Military Review

Plant named for possible construction of the latest Russian aircraft carrier

162
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, the promising Russian aircraft carrier will have a displacement of 65 thousand to 70 thousand tons. Two projects are currently being considered. The first is the aircraft carrier Manatee, 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 accommodate an air wing of 60 aircraft and helicopters and a dozen drones on the ship.

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.
162 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Machito
    Machito 23 December 2020 10: 00
    +52
    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
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 23 December 2020 10: 05
      +48
      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.
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 23 December 2020 10: 21
        +25
        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 +
        1. Kart
          Kart 23 December 2020 10: 47
          -12%
          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."
          1. Civil
            Civil 23 December 2020 11: 03
            +2
            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 laughing
            1. Kart
              Kart 23 December 2020 11: 49
              -11%
              Yes Yes...
              That's what I wrote about.
        2. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 23 December 2020 13: 05
          +8
          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.
          1. ALEX_SHTURMAN
            ALEX_SHTURMAN 24 December 2020 12: 09
            +2
            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.
      2. Boris55
        Boris55 23 December 2020 10: 25
        -19%
        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.
        1. NDR-791
          NDR-791 23 December 2020 11: 09
          +6
          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?
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 23 December 2020 13: 10
            +13
            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.
            1. NDR-791
              NDR-791 23 December 2020 13: 14
              -5
              My answer will be similar to that of abc_alex (Alexey), this is below
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 23 December 2020 13: 19
                +7
                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.
            2. FRoman1984
              FRoman1984 24 December 2020 10: 19
              0
              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.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 24 December 2020 10: 27
                0
                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 ...
          2. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 23 December 2020 13: 14
            +6
            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.
            1. NDR-791
              NDR-791 23 December 2020 13: 24
              -4
              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"?
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 23 December 2020 13: 33
                +5
                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?
                1. NDR-791
                  NDR-791 23 December 2020 13: 35
                  -1
                  Do you know what percentage of our globe is oceans?
                  Will we take Hawaii? Or just the states? wassat
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 23 December 2020 13: 36
                    +4
                    Quote: NDR-791
                    Will we take Hawaii? Or just the states?

                    we will definitely) But - then.
                    Will you deign to answer my other questions?
                  2. Machito
                    Machito 23 December 2020 14: 04
                    0
                    We will definitely take Hawaii. And we will take surfboards in Hawaii.
                    1. voyaka uh
                      voyaka uh 23 December 2020 16: 36
                      +2
                      For Hawaii, Americans get pissed off recourse
                      Better to take the Maldives. fellow Less hassle ...
                      And the coral reefs are there ... paradise. good
              2. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 23 December 2020 13: 35
                0
                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")
            2. Alanart
              Alanart 24 December 2020 02: 56
              0
              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.
          3. Alf
            Alf 23 December 2020 20: 45
            +2
            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?
          4. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 23 December 2020 23: 29
            -2
            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
            1. pin_code
              pin_code 24 December 2020 08: 39
              0
              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)))
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 24 December 2020 08: 56
                -1
                laughing it's lucky if it's cheap, but how the Iraqis and Libyans ... for food to supply oil and gas
          5. Boris55
            Boris55 24 December 2020 08: 46
            -1
            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).
            1. pin_code
              pin_code 24 December 2020 09: 04
              +1
              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.
        2. Revolver
          Revolver 23 December 2020 11: 15
          +13
          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.
          1. Grits
            Grits 24 December 2020 06: 48
            0
            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 ... recourse
            1. Revolver
              Revolver 24 December 2020 07: 24
              -2
              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.
              1. pin_code
                pin_code 24 December 2020 08: 43
                0
                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))
            2. pin_code
              pin_code 24 December 2020 08: 40
              0
              hope for a yellow stone, but do not make a mistake yourself)).
        3. abc_alex
          abc_alex 23 December 2020 11: 17
          +12
          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 ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 23 December 2020 12: 26
            +5
            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. smile
            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. ©
            1. abc_alex
              abc_alex 25 December 2020 02: 34
              0
              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?
          2. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 23 December 2020 18: 13
            +3
            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.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 23 December 2020 19: 50
              +2
              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.
            2. abc_alex
              abc_alex 25 December 2020 02: 53
              0
              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?
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 25 December 2020 09: 57
                -1
                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.
              2. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 25 December 2020 10: 09
                -1
                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?)
          3. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 23 December 2020 23: 34
            -1
            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 ..
          4. pin_code
            pin_code 24 December 2020 08: 53
            0
            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!
        4. TAMBU
          TAMBU 23 December 2020 11: 44
          +8
          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 ...
          1. Alf
            Alf 23 December 2020 20: 50
            +7
            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.
        5. lis-ik
          lis-ik 23 December 2020 12: 18
          +3
          Quote: Boris55
          because Russia is confidently becoming a global player on the world stage

