of improving the well-being of citizens should be actions.

So what's stopping you? And who did all this?

[pin_code]

so who will use the Strategic Missile Forces? are there radishes that we need? are you like children? do you have accounts and real estate abroad? I don't have ... the question is obvious. I can't, who might not want to. As in that joke ... in Ryazan, who has relatives? No! here on it and zhahnem.

[pin_code]

when you build an aircraft carrier, then, perhaps, a decent salary will be ... but apart from avik .... there is also, but, as if it has nothing to do with the fleet.

[Dimy4]

Well, what kind of budget can you master? Ogogo

And if then another fireman is arranged or some other embarrassment, then in general it is possible to provide for children up to the fifth generation.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Bearded

The military have not yet decided whether they need an aircraft carrier, which costs colossal funds. The fleet really lacks corvettes, frigates, minesweepers, diesel and nuclear submarines. And the management of the USC dreams of cutting down the aircraft carrier. Well, what kind of budget can you master? Ogogo

I will not be surprised at all if they will lay it down even before 2027 ... But what, it is possible to lay it, I would even say that it does not mean "to build".
But what a "golden" order ...
What am I for? As an unconditional supporter of aircraft carriers, I really hope that someday our fleet will become truly multipurpose and self-sufficient (without air groups, this is unrealistic), but today, when such a depressing picture is developing in the Navy (the lack of ships in the sea and ocean zones, modern anti-submarine and anti-mine weapons, naval aviation and multipurpose submarines), it is untimely and meaningless to talk about the construction of aircraft carriers. The fleet "must be ready for the arrival" of such ships ...

[frog]

I will not be surprised at all if they will lay it down before 2027 ...

Well, yes, if you remember the fate of the first ship of the MPSV06 project / He, poor fellow, was renamed on the slipway ...

[pin_code]

solidarity with you! everything has its time. but I want "now" ...

[antivirus]

what uzas -MO will soon surrender to the lobbyists - and throws a lot of money into the iron of aligarh metallurgists and petrochemicals.
build on the Star, at Sechin.

[Boris ⁣ Shaver]

Quote: Bearded

The military have not yet decided whether they need an aircraft carrier, which costs colossal funds. The fleet really lacks corvettes, frigates, minesweepers, diesel and nuclear submarines. And the management of the USC dreams of cutting down the aircraft carrier. Well, what kind of budget can you master? Ogogo

The market economy prioritizes precisely "cutting down the budget".

[Boris Chernikov]

in general, speech is not "necessary or not", but WHEN it is needed, these are different things ..

[Mountain shooter]

On the first draft, it is not clear whether it is nuclear or not. One should have such, otherwise they will impose sanctions, and there will be nowhere to refuel. And the Ministry of Defense must first of all decide where and how such a colossus will be used ...

[rocket757]

Has someone already decided what to build?

[Land defence]

Quote: rocket757

Has someone already decided what to build?

Rakhmanov simply would like to build, and he announced his readiness.

[rocket757]

Quote: Kara

Rakhmanov simply would like to build, and he announced his readiness.

With this, everything is clear, this is normal ...
The question is, will there be a solution, a plan and funds for construction?
By the way, the military, admirals, decided, proved what they need, where and why ???
First, let's see what has been decided with the UDC, will / won't ???

[Vladimir_2U]

The construction of a new aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy is planned to be carried out at Sevmash

Well, it is logical, not in Nikolaev. ))) And Peter is already living well.

[Revolver]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

not in Nikolaev

And it would not be bad in Nikolaev (but not in Mikolaiv). Sooner or later, and the Black Sea coast should become part of Russia, or at least New Russia. Of course I would like to earlier, but ... it's like a card will fall.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Nagan

And it would not be bad in Nikolaev (but not in Mikolaiv)

But so far as it is. And don't forget about the Bosphorus.

[Revolver]

And what about the Bosphorus? Did you detain Kuznetsov? Or Varyag, when the Chinese pulled him to themselves? Here is the question of Nikolaev's belonging - yes, God only knows when it will be decided.

[Vladimir_2U]

I will not argue, I will just remind you that Kuznetsov was called an aircraft-carrying cruiser for a reason, and the Varyag was pulled like an unarmed box.

[Alf]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I will just remind you that Kuznetsov was named an aircraft carrier for a reason,

So place two anti-ship missiles and classify the aircraft carrier the same way.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alf

So place two anti-ship missiles and classify the aircraft carrier the same way.

As far as I remember, "Kuznetsov" was hardly classified as a cruiser only because the launchers of heavy anti-ship missiles were built into the ship's structure (they are an integral part).

[Sergej1972]

And how does the population of Nikolaev treat Russia and the Russians? This also matters.

[From Tomsk]

For a long time there were no fakes about the "newest Russian aircraft carrier". And who will build the destroyers, Pushkin?

[antivirus]

- both Pushkin and Lermontov.
under the AV you also need to build a base from scratch, better 2pcs

[Jacket in stock]

we expect to build an aircraft carrier if ordered by the military

That's it
If a...

