Military Review

"We all laughed well": the West does not believe in the possibility of implementing Russian projects for a new aircraft carrier

99

The aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov returned to Murmansk for overhaul and modernization in early 2017. However, in October 2018, the only floating drydock capable of keeping the ship afloat sank, damaging the Kuznetsov. In December 2019, a fire broke out on board the cruiser. Since then, it has been moored at the Zvezdochka shipyard, and there has been practically no progress. In this regard, on the pages of the Western edition of Defensionem, the question is posed: is Russia able to finally write off "Admiral Kuznetsov" and replace it with a ship of a different type?


Many concepts


Back in 2015, Project 23000E "Storm" was presented: an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 100 tons for the Russian Navy.

The model was an excellent and serious upgrade compared to Admiral Kuznetsov: electromagnetic catapults, two islands [deck superstructures], a nuclear power plant, a naval version of the Su-57 on the deck ... This aircraft carrier was supposed to have an air wing of more than 80 platforms !

- points out in the press the observer, not believing in the possibility of the implementation of Russian projects of the new aircraft carrier.

We were delighted. Then we remembered that Russia had not designed or built anything larger than a frigate since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we all had a good laugh.

- notes the journalist.

In 2019, the concept of a more modest LMA (light multipurpose aircraft carrier) with a displacement of 44000 to 60000 tons with a conventional power plant was demonstrated, which made it 4-6 times cheaper than the Storm. It has a single island, a springboard for take-off and is equipped with completely new, Russian-made gas turbines from Saturn, which were developed as a replacement for Ukrainian products.

The project 11430E "Manatee" also featured. The ship has a displacement of 80 tons, a nuclear power plant and uses existing weapons, radar, navigation and communications systems,

No experimenting or gambling with untested technologies [...] However, the truth is that no Russian shipyard has ever participated in the construction of anything commensurate and complex

- indicated in the publication.



Squabbles of admirals


Now there is a new project of a universal naval ship, in fact the aircraft carrier "Varan". Its displacement is about 45 thousand tons, the composition of the air wing includes 24 multipurpose aircraft, 6 helicopters and up to 20 UAVs.

However, everything depends on the issue of financing.

Some admirals want the [new] aircraft carrier to replace Admiral Kuznetsov in order to maintain prestige, aviation and the ability to project power, while others [military] believe that money could be spent on more pressing needs

- the conclusion is made in Defensionem.
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Theodore
    Theodore 27 January 2021 05: 54
    +5
    It's like in that joke about the aeroplane: And what for is it to us !?
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 27 January 2021 06: 13
      +12
      Quote: Theodore
      And what for is he to us !?

      Chumadan without a handle, which will devour more than half of the naval money for the entire fleet.
      And not only for the construction of new ships, but also for the current operation.
      And so - yes, and I want to and inject ...
      1. krot
        krot 27 January 2021 09: 17
        -6
        in the West they do not believe in the possibility of implementing Russian projects of a new aircraft carrier

        In my opinion there is evidence of taking "weakly") Aircraft carriers are battleships of the 21st century. They are already outdated! And the cost is insane that the ship, that its content .. It is cheaper to send a hypersonic missile to fight such a NATO ship. We do not print dollars so that we can afford unnecessary expenses.
        1. Simon schempp
          Simon schempp 27 January 2021 14: 39
          +8
          They are already outdated!

          It's just nonsense that is not supported by anything.
          It's cheaper to send a hypersonic missile to fight such a NATO ship

          According to this logic, any ships are obsolete. After all, why do we need a fleet when the enemy has missiles that have no analogues in the world?
        2. 210ox
          210ox 27 January 2021 15: 20
          +1
          Okay, battleships of our century. Why then modernize "Petra" and "Nakhimov". A huge target, perfectly visible in all ranges. After all, the same "Zircons" can be placed on less expensive ships.
          1. hydrox
            hydrox 27 January 2021 15: 49
            -1
            So after all, no one has ever undertaken to prove the meaning and purpose of the content of the Eagles in today's time and in the defensive doctrine (we will not pull another one for finance).
            US nuclear submarines will line up for the right to thrust a torpedo into the bochin ...
            But all this is superfluous: these ships will devastate the naval treasury with their only maintenance afloat.
            1. bayard
              bayard 28 January 2021 01: 48
              0
              Are you proposing to abandon the Fleet as such, leaving only minesweepers?
              The cost of such an aircraft carrier (45 - 000 tons) will be included in the cost of two Yasen-M nuclear submarines. And we need such AB for the combat stability of the covering forces for our nuclear submarines in the "bastions", and not for "force projection." And such ships need about 50 pieces. - 000 units for Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet. This is not at all ruinous and will equal the cost of the entire Yasen-M program.
              Without the cost of the wing and basic infrastructure, of course.
              Now a huge part of the naval budget is consumed by the programs for the construction of two types of nuclear submarines. And these programs are ending - most likely there will be no new bookmarks in the near future.
              The new program for the construction of a submarine smaller than the Yasen VI will require less money. Therefore, a simple redistribution of the costs of the naval budget, while maintaining its size, will make it possible to build a series of AV medium VI (6 pcs.) At two shipyards simultaneously in 15 - 17 years. Without increasing the budget as a whole.
              1. hydrox
                hydrox 28 January 2021 09: 54
                0
                Empires always needed a fleet when they waged wars of conquest or defended colonies from enemy conquests - this also applies to RI.
                At the same time, there was nothing more shameful than the defeat of the fleets of empires at the time of their weakness and when the fleet did not meet the requirements of the time (Tsushima - when the battleships were sunk by cruisers).
                Are you eager to bring our fleet to Tsushima?
                And our nuclear submarines are only means of intimidation and carrying nuclear weapons ...
                1. bayard
                  bayard 28 January 2021 16: 35
                  0
                  Quote: hydrox
                  Are you eager to bring our fleet to Tsushima?