          What kind of player is Russia becoming?
        6. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 23 December 2020 13: 56
          +4
          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.

          laughing laughing
          yes, this is your president.
        7. RUSS
          RUSS 23 December 2020 14: 17
          +3
          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
        8. Vadim237
          Vadim237 23 December 2020 17: 15
          0
          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.
        9. Machnamh
          Machnamh 23 December 2020 19: 02
          +1
          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 ...
        10. Alf
          Alf 23 December 2020 20: 42
          +4
          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.
        11. Fmax
          Fmax 24 December 2020 01: 55
          +3
          We Azerbaijan lost Turkey, defeated Georgians in the war and did not use the results. Which global player?
      3. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 23 December 2020 10: 27
        +6
        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. hi
        1. Stepan S
          Stepan S 23 December 2020 10: 34
          +8
          Back in 1984, he personally participated in the construction of a pier in Strelok Bay for basing our aircraft-carrying cruisers.
          1. Uncle lee
            Uncle lee 23 December 2020 10: 38
            +6
            Quote: Stepan S
            for the basing of our aircraft-carrying cruisers.

            hi This is great, only almost 40 years have passed ... Is there anything left there? What about the coastal infrastructure? And the depths?
            1. Grits
              Grits 24 December 2020 07: 00
              0
              Quote: 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"
          2. RUSS
            RUSS 23 December 2020 14: 19
            0
            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
        2. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 23 December 2020 10: 43
          +8
          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 ...
          1. Uncle lee
            Uncle lee 24 December 2020 11: 43
            +2
            Quote: Leader of the Redskins
            will be...

            - Go !
            -It won't start, Comrade Major!
            -Let's go, then you'll start!
      4. URAL72
        URAL72 23 December 2020 10: 33
        +10
        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.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 23 December 2020 11: 20
          +1
          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
          1. Nikon OConor
            Nikon OConor 23 December 2020 20: 36
            +3
            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?
          2. URAL72
            URAL72 23 December 2020 22: 53
            0
            Sorry, but this is an outdated term for hackers. The military has no such cruisers for a long time ........
        2. Alf
          Alf 23 December 2020 21: 03
          +1
          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?
          1. URAL72
            URAL72 23 December 2020 22: 47
            0
            I talked about the prospects for about 2030, a new weapons program. Let's live and then we bet?
            1. Alf
              Alf 24 December 2020 20: 48
              +2
              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.
      5. lis-ik
        lis-ik 23 December 2020 12: 17
        +4
        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.
      6. Max-ttr
        Max-ttr 23 December 2020 12: 18
        -5
        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 ;-)
      7. pin_code
        pin_code 24 December 2020 08: 12
        +1
        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.
    2. halpat
      halpat 23 December 2020 10: 09
      -1
      And what kind of mustache on the sides of the aircraft carrier model?
      Mooring lines ...? does not look like it
      Maybe oars? laughing
      1. Eldorado
        Eldorado 23 December 2020 10: 26
        -3
        These are the antennas, it seems, from the Mars Passat radar or its modernization. The Kuzi have the same.
        1. Avior
          Avior 23 December 2020 10: 52
          +2
          hardly Mars is a trade wind
          1. Eldorado
            Eldorado 23 December 2020 11: 32
            -2
            Quote: Avior
            hardly Mars is a trade wind

            Yes, this is a different complex. winked
      2. Avior
        Avior 23 December 2020 10: 28
        +5
        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.