[Sancho_SP]

When talking about aircraft carriers, VAT starts to itch and swell ...

[d4rkmesa]

Building such ships at Sevmash is expensive, time-consuming, etc. In general, everything is how USC wants it. I would see how the Zaliv will cope with the BDK.

[Desperado]

Just another populist statement, now Sevmash does not have the capacity to build ships of this class. There is experience in re-equipment of "Gorshkov", but this is not enough, it is required to reconstruct the filling pool.

[U-58]

60 aircraft are redundant.
90 - even more so.
In which case (and there will certainly be such a case) the losses are too great.
35-40 devices per boat is just that.
We're not going to methodically bomb Vietnam

[donavi49]

Why not. Well, to put their regimes in the mineral-rich African countries. The intensity of departures and the group are just needed. Even the Chinese have done it up to this and make their 60+ with catapults only, without a springboard.

[Avior]

Well, to put their regimes in the mineral-rich African countries.

it will pass only at first.
then the Americans will come in. This has already passed.
Therefore, if the aircraft carrier is for such systematic tasks, then you need to understand that you need to count on the fight against the Americans.

[FIR FIR]

Quote: U-58

60 aircraft are redundant.

Why redundant?
48 fighters, 4 AWACS aircraft, 4 electronic warfare aircraft, 4 search and rescue helicopters, total: 60 units. However, this list does not include anti-submarine and transport vehicles, tankers and RER aircraft. So there is room to move.

We're not going to methodically bomb Vietnam

Yes, you can not bomb anyone at all if there are only interceptor fighters on board.

[PSih2097]

Quote: FIR FIR

4-aircraft AWACS

which must be done almost from scratch ...

[FIR FIR]

Quote: PSih2097

Quote: FIR FIR

4-aircraft AWACS

which must be done almost from scratch ...

And not only him.
To do everything almost from scratch, and something from scratch.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: U-58

60 aircraft - redundant

this is the lower threshold for a normal aircraft carrier. This number includes not only airplanes (which are also all sorts - and multipurpose fighters, and AWACS are needed, and a tanker, and electronic warfare, transport), but also all aircraft in general - starting from airplanes and ending with helicopters (transport, PLO) and drones. You count - and with a creak the squadron is recruited, shock machines

[Alf]

Quote: U-58

60 aircraft are redundant.
90 - even more so.
In which case (and there will certainly be such a case) the losses are too great.
35-40 devices per boat is just that.

The more aircraft on board, the larger the ship. The larger the ship, the more stable it is in excitement. The higher is his ability to perform combat missions in excitement.

[Tests]

Build with northern allowances and long vacations for workers at SEVMASH? After all, specialists from Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine will not come, as to the "Gorshok". And given that the gates of the filling pools were not modernized in the project either on the Zvezdochka or on the SEVMASH dash, although they had been chatting about it for 10 years, something a little larger than "Admiral Nakhimov" how to display? Although this news reached Severodvinsk, BelomorKanal has already commented on it: https: //tv29.ru/new/index.php/flot/25740-osk-zhdet-otmashki-chtoby-nachat-stroit-novyj-avianosets- na-sevmashe
There is another gift on the "Star" under the Christmas tree: https://tv29.ru/new/index.php/bk-obshchestvo/25735-na-severodvinskoj-zvezdochke-proshli-zaderzhaniya-vysokopostavlennykh-korruptsionerov

[bogart047]

The United States (survived!) Wants to switch to small aircraft carriers using diesel fuel. And they have some experience in their operation. And then they want to build some monsters. Is it better to start with smaller and cheaper models?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: bogart047

The USA (survived!) Wants to switch to small aircraft carriers powered by diesel fuel. And they have some experience in their operation.

The United States has been switching over to these aircraft carriers for half a century. Since the 70s of the last century, in their media (including in specialized publications) the topic of small AVs has regularly surfaced, which, allegedly, are cheaper and better than large ones and are about to be ordered by the fleet ... followed by another order of a full-fledged AV and the American small AB projects are being offered to NATO allies.
USN with the prospects of a small displacement AB understood everything from the Essex and Midway. The first were written off in the late 60s due to the impossibility of re-equipping with modern machines and the high cost of keeping them in the role of specialized AV PLO. And Midway served until the 90s - starting with the Corsairs and Hellkets, and finishing with the Hornets.

[SVD68]

Quote: bogart047

The USA (survived!) Wants to switch to small aircraft carriers powered by diesel fuel.

Do they want to? Even the French realized that a small aircraft carrier was not at all what they needed.

[tralflot1832]

Everything is fine, of course, but is there a building site for a full-size aircraft carrier? Or will we build the only aircraft carrier in the world from two halves?