                  Take a closer look at my text. We need such (medium VI) aircraft carriers not for expansion, but for the combat stability of the detachment of forces covering the "bastions" - the combat deployment zone of submarine missile carriers.
                  The main threat to the submarine is the submarine aviation, which is difficult to prevent from entering the "bastion" by only surface ships of conventional classes ... And the basic aviation will not be able to organize a constant air watch in the zones of combat deployment of SSBNs. Carrier-based aviation is another matter - it is always in place, fighters take off on alarm and provide isolation of the area from enemy submarines.
                  The second, no less important threat to SSBNs is the enemy's MPS. It is the support of the PLO that the surface ships of the cover squad are engaged in.
                  But it is difficult to do this without aviation.
                  PLO helicopters on conventional surface ships ... not enough.
                  But on AB they can be up to 12 pieces. - as on the Soviet "Krechet", which can organize continuous shift duty during the entire threatened period. Of course, along with the helicopters of other ships of the squad of surface forces.
                  And for better control of the air situation, including at low and extremely low altitudes, deck-based AWACS aircraft will be used. Without them, full control of the air situation in the combat deployment area is impossible.
                  All this can be provided only by AB, and the AV of the average VI will be quite sufficient and, moreover, optimal.

                  However, to strengthen the combat stability of the expeditionary forces, such ships can also be used, but not so much as shock ones, but as AB air defense.
                  1. hydrox
                    hydrox 28 January 2021 16: 51
                    -1
                    Oh well ...
                    The combat deployment zone of our nuclear submarines (SSBNs) is the Gulf of Mexico, both American and Canadian coasts, there are simply not enough boats for more.
                    But what the hell did our battleships forget there with their chufykalki Calibers?
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 28 January 2021 19: 30
                      -1
                      Sit down - two.
                      Our SSBNs have long had sufficient range to confidently engage targets in the United States, even from their own bases.
                      And their (SSBN) ancestors went to the Gulf of Mexico (last time) in 1988 - 89, if memory has not changed. And these were very old submarines with missiles with a range of no more than 2000 km.
                      Our bastions come to us in the Barents and Okhotsk Seas - under the cover of our fleet and base aviation.
    2. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 27 January 2021 06: 17
      +2
      Russia did not design or build anything larger than a frigate

      And where is the publicized Zvezda plant ??? Where, where - in the star ... what
      "We all had a good laugh"
      I would like to believe that the one who laughs last laughs well! hi
      1. 210ox
        210ox 27 January 2021 06: 47
        -1
        I understand that this is a commercial project and has nothing to do with the Navy. I would like to hope that it has not yet.
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 27 January 2021 10: 14
          0
          I understand that this is a commercial project and has nothing to do with the Navy.

          It has. But so far this is not advertised. For obvious reasons.
        2. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 27 January 2021 13: 09
          +4
          In the Soviet Union, all shipyards built ships and other steamers ... And the Star is sharpened for tankers, drilling rigs, gas carriers and suppliers and assembles everything from ready-made sections ... What kind of construction of ships for the Navy is there!
          1. bayard
            bayard 28 January 2021 04: 26
            0
            For the next 5 years, there is no hope for the "Zvezda" - the shipyard will be established, reaching the design capacity and corny being completed.
            Another superyard is being built - Kola, roughly equal in capabilities to Zvezda, but it is still several years away from launch.
            There is also the Kerch "Zaliv", where it is also possible to organize the construction of aircraft carriers, but in the coming years it is busy with the construction of two UDCs.
            In total, it will be possible to seriously talk about the resumption of the construction of aircraft carriers in Russia not earlier than in 5 years - when the slipways in the "Zaliv" become free and the "Zvezda" acquires the necessary competencies.
            This is an expensive and slow business, therefore it requires a good study, defining tasks for these ships, choosing the optimal project, preparing the industry for the supply of power plants, EM catapults, lifts and other integral attributes.
            If the Navy, the Ministry of Defense and the highest state authorities decide that such ships are needed, then in 5 years they can start laying them down at two shipyards at once - in Zaliv and Zvezda.
            The easiest way to organize their construction would be on the "Zaliv" - for the organization of logistics, climate (important) and unloaded large-scale civil projects.
            But this is only if the new "boyars" \ "aristocrats" need such a fleet.
            1. Uncle lee
              Uncle lee 28 January 2021 04: 30
              +1
              Quote: bayard
              if the new "boyars" \ "aristocrats" need such a fleet.

              This is the main question ... And financing. hi
              1. bayard
                bayard 28 January 2021 17: 47
                +1
                Quote: Uncle Lee
                ... And funding

                If the "boyars" decide what is needed, the matter will not get up to funding.
                The industry has estimated such an aircraft carrier (45 - 000 on gas turbines) at $ 50 billion. From my bounty I will throw in the unexpected - up to 000 billion dollars.
                A total of 6 aircraft carriers (excluding the air wing and basing infrastructure) in 15 - 17 years will cost ... 15 billion dollars.
                That is, the construction of six aircraft carriers will cost 1 (one) billion dollars a year!
                Total .
                Another about 1 billion dollars. the air wing will cost each of them.
                And the infrastructure in two fleets.
                In total, somewhere else 10 - 12 billion dollars.
                Total - 25 - 27 billion dollars. for 15 - 17 years. For SIX aircraft carriers in two fleets with all base and airfield infrastructure and air wings.
                But this is the cost of only two (!) New US aircraft carriers without an air wing and other extras. expenses.
                1. Uncle lee
                  Uncle lee 29 January 2021 01: 16
                  0
                  Quote: bayard
                  Total - 25 - 27 billion dollars.