        1. halpat
          halpat 23 December 2020 11: 42
          0
          Very similar to fishing rods :))
      3. Errr
        Errr 23 December 2020 11: 16
        +1
        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 smile ). If it's very interesting, then you yourself translate from English. I'm lazy. smile Link to the first photo with explanations http://russiannavy.net/militaryPhotos/archives/cv61-10.jpg
      4. pin_code
        pin_code 24 December 2020 08: 13
        0
        two dimons on the sides, and as oars and as sheaths can be used.
    3. figwam
      figwam 23 December 2020 10: 37
      +2
      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.
      1. Machito
        Machito 23 December 2020 10: 55
        +10
        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.
      2. pin_code
        pin_code 24 December 2020 08: 17
        0
        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!
    4. Baloo
      Baloo 23 December 2020 10: 54
      -5
      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 sad ... I need a decent salary, affordable healthcare, education for my grandchildren. Are we going to conquer Africa, or are we aiming at Australia.
      1. halpat
        halpat 23 December 2020 11: 41
        0
        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 sad ... 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.
        1. Baloo
          Baloo 23 December 2020 11: 52
          0
          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?
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 23 December 2020 19: 12
            0
            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.
            1. Baloo
              Baloo 23 December 2020 19: 22
              0
              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.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 23 December 2020 20: 25
                +2
                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.
                1. Baloo
                  Baloo 24 December 2020 08: 30
                  0
                  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.
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 24 December 2020 19: 43
                    -2
                    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.
                    1. Baloo
                      Baloo 24 December 2020 20: 06
                      0
                      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.
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 24 December 2020 20: 17
                        -1
                        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.
                      2. Baloo
                        Baloo 24 December 2020 20: 53
                        0
                        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.
                      3. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 24 December 2020 22: 49
                        -1
                        Quote: Balu
                        Stalin feared that Hitler's entourage would then be able to sniff out Britain and the Americans.

                        And absolutely right.
          2. Alf
            Alf 23 December 2020 21: 07
            +2
            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?
        2. Alf
          Alf 23 December 2020 21: 06
          +2
          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.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 23 December 2020 23: 12
            0
            Quote: Alf
            these are our tanks at their airfields

            And this too, but first you need to get there.
          2. Baloo
            Baloo 24 December 2020 08: 30
            0
            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.
      2. Alf
        Alf 23 December 2020 21: 05
        +1
        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?
      3. pin_code
        pin_code 24 December 2020 08: 32
        0
        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.
  2. pin_code
    pin_code 24 December 2020 08: 19
    +1
    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
    Dimy4 23 December 2020 10: 55
    +2
    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
    Doccor18 23 December 2020 11: 09
    +11
    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 ...
    1. frog
      frog 23 December 2020 17: 11
      0
      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 ...
    2. pin_code
      pin_code 24 December 2020 08: 34
      +1
      solidarity with you! everything has its time. but I want "now" ...
  • antivirus
    antivirus 23 December 2020 11: 15
    0
    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
    Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 December 2020 13: 47
    +2
    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
    Boris Chernikov 23 December 2020 23: 24
    -2
    in general, speech is not "necessary or not", but WHEN it is needed, these are different things ..
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 23 December 2020 10: 01
    +2
    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
    rocket757 23 December 2020 10: 02
    +5
    Has someone already decided what to build?
    1. Kara
      Kara 23 December 2020 10: 05
      +24
      Quote: rocket757
      Has someone already decided what to build?