[Comrade I]

Aircraft carriers are needed, but not now, not yet affordable. We have too many other holes in the fleet to patch. Now even the vital possibility of deploying submarine strategic nuclear forces is under threat, even under one's nose near the coast. So far, in my humble opinion of an amateur, aircraft carriers can be partially compensated for by the construction of full-fledged destroyers with the possibility of using helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles (PLO) and AWACS, as well as, in general, ships capable of tracking weapons and, in general, escorting enemy ship groups, ensuring the safety of the deployment of submarines with nuclear weapons ... And this is in addition to all other problems in the Navy (this also applies to naval aviation).
The trouble is that even this will cost enormous sums. In other words, for the integrated development of the fleet, in any case, we need an economic system of a completely different kind. The irony is that having such an economy, we will be able to start preparing for the creation of aircraft carriers.

[U-58]

I agree. Is this how much (in pieces) the new aircraft carrier will cost?
Is the potential damage to the enemy from this aircraft carrier comparable to the damage caused by an equal number of Sarmats? Or "esakander"?
Again, if we build it to demonstrate the flag and local conflicts in the countries of Asia and Africa, wouldn't it be cheaper to make 2 copies of the Mistrals?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: U-58

I agree. Is this how much (in pieces) the new aircraft carrier will cost?

Better to count in SSBN survivors (which collectively carry 40% of our strategic SBS).
For the first task of the AB will be the air defense of forces covering the positional areas of SSBNs at ranges over 350-400 km from the nearest airfield.

[Sergej1972]

Some kind of contradiction. "According to the concept, the promising Russian aircraft carrier will have a displacement of 65 thousand to 70 thousand tons." And then it talks about two projects with a much larger displacement.

[Herman 4223]

Until Russia regains sovereignty, we do not need an aircraft carrier. When dependence on the United States is ensured, when the territories are returned, then it is possible to build more than one.

[Castro Ruiz]

Mechti, mechti.

[Mikhail Zakharov]

but what about unnecessary trash? easy target? is the time of aircraft carriers gone? So the political instructor was lying?

[Lex_is]

but what about unnecessary trash? easy target? is the time of aircraft carriers gone?

So this is their aircraft carriers unnecessary trash and an easy target, ours will be unparalleled, all this does not apply to him.

[t-12]

In the absence of developed supply bases and a powerful escort fleet, it is an easy target, yes. And the Russian Federation has a problem with this.

[next322]

how strange it is ...... we have been building the ship MRK -800t and 950t for 5 years ...... there is no talk about frigates 22350 at all, there are only 2 of them ...... what aircraft carrier can we talk about now?

[Vadim237]

All because of problems with engines and new weapon systems - so the 350th corvettes and MRKs stalled - now they will start building faster, since the above problems have been solved.

[Lex_is]

What a surprise!
Rakhmanov said that he plans to build an aircraft carrier!
Yes, he plans to build it every year, waits and longs for it, just give me money.

though he usually begins to build an aircraft carrier in April.

5 April 2016 We will have at least two locations where we can build an aircraft carrier at our facilities. The first is the Baltzavod, the second is the Severnaya Verf, we hope that we will start building a dry dock there this year, said the head of the USC Alexei Rakhmanov.
On April 4, 2017, the United Shipbuilding Corporation is ready to build a new aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant for the Navy, said the head of the USC Alexei Rakhmanov.

[Radical]

Plant named for possible construction of the latest Russian aircraft carrier

It's not even funny anymore.

[Ugochaves]

Quote: RUSS

We can't find a common language with our neighbors,

Do the neighbors want this?

[yfast]

Quote: PSih2097

Quote: FIR FIR

4-aircraft AWACS

which must be done almost from scratch ...

On which you need to do electronics from scratch.

[t-12]

If you really want an aircraft carrier (for training and demonstration purposes), you can make something like the Italian "Garibaldi". Fast, cheap and cheerful.

[Adimius38]

I wonder at whose expense they will build it, with this level of economy building an aircraft carrier is absurd. Even the construction of a cruiser will not pull, where is the aircraft carrier. Well at least I was smart enough to preserve a number of Soviet-built ships and start their repair and modernization. all we have now is a frigate-class ship, a corvette. It would be nice if the Superpots were finished

[hump]

We do not have the opportunity to build aircraft carriers. Doc was drowned. Though it's time to buy from the Chinese

[Dart2027]

Quote: Chepa

Doc was drowned. Though it's time to buy from the Chinese

So they bought that, only from the Swedes.

[Erik]

Laughter, just laughter!

[Erik]

Quote: next322

how strange it is ...... we have been building the ship MRK -800t and 950t for 5 years ...... there is no talk about frigates 22350 at all, there are only 2 of them ...... what aircraft carrier can we talk about now?

"We must be patient!" etc.

[lelik613]

gop-office unable to repair Kuznetsova and Soviet destroyers climb with their penny to sculpt an aircraft carrier. It's not even funny. Not to remind the sick, how the Stalinist program of the pre-war battleships ended?

[IC]

Let's leave aside the question of the need for an aircraft carrier. But Sevmash does not have full competence and technological capability to build such large ships. Even the re-equipment of Baku turned out to be a difficult problem. In addition, diverting power from the construction of nuclear submarines is extremely unproductive.