                  And gallop you can steal? !!!!! bully
    3. Finches
      Finches 27 January 2021 07: 03
      -4
      Kuznetsov is being repaired, not abandoned, as they say here, everything is going according to plan - the sunken dock and the fire have made their own adjustments, postponing the planned return to service for 2022, but no more - he will still serve Russia, and sharpen the fringes, do not roll bags!
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 27 January 2021 07: 43
        +6
        Quote: Finches
        everything is going according to plan - the sunken dock and the fire have made their own adjustments, postponing the planned return to service until 2022,

        Only a sunken floating dock is holding back admirals from sending a faulty cruiser to the shores of Syria. Because the propellers were removed during docking (it is good if the propellers are not stolen, as on the destroyer "Restless").
        1. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 27 January 2021 16: 02
          0
          Quote: Bashkirkhan
          Because the propellers were removed during docking (it is good if the propellers are not stolen, as on the destroyer "Restless").
          ..., -
          Quote: Finches
          everything goes according to plan
          ... what
        2. bayard
          bayard 28 January 2021 04: 41
          +1
          Quote: Bashkirkhan
          Only a sunken floating dock is holding back admirals from sending a faulty cruiser to the shores of Syria. Because the propellers were removed during docking (it is good if the propellers are not stolen, as on the destroyer "Restless").

          Nothing, he ("Kuze") is out of repair in the same year as "Nakhimov" is registered. Together, yes, after repairs, you can scare anyone.
          Yes, with a couple of "Gorshkovs" in the clip. bully
          Yes, with a couple of BODs. yes
          How will they go out to the Mediterranean sea! fellow
          And there their "Moscow" with the Black Sea frigates is waiting ... repeat
          Shock and awe in one word.

          Admiral's dreams will come true. yes
      2. Vadim_888
        Vadim_888 27 January 2021 08: 04
        +5
        Take into account the age of the ship, corrosion around the welds has not been canceled, the problem has been solved by the aerofinishers? Are the aircraft for the aircraft carrier underway?
        It is more logical to build a new one with a nuclear plant and a catapult instead of a springboard
        1. Aerodrome
          Aerodrome 27 January 2021 08: 22
          +11
          so far, the sad statement of the fact that Russia will not have aircraft carriers and destroyers, in the foreseeable future, for objective reasons, is not a wild "Wishlist", a wild lack of funding for the fleet, a wild shortage of personnel, then over the years, a loss of competencies, and ala-ulyu - we are the "coast guard" .. - this is our fleet. just do not start about "submarines that no one sees" .. they see ... even how many potatoes they loaded. in fact: there is no Baltic for us, the North and the Quiet remain, everything is under our supervision. where are we all good then?
        2. Piramidon
          Piramidon 27 January 2021 12: 38
          0
          Quote: Vadim_888
          It is more logical to build a new one with a nuclear plant and a catapult instead of a springboard

          The military leadership is still unable to decide whether we need an aircraft carrier and why. Just to be, because others have? Correctly written:
          Some admirals want the [new] aircraft carrier to replace Admiral Kuznetsov to maintain prestige ...
          1. hydrox
            hydrox 27 January 2021 15: 55
            +1
            It is possible and necessary to maintain the prestige, only for this you need to have PRESTIGE and the means to maintain it, and today let the boh pants support, and not restore prestige
    4. Kalmar
      Kalmar 27 January 2021 08: 50
      +10
      Quote: Theodore
      And what for is he to us !?

      Yes, this seems to have been dealt with more than once. In short: in our time, fighting without air support is a bad idea (especially if the enemy has such support). And an aircraft carrier is, in fact, the only way to provide such support in the absence of friendly airfields nearby.

      It is another matter that such projects at the current stage are too tough for us, and out of place: the fleet has a huge mass of much more pressing problems that require a prompt solution.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 27 January 2021 10: 09
        -4
        Quote: Kalmar
        the only way to provide such support is in the absence of friendly airfields nearby.

        why fight so far away? where there are neither friends nor their own shores, what have we lost there? and if the adversary is so far away, we will get him with wounds, and not lose our people there
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 27 January 2021 10: 20
          +4
          Quote: vladimir1155
          why fight so far away?

          In one of the articles of the VO, it was calculated that this "so far" is not so far: coastal aviation can cover the fleet at a distance of about 300 km. Those. already in the far sea zone, it will not help the fleet much. And the interaction between various branches of the armed forces is traditionally not up to par.

          Quote: vladimir1155
          where there are neither friends nor their own shores, what have we lost there?

          This is already a matter of military doctrine. For some reason they climbed into Syria; perhaps we will lose something elsewhere. But a sensible thought: to build AV for the sake of "so it was" is stupid. You need to understand the goals and objectives.

          Quote: vladimir1155
          and if the adversary is so far away, we will get him with wounds, and not lose our people there

          Firstly, the missiles need to be guided somehow, and here the capabilities of aviation in terms of reconnaissance and issuance of control commands will be extremely useful (at times, there are practically no alternatives).
          Secondly, the adversary has his own "long arm" in the form of carrier-based aircraft and (in the future) long-range anti-ship missiles; these means must be resisted somehow.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 27 January 2021 10: 23
            -8
            Quote: Kalmar
            coastal aviation can cover the fleet at a distance of about 300 km

            not 300, but 3000 noughts you lost
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 27 January 2021 10: 35
              +6
              Quote: vladimir1155
              not 300, but 3000 noughts you lost

              Which fighter has such a combat radius? And how long will it take for him to overcome these same 3000 km: from the ships that he will rush to defend, by that time some chips will remain. No, I did not lose zeroes, it was just about a couple of hundreds of kilometers.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 27 January 2021 18: 02
                -4
                Su-35 / Flight range4 500 km
                Pictures on request combat radius su 35
                The super-maneuverable Su-35 fighter - the third on the list - can reach speeds of up to 2390 km / h. However, the combat radius improved in comparison with the Su-27 - over 1600 km - compensates for the slight decrease in speed indicators.