      Rakhmanov simply would like to build, and he announced his readiness.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 23 December 2020 10: 42
        +6
        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
    Vladimir_2U 23 December 2020 10: 08
    +2
    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.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 23 December 2020 11: 26
      +2
      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.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 23 December 2020 11: 32
        +1
        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.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 23 December 2020 11: 35
          -3
          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.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 23 December 2020 11: 38
            +3
            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.
            1. Alf
              Alf 23 December 2020 21: 10
              +1
              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.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 24 December 2020 03: 24
                0
                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).
          2. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 23 December 2020 12: 05
            +1
            And how does the population of Nikolaev treat Russia and the Russians? This also matters.
  • From Tomsk
    From Tomsk 23 December 2020 10: 09
    +11
    For a long time there were no fakes about the "newest Russian aircraft carrier". And who will build the destroyers, Pushkin?
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 23 December 2020 11: 17
      +1
      - both Pushkin and Lermontov.
      under the AV you also need to build a base from scratch, better 2pcs
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 23 December 2020 10: 11
    +3
    we expect to build an aircraft carrier if ordered by the military

    That's it
    If a...
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 23 December 2020 10: 15
    +5
    When talking about aircraft carriers, VAT starts to itch and swell ...
  • d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 23 December 2020 10: 20
    +6
    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
    Desperado 23 December 2020 10: 21
    +6
    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
    U-58 23 December 2020 10: 40
    -2
    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
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 23 December 2020 11: 36
      +4
      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.
      1. Avior
        Avior 23 December 2020 12: 02
        +3
        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.
    2. FIR FIR
      FIR FIR 23 December 2020 17: 01
      +1
      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.
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 23 December 2020 18: 05
        0
        Quote: FIR FIR
        4-aircraft AWACS

        which must be done almost from scratch ...
        1. FIR FIR
          FIR FIR 23 December 2020 18: 53
          0
          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.
    3. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 23 December 2020 18: 19
      0
      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
    4. Alf
      Alf 23 December 2020 21: 12
      +2
      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
    Tests 23 December 2020 11: 03
    +4
    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
    bogart047 23 December 2020 11: 30
    +1
    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?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 December 2020 19: 56
      +1
      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. smile
      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.
    2. SVD68
      SVD68 25 December 2020 05: 59
      0
      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
    tralflot1832 23 December 2020 11: 38
    +1
    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? hi
  • Comrade I
    Comrade I 23 December 2020 11: 44
    +4
    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.
    1. U-58
      U-58 23 December 2020 15: 47
      +1
      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?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 24 December 2020 10: 32
        0
        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
    Sergej1972 23 December 2020 11: 59
    +2
    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
    Herman 4223 23 December 2020 12: 03
    +1
    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.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 23 December 2020 12: 13
    0
    Mechti, mechti.
  • Mikhail Zakharov
    Mikhail Zakharov 23 December 2020 12: 37
    0
    but what about unnecessary trash? easy target? is the time of aircraft carriers gone? So the political instructor was lying?
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 23 December 2020 13: 40
      0
      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. laughing laughing laughing
    2. t-12
      t-12 23 December 2020 20: 08
      +1
      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
    next322 23 December 2020 12: 48
    +4
    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?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 23 December 2020 17: 18
      -1
      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
    Lex_is 23 December 2020 13: 55
    0
    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.
  • Radikal
    Radikal 23 December 2020 14: 00
    +3
    Plant named for possible construction of the latest Russian aircraft carrier
    It's not even funny anymore. sad
  • Ugochaves
    Ugochaves 23 December 2020 15: 43
    +1
    Quote: RUSS
    We can't find a common language with our neighbors,

    Do the neighbors want this?
  • yfast
    yfast 23 December 2020 18: 49
    0
    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
    t-12 23 December 2020 20: 03
    0
    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
    Adimius38 23 December 2020 20: 39
    0
    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
  • Chepa
    Chepa 23 December 2020 20: 44
    0
    We do not have the opportunity to build aircraft carriers. Doc was drowned. Though it's time to buy from the Chinese
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 23 December 2020 23: 14
      -1
      Quote: Chepa
      Doc was drowned. Though it's time to buy from the Chinese

      So they bought that, only from the Swedes.
  • Erik
    Erik 23 December 2020 22: 16
    0
    Laughter, just laughter!
  • Erik
    Erik 23 December 2020 22: 17
    0
    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
    lelik613 24 December 2020 19: 05
    +1
    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
    IC 27 December 2020 03: 17
    0
    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.