                An important fact is the large combat radius (600-1130 kilometers). Su-34

                Tu-22M / Flight range
                5 100 km
                bombers can hit the enemy's AW without being fighters and without coming close to the enemy warrant



                Tu-22M ("product 45") according to NATO codification: Backfire) - Soviet long-range ... The last three finished Tu-22M3 aircraft were handed over to the customer in ...
                13 300 m; Range of flight:
                6800 km; Combat radius with a load of 12 kg :.

                Tu 160 can hit AB too
                Bomber flight characteristics
                Combat radius 7 300 km
                Flight range without refueling 13 950 km maximum, 12 300 km practical
                Practical ceiling 16 000 m
                Cruising speed 850 km / h
                Maximum speed 2 km / h in the stratosphere, 200 km / h at sea level
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 27 January 2021 18: 59
                  +2
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  The super-maneuverable Su-35 fighter - the third on the list - can reach speeds of up to 2390 km / h. However, the combat radius improved in comparison with the Su-27 - over 1600 km - compensates for the slight decrease in speed indicators.

                  Those. to the declared 3000 km here, as we can see, is quite far. Plus, it will still fly: 2390 km / h is the maximum speed with full afterburner, which the Su-35 can develop for a short time. Its cruising speed is subsonic.

                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  Tu-22M / Flight range
                  5 100 km
                  bombers can hit the enemy's AW without being fighters and without coming close to the enemy warrant

                  They can. Rather, they could, when the MRA still existed. Only the problem of air defense does not solve it in any way. If the AUG managed to covertly approach the range of using its aircraft against our ships, the "carcasses" would not have time to rise and destroy it in time, if they wanted to.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 27 January 2021 20: 20
                    -4
                    Quote: Kalmar
                    If the AUG managed to covertly approach the range of using its aircraft against our ships,

                    secretive approach of AUG ?? .... how do you imagine it? even the frigate is not capable of stealth, and the submarine's approach must be detected by anti-aircraft weapons
                    1. Kalmar
                      Kalmar 27 January 2021 22: 19
                      +2
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      secretive approach AUG ?? .... how do you imagine it?

                      Just recently it was told on VO how such things are done: https://topwar.ru/176082-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vyvodim-avianosec-na-udar.html. Even with real examples, as in the old days, American AUG managed to walk unnoticed several hundred kilometers from the Soviet coast.

                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      and the PL approach should be identified by PLO means

                      I must, only those funds still need to be available in the required quantities. For the Russian Navy, this is now pretty sad.
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 27 January 2021 23: 48
                        -1
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        Just recently it was told on VO how such things are done: https://topwar.ru/176082-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vyvodim-avianosec-na-udar.html. Even with real examples, as in the old days, American AUG managed to walk unnoticed several hundred kilometers from the Soviet coast.

                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        and the PL approach should be identified by PLO means

                        I must, only those funds still need to be available in the required quantities. For the Russian Navy, this is now pretty sad.

                        I agree with the PLO, sadly, it means that the PLO is needed, and these are coastal-based PLO aircraft, corvettes, frigates, IPC ... they will not be there if we start aircraft carriers as well as aviation will not be easy either. AB is a money vacuum cleaner ..... about the imaginary "invisibility" of AB and articles on VO .... do not believe the fairy tales, especially since their authors themselves have already understood that they were mistaken ... and are now engaged in a more productive and useful business seeking to increase combat capability of minesweepers or write interesting historical research.
                      2. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 28 January 2021 09: 13
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        I agree with the PLO, sadly, it means that the PLO is needed, and these are coast-based PLO aircraft, corvettes, frigates, IPC

                        Yes, these tasks are now of the highest priority, I do not argue. Until the main current problems of the fleet are resolved, it makes no sense to take on aircraft carriers.

                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        AB is a money vacuum cleaner

                        As well as the fleet in general. And all the armed forces. They do not sow or plow, but they demand a lot of money. Therefore, any project in the military field (ideally) should be carefully calculated and substantiated - including from an economic point of view.

                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        about the imaginary "invisibility" of AB and articles on VO .... do not believe fairy tales

                        So not fairy tales, there are real examples. The ocean is large, it is not easy to track down and drive even a very large ship in it. Especially for us now, when there is nothing special to track down and drive.
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 27 January 2021 10: 29
          -5
          Quote: Kalmar
          For some reason they climbed into Syria; perhaps we will lose something elsewhere. But a sensible thought: to build AV for the sake of "so it was" is stupid. You need to understand the goals and objectives.

          I support, by the nature of my work I know that they climbed into Syria in the interests and at the request of the United States, they wanted a wider use of the resources of the Russian Federation in the Middle East, I advised not to go further than Syria to take a small piece of only Syria, there will soon be a very big mess up to the Persian the Gulf, even if you want to carry away or preserve your Syrian enclave. Of course, Russia will not have any losses from the Syrian war. and the second such conflict will not pull the Russian Federation so far at all, Axiom = our interests are only near their borders! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMPZ1xEFnAk
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 27 January 2021 05: 57
    +11
    "Storm": an aircraft carrier with a carrying capacity of 100 tons for the Russian Navy.
    A new word in shipbuilding! The tonnage of a warship in carrying capacity is measured, and 100 thousand tons is it only aircraft or even bonbs with kerosene? laughing
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 27 January 2021 06: 09
      0
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Onnage of a warship is measured in carrying capacity, and 100 thousand tons are only aircraft or even bonby with kerosene?

      More whores and blackjack! laughing
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 27 January 2021 06: 13
        +5
        Quote: Victor_B
        More whores and blackjack!

        Objection! Preference and girls with mon.soc. responsibility!
        1. Victor_B
          Victor_B 27 January 2021 06: 13
          -2
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          girls with mon. social responsibility!

          How many tons?
          Dap hang in grams live weight?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 27 January 2021 06: 14
            0
            Quote: Victor_B
            How many tons?

            Social responsibility? Less is better!
            1. Victor_B
              Victor_B 27 January 2021 06: 16
              -1
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Social responsibility?

              No "girls"! (Forgive ... God!)
              1. sleeve
                sleeve 27 January 2021 07: 08
                -1
                And they are the best in the world. Such a person confirmed that you could not argue)
                1. Victor_B
                  Victor_B 27 January 2021 07: 10
                  0
                  Quote: sleeve
                  And they are the best in the world.

                  Better to take Ukrainian women.
                  Cheaper and quality is not worse.
        2. Polite Moose
          Polite Moose 27 January 2021 07: 33
          -1
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Preference and girls with mon.soc. responsibility!

          Import substitution?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 27 January 2021 08: 07
            -2
            Quote: Polite Elk
            Import substitution?

            Back to the roots!
            1. Aerodrome
              Aerodrome 27 January 2021 09: 04
              -3
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Quote: Polite Elk
              Import substitution?

              Back to the roots!

              can we wait out somewhere in the forest? well with blackjack and milkmaids ...
              1. Polite Moose
                Polite Moose 27 January 2021 09: 20
                0
                Quote: Aerodrome
                can we wait out somewhere in the forest? well with blackjack and milkmaids ...

                Dictate the address!
                1. Aerodrome
                  Aerodrome 27 January 2021 09: 23
                  0
                  Quote: Polite Moose
                  Quote: Aerodrome
                  can we wait out somewhere in the forest? well with blackjack and milkmaids ...

                  Dictate the address!

                  I knew it ... Pronged right through ... let's wait until Business? and then ... well, we'll contact you with signal fires ... drinks
        3. Aerodrome
          Aerodrome 27 January 2021 09: 00
          -1
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Quote: Victor_B
          More whores and blackjack!

          Objection! Preference and girls with mon.soc. responsibility!

          nope only hard core ... laughing
          1. Aerodrome
            Aerodrome 27 January 2021 09: 33
            0
            Quote: Aerodrome
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Quote: Victor_B
            More whores and blackjack!

            Objection! Preference and girls with mon.soc. responsibility!

            nope only hard core ... laughing

            minusers from the putinonavalny team ... not tired of being on duty?
        4. three
          three 27 January 2021 12: 49
          0
          Supported, Leningrad and Ukrainian women ...
  • Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 27 January 2021 05: 59
    -5
    The one who laughs last laughs well! We may be harnessing for a long time, but we drive long and fast - this has always been and will be so.
    1. for
      for 27 January 2021 07: 18
      +6
      We may be harnessing for a long time

      Maybe it's better to stand harnessed?
      but we drive long and fast

      If anything, the road from the border is shorter than from Moscow.
      We have a lot of sayings and proverbs covering our maybe.
    2. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 27 January 2021 08: 13
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir61
      He laughs best who laughs last! We may be harnessing for a long time, but we drive long and fast - this has always been and will be so.

      One pattern of long harnessing is that a fully harnessed horse may age and not trot (let alone gallop). Therefore, it is more appropriate to agree with:
      Quote: for
      We have a lot of sayings and proverbs covering our maybe.

      To be honest, the economic progress of our government, the strange appointments "more than once" of people who have cheated for high positions; fierce hatred of one's own currency (if you want to break away from the oil and gas needle and refuse to carry out a denomination, making the ruble more expensive than the dollar); “High rates” of creation of 20 high-tech jobs, with about 000 workers in the country who actually produce added value, are not encouraging.
      As for the "Admiral Kuznetsov" and its readiness by 2022, Russia has already "built" SP-2 by December 2020. Concerning:
      Quote: Vladimir61
      He laughs best who laughs last!

      there is another version:
      The one who has a developed sense of humor laughs well.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 27 January 2021 12: 33
        +2
        Quote: ROSS 42
        He laughs best who laughs last!

        there is another version:
        The one who has a developed sense of humor laughs well.

        Yeah. But I like it better:
        "Laughs well from those who laugh without consequences!" laughing
    3. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 27 January 2021 09: 06
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir61
      The one who laughs last laughs well! We may be harnessing for a long time, but we drive long and fast - this has always been and will be so.

      but we drive long and fast, yes, it’s on our brains, passbooks, cards ... we’ll arrive soon ...
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 27 January 2021 06: 15
    -6
    Let's remember last year. The West and its supporters in our country laughed in unison, sarcastically at what they called "cartoons". How much evil irony, mistrust was expressed in the media, social networks. AND? Today, the Americans agreed to extend the strategic arms treaty without additional conditions solely thanks to the "cartoons" that they do not have today. Yes, today there are problems with the fleet, but work is going towards fixing the gaps.
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 27 January 2021 06: 33
      +6
      Yes, today there are problems with the fleet, but work is going towards fixing the gaps.

      the fact of the matter is that she could walk 10 times faster and 100 times more efficiently if some thought more about the sovereign's pocket, and not about their own.
    2. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 27 January 2021 08: 25
      +8
      Quote: rotmistr60
      but work is moving towards fixing the gaps.

      Someone calls it work, someone asks to explain the annual rate of development of the economy in 1 percent with a trifle, someone is looking (still ... for more than 20 years) ways to fix the gaps, and someone has the simplest desire - make sure that the list of achievements overshadows all these promises, gaps, omissions, lapses, miscalculations, cost overruns, embezzlement and misuse ... And in the end, he is convinced that the people who have done so much harm to the country and its economy calmly crush their chairs with swollen backs. And to all of us - those who want to know - they don't even explain why these worthless ignoramuses or grabbers are appointed to correct the gaps, who, unlike Vereshchagin, do not at all disdain government and other bribes in very large sizes that do not correspond to the position held and the work done.
    3. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 27 January 2021 09: 11
      0
      Quote: rotmistr60
      Today, the Americans agreed to extend the strategic arms treaty without additional conditions solely thanks to the "cartoons" that they do not have today.

      It didn’t occur to them that they had problems above the roof, and they didn’t care about the "cartoons" because they Know the actual state of affairs, and the contract, they went to get off cleanly, (when did they comply with the agreements?) Just Bidon builds up an "image" for himself. ... subject-zero.
  • Iskazi
    Iskazi 27 January 2021 06: 19
    +11
    Yes, the article would be funny if it weren't so sad. Western realism in assessing the capabilities of the Russian Federation is quite appropriate, it must be so beautifully and politically correct to say that everything will be sawed and loved. Under Stalin, it would have been possible to build ..., now no, under the current government nothing will be built. Patriotic commentators are in the clouds ... but the Kremlin towers are too small.
    1. Roma 1977
      Roma 1977 27 January 2021 09: 23
      -2
      Under Stalin, they planned (and began to actually create) an ocean-going fleet of super battleships. Now it is obvious to everyone that this was the wrong decision. Thank goodness that program was canceled and the country saved huge amounts of money.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 27 January 2021 10: 22
        0
        Quote: Roma-1977
        Under Stalin, they planned (and began to actually create) an ocean-going fleet of super battleships.

        Kuznetsov planned, for which he was justly displaced ..... battleships showed their ineffectiveness throughout the 20th century ... On the night of February 3, 1948, the verdict was announced. Stepanov and Alafuzova
        each sentenced to 10 years in prison, while Haller was sentenced to four years. Kuznetsova
        released from criminal liability, offering to demote to the rank of counter-admiral ... several admirals were convicted of the collapse of the work ...
    2. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 27 January 2021 09: 36
      0
      Quote: Iskazi
      smallish.

      you know how to slide ... inspires. drinks
  • Mykhalych
    Mykhalych 27 January 2021 06: 22
    +4
    If you point out to the West to what extent THEY ARE FUNNY in the eyes of the rational people of the world, then they will burn with shame just right. Netherlands, USA, Outskirts - with their "democratism"; about lithuania-latvia-estonia, recourse request What can I say about anal gayropes. Or about the B-21, about which the experts from Washington themselves consider too expensive and ineffective apparatus ...
    You can also laugh at Biden, who brought transgender people back to the us army and
    over 20 dollar paper with a photo of a black woman ...
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 27 January 2021 09: 18
      0
      If you point out to the West to what extent THEY ARE FUNNY in the eyes of the rational people of the world, then they will burn like a torch out of shame.
      uh ... how would you intelligently show .. how fucking ... my
      (] If you point out to the West to what extent THEY ARE FUNNY in the eyes of reasonable people in the world
      here other categories work, my dear naive and pure person ... here lies are in favor and (I hate Anglicisms) damn "hype" ... so you can just as well prove to the mirror ...
      1. Mykhalych
        Mykhalych 27 January 2021 09: 51
        -2
        Quote: Aerodrome
        so you may as well prove to the mirror ...

        You are reciting in front of the mirror, and ...
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 27 January 2021 12: 58
      +1
      Quote: Mykhalych
      You can also laugh at Biden, who brought transgender people back to the us army and

      in women's sports teams ...
      They already have one "athlete with a cast-iron jaw", converted from a man, took all the awards on the treadmill from normal aunts
      Well, now the "Yankee-ladies" will fuck all the women's athletics! And not only. laughing
      So I thought. But it would be fair to single out these ITs in a separate category (men, women, and genders!) And let them compete with each other. Everyone would have looked at these transformers! (And normal people would stay away from this dead-end branch of bioengineering and would not interfere with their fights!)
      Damn, our Olympic Committee should have come up with a similar initiative so that the Yankees get confused with this problem in an adult way, and not Rodchenko with his insinuations untwisted ...
      AHA.
  • Pavel73
    Pavel73 27 January 2021 06: 40
    +2
    Russia needs an aircraft carrier. But not for a big war, but for local operations like Syria. And to preserve the competence of Russia in the field of carrier-based aviation. If we have learned something, it cannot be lost. But of course, no "races" in this area can be arranged with anyone. Two relatively small aircraft carriers, one for the Pacific Fleet, the second for the Northern Fleet, no more. And of course no 100000 tons. Maximum - like Kuznetsov.
    1. Roma 1977
      Roma 1977 27 January 2021 09: 09
      +8
      Given the absence of naval bases around the world, the aircraft carrier will have to be built atomic. Given the absence of short / vertical takeoff aircraft, steam or electromagnetic catapults will have to be arranged - that is, again, they need an atomic source of steam or electricity. Nuclear aircraft carrier with a displacement of 30/40 thousand tons? - Inefficient spending of funds. We start from 80 tonnes and an air wing of 000-60 units, including AWACS aircraft. And you need 80 of these - two for each ocean fleet, so that when repairing one, you always have the other ready. No? Then there is no need to build at all, there are more priority tasks both in the navy and in the armed forces as a whole.
      1. Pavel73
        Pavel73 27 January 2021 09: 50
        +3
        Then you get a suitcase without a handle. Kuzya will die sooner or later, and we will no longer have carrier-based aircraft. And four aircraft carriers are too heavy. Izmail, the Soviet Union, Kronstadt, Stalingrad, Ulyanovsk are immediately remembered. Projects that exceeded our capabilities.
      2. Kalmar
        Kalmar 27 January 2021 09: 57
        +3
        Quote: Roma-1977
        Given the absence of naval bases around the world, the aircraft carrier will have to be built atomic.

        Why? And do we need a presence "all over the world"? We just can't afford to be a plug in every barrel (like the USA).

        Quote: Roma-1977
        Nuclear aircraft carrier with a displacement of 30/40 thousand tons? - Ineffective spending of funds

        Atomic pr. 1144 felt ashamed of its 25 thousand tons)) Seriously, we now have great difficulties with the production of gas turbines for large ships. But we can do nuclear power plants. They say that pr. 23560 was proposed precisely from these considerations in the atomic version.

        Quote: Roma-1977
        We start from 80 tonnes and an air wing of 000-60 units, including AWACS aircraft. And you need 80 of these - two for each ocean fleet, so that when repairing one, you always have the other ready.

        Beautiful, but unrealistic in the foreseeable historical perspective. So far, even corvettes and frigates have been built for several years; It will take decades to build an 80 kiloton AB at this rate.

        Quote: Roma-1977
        No? Then no need to build at all

        "The path of a thousand steps begins with the first step": we must start with something if we really want to have AB. Most likely - from something not very ambitious, in order to get a real ship at the exit, and not a project for developing budgets.
        1. Roma 1977
          Roma 1977 27 January 2021 10: 28
          +5
          I may be wrong, but the unit cost for a ship with a large displacement will be lower than for a ship with a small one. That is, one aircraft carrier for 80 aircraft will cost less in construction and operation than two for 40 aircraft. Plus, the presence of AWACS aircraft is an urgent need for full-fledged combat work, and they will not be able to accommodate on a light aircraft carrier (probably). And just an aircraft carrier, "whatever was" - well, that is.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 27 January 2021 10: 40
            +2
            Quote: Roma-1977
            That is, one aircraft carrier for 80 aircraft will cost less in construction and operation than two for 40 aircraft.

            Probably yes. But here we run into the harsh realities of domestic shipbuilding: we simply cannot pull a ship of 80 thousand tons of VI (in any case, now). 40 thousand look a little more realistic.

            Quote: Roma-1977
            Plus, the presence of AWACS aircraft is an urgent need for full-fledged combat work, and they will not be able to accommodate on a light aircraft carrier (probably)

            There is neither a horse nor a cart here: we have no AWACS decks. But you can immediately design a light AB in the calculation, if we stop at it. "Hawkeye" may not work, but still much better than nothing at all (like now).
    2. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 27 January 2021 09: 19
      -7
      Quote: Pavel73
      Russia needs an aircraft carrier. But not for a big war, but for local operations like Syria. And to preserve the competence of Russia in the field of carrier-based aviation. If we have learned something, it cannot be lost. But of course, no "races" in this area can be arranged with anyone. Two relatively small aircraft carriers, one for the Pacific Fleet, the second for the Northern Fleet, no more. And of course no 100000 tons. Maximum - like Kuznetsov.
      do not be late for school, otherwise, mom will kick the jug and won't give pocket money.
  • Mr.dimadroll
    Mr.dimadroll 27 January 2021 06: 41
    +6
    We were delighted. Then we remembered that Russia had not designed or built anything larger than a frigate since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we all had a good laugh.

    Better Zumwalt "cheer" and "laugh"
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 27 January 2021 10: 07
      +14
      But the funny thing is that America Zumwalt chewed and forgot. Just like LCS - the first 4 of which are already being written off, and a queue of vassals lined up behind them, buy inexpensively.
      They have Flight IIA TI berks - 9 in the process.

      And 14 more newest Flight IIIs in progress

      Another 3 Fords are paid for and at work.

      Virginki are baked like sausages, even the first Block IV has been passed.

      Oregon will pass this year - 20 boat project. You can count how many nuclear-powered ships of all classes are in the Russian Navy.

      Therefore, spending 2-3-5 lard dollars on a failed project for them does not mean anything at all.
      1. three
        three 27 January 2021 13: 00
        +1
        Absolutely. Support in 2.2 trillion (!) And they do not care about the national debt at 26, everyone is running from risk in their shares, the market was inflated, the dollar was lowered (to serve the debt) - and well, you can build and spend on anything ... (without irony and sarcasm, something sad somehow, honestly ...)
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 27 January 2021 06: 49
    +6
    But we have this laugh with tears in our eyes, an attempt to present Kuznetsov to society as ballast for the country's military fleet is stupid and inappropriate! The Kremlin simply MUST go to bed, but modernize the ship as soon as possible, and at the same time qualitatively update it. Otherwise, it is truly a shame for the state, the man said correctly! hi
    1. for
      for 27 January 2021 07: 34
      -8
      Quote: Thrifty
      MUST go to bed, but upgrade the ship in

      The Kremlin should go to bed, sell the palace in Gelendzhik as ownerless and build a couple of aircraft carriers. And from Kuznetsov to make a museum.
      1. t-12
        t-12 27 January 2021 16: 33
        0
        sell a palace in Gelendzhik
        To whom to sell?
  • Titsen
    Titsen 27 January 2021 06: 56
    -1
    Quote: Victor_B
    Chumadan without a handle, which will devour more than half of the naval money for the entire fleet.


    And it will drag us into an arms race, sucking all the money not only from their fleet and the Armed Forces, but from all of Russia!
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 27 January 2021 09: 47
      +1
      Quote: Titsen
      And it will drag us into an arms race, sucking all the money not only from their fleet and the Armed Forces, but from all of Russia!

      Not necessary if you are smart about it. Those. clearly define goals and objectives and design ships for them, and not to "catch up and overtake".
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 27 January 2021 07: 08
    +3
    No aircraft carrier needed. We will fight America from Alaska, we will establish a crossing over the strait and overland to California.
  • Yaro Polk
    Yaro Polk 27 January 2021 07: 40
    +8
    Better corvettes 1000 pieces set up with "calibers" and "zircons"
    * And it's funny to me that the SSHG has 2 icebreakers, and then one is "non-walking" wassat
    * The icebreaking fleet of Russia is represented by 38 sea vessels, of which 7 are nuclear powered, and is the largest in the world.
    And they also build and build there.
    * please note, Peaceful fleet., not that the Amerzians, conquering fleets in life.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 27 January 2021 08: 44
      +2
      Quote: Yaro Polk
      And I find it funny that the SSHG has 2 icebreakers, and then one is "non-walking"

      And I find it funny that the United States does not have a Northern Sea Route ...
      Quote: Yaro Polk
      The icebreaker fleet of Russia is represented by 38 sea vessels, of which 7 are nuclear powered, and is the largest in the world.
      And they also build and build there.

      If Russia sends one of them to the shores of Syria (instead of the "Admiral Kuznetsov" who was carrying out the mission there), would that be correct? If the power of Russia wants to consider the country a sea power worthy of the glory of Peter I, admirals Ushakov, Nakhimov and other brilliant commanders:
      https://yandex.ru/turbo/tsargrad.tv/s/articles/15-blistatelnyh-pobed-russkogo-flota_101133
      she just needs to have surface ships of the far sea zone, not in a single copy, but with all the escort that is due to the order.
  • Siberian54
    Siberian54 27 January 2021 09: 05
    +3
    Hello everyone! The country needs an aircraft carrier (preferably ice-class, sarcasm, or maybe not), especially at the Pacific Fleet, but it will not be in the near to medium term - the state has tuned in to the lunar race and, accordingly, the shipbuilders will be given money for 20 years on a leftover basis. And Wishlist-one hundred thousand with full escort in the east completely and completely closed the topic of islands
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 27 January 2021 12: 46
    -1
    No money for an aircraft carrier
    The "Kremlin prisoner" hardly scrapes up the palaces ... and then the sailors with their Wishlist!
  • Andrew 40
    Andrew 40 27 January 2021 13: 30
    -2
    With this power, any aircraft carrier or a sufficient number of the latest aircraft and tanks will be dear to us. "No money, but you hold on." Although, reading the news, we sell more of the same gas and oil than in the Soviet Union. Apart from the uncontrolled export of other resources of the country. Apart from the constant rise in the price of gasoline. Only the palaces of the "supposedly" chosen ones and the growth of capital outflow to offshore companies are growing. Hence the conclusion, until we add "2 + 2", we will consider what is necessary for the country through a pocket of holes.
  • Sasha from Uralmash
    Sasha from Uralmash 27 January 2021 16: 08
    -2
    A beautiful dear target! Everyone hand over the grandmothers for the curtains in the classroom! And we need it! Two 31miga-will deal with any trough! No offense to the Moremans!
  • A_Lex
    A_Lex 27 January 2021 20: 37
    -1
    Some admirals want the [new] aircraft carrier to replace Admiral Kuznetsov to maintain prestige, naval aviation and the ability to project power.


    No. The goal can be strictly one. Either prestige, i.e. banal show-off, or real projection of power. Since in the Russian Federation primary attention is paid to show-offs, this means that some aircraft-carrying ship will of course be built. Moreover, one that purely outwardly will look formidable and powerful. But at the same time, the real ability to project force for such a ship will be an optional option. The most important thing is that it looks beautiful at parades and that it was possible to shoot spectacular documentaries about how regular aircraft land on a ship in the endless ocean.
  • stepet
    stepet 27 January 2021 20: 47
    -3
    "We all laughed well": the West does not believe in the possibility of implementing Russian projects for a new aircraft carrier

    And they’re doing it right.
    Russia cannot pull this project.
    And she doesn't need an aircraft carrier.
    There is nowhere to apply.
  • Ivan Polozhy
    Ivan Polozhy 27 January 2021 21: 25
    -1
    New developments and calculations of aircraft carriers are needed, at least to maintain the skill of the designers. Build or not? Of course not. Long-term construction for ... - eleven years and a shame.
  • Ruvzh
    Ruvzh 28 January 2021 13: 54
    0
    Military spending is a derivative of the economic power of the state. The more powerful the economy, the more funding can be allocated for defense needs without forcing people to tighten their belts and take off their last shirts .. Conclusion: we need to deal with the economy, take measures to stimulate the growth of production and domestic consumption, develop exports and make Russian goods competitive abroad. That is, budget revenues over 10 years should multiply, not increasing the burden of taxpayers, but increasing their number - large and small enterprises, companies and various LLCs and even individual entrepreneurs ... Introduce a tax on capital export from Russia. Economic growth will provide the same financial resources for new weapons in abundance. Sobsno, China has gone exactly this way - and now its military capabilities are already worrying Washington more than Russia's.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 28 January 2021 16: 29
    0
    Just for scribblers and pSak wassat with their opinions, you can put a BOOO BOLT! It is more important that the General Staff of the Navy have real long-term plans for building a balanced fleet. Will there be AV or UDC based on and the strategy will be clear