Military Review

The Varan project and its technologies: groundwork for the future

152

A family of promising ships and vessels from the Nevsky PKB. The system is headed by an aircraft carrier "Varan", on the flanks - universal amphibious ships


Not so long ago, materials about a new development of the Nevsky Design Bureau called "Varan" appeared in the open press. This project proposes the construction of an aircraft carrier with broad capabilities, and in the future, on its basis, it is possible to create a multipurpose unified platform for the creation of ships of other classes. This potential of the Varan project is determined by the use of a number of interesting solutions of one kind or another.

The appearance of "Varana"


According to the published data, to date, "Varan" has passed the stage of creating a preliminary design, and now the preliminary design of individual elements of the ship is being carried out. Plans for the construction of such ships, for obvious reasons, are not yet available.

An aircraft carrier or a universal naval ship (UMK) of the "Varan" type should have a length of approx. 250 m, deck width up to 65 m and displacement of about 45 thousand tons. It is proposed to equip the ship with an angular flight deck to ensure the operation of aircraft. The UMK should have a flat deck without a springboard typical for domestic aircraft carriers. For take-off, catapults are provided, landing should be performed using an aerofinisher.

The ship should receive a gas turbine main power plant, unified in units with modern combat units of the Russian fleet... The maximum speed is estimated at 26 knots.

Aviation the group is proposed to consist of 24 fighter-bombers of the MiG-29K type and 6 helicopters. It is also possible to base up to 20 unmanned aerial vehicles.


Based on the developments in the Varan UMK, a universal amphibious assault ship can be created. It should be 30 m shorter than the aircraft carrier and have a displacement of approx. 30 thousand tons The payload must be placed inside the hull, and seven positions for helicopter take-off and landing can be arranged on the wide and long deck.

Construction approach


At the heart of the preliminary projects of the UMK and UDC is a unified platform, which includes a hull, a power plant and a number of general ship systems. If there is interest on the part of the customer, it can be used as a basis for ships and vessels of other types. In particular, a hospital ship and a support ship for the Arctic zone are proposed.

When forming the appearance of "Varan", the production capabilities of the Russian shipbuilding industry were taken into account. The main dimensions and displacement make it possible to build UMK or other ships on a unified platform at all major domestic factories. A radical modernization of facilities for the organization of production is not required.

The Varan project proposes to use a modular architecture. It is envisaged to manufacture separate sections of the body with all the necessary equipment inside, which must then be joined into a single structure. A similar method can be used in the construction of any ships on a universal platform.


Additional benefits in the course of construction and operation should be provided by the use of a number of ready-made units already mastered by the fleet. UMK "Varan" is proposed to be equipped with engines, other elements of the power plant and general ship systems that have already found application in the fleet.

It is assumed that a modular approach to construction, maximum unification and the launch of serial production will reduce the time and cost of building ships. In this respect, the construction of "Varan" will not fundamentally differ from the construction of other modern ships of the same size and displacement.

Combat capabilities


The proposed UMK in the version of an aircraft carrier can have quite wide combat capabilities, but its potential is limited by the available volumes and displacement. Obviously, the aircraft carrier "Varan" should be inferior to larger ships in all main indicators, but modern technologies make it possible to achieve maximum results.

The projected aircraft carrier can carry up to 24 aircraft and up to 6 helicopters on the flight and hangar decks. There are two onboard lifts for moving equipment. It is also proposed to accommodate a large number of UAVs on board, incl. different classes and types.


Drones of one kind or another are capable of taking over some of the work of manned aircraft. However, they can have some advantages over airplanes and helicopters. By choosing the right unmanned vehicles, you can organize a constant watch in the air with reconnaissance, ensure that strikes are delivered without risk to people, etc.

In addition, the dimensions and weight of the UAV are of great importance. Modern heavy-duty drones, showing fairly high performance, are more compact and lighter in comparison with full-fledged aircraft. In carrier-based aviation, this factor is of particular importance.

The media mentions the fundamental possibility of creating an aircraft-carrying cruiser, i.e. ship with an air group and missile strike weapons. Hull volumes allow you to fit multiple launchers for modern weapons... Also, the ship should receive air defense missile systems.

Other ships based on the Varan platform should have corresponding features and capabilities. So, in the case of the UDC, a significant part of the internal volume of the hull should be given to the crew and tank deck. In this case, it is possible to remove equipment intended for aircraft or horizontal take-off and landing UAVs. A unified hospital ship does not need to accommodate armored vehicles, but should have areas for accommodating patients and a deck for receiving helicopters. Similar requirements may apply to a transport ship.

Projects and their prospects


It should be noted that "Varan" from the Nevsky PKB is not the only modern development of Russian specialists in the field of the aircraft carrier fleet. Over the past years, other organizations have repeatedly proposed various options for aircraft carriers with different features and capabilities. At the same time, none of such projects has yet received approval and has not been brought to construction. A similar situation was previously observed in the context of universal amphibious assault ships.


Design look of a universal transport and hospital ship

The reasons for this situation are simple and understandable. Despite some interest in this topic, the Ministry of Defense has not yet initiated a full-fledged development and preparation for the construction of a new aircraft carrier. As a result, the proposed projects from different organizations do not yet have real prospects, and their future remains in question.

However, new warship designs such as the Varan are not useless. As part of this project, the Nevskoye Design Bureau is currently working on the technical and technological aspects of the construction of promising ships. The potential and perspectives of the universal platform as a concept and as a specific product need to be explored. You also need to work out various aspects of modular construction. The Russian Navy does not yet have full-size deck UAVs, and this area also needs to be studied and developed.

Thus, the main goal of the current advance projects, incl. "Varana" is the study of new ideas and solutions to create a reserve for the future. Accordingly, when the armed forces decide to develop and build an aircraft carrier, shipbuilders will be ready to start creating a project with all the required features and qualities.

Apparently, the project of the UMK and UDC "Varan" will remain at the level of proposals and partially worked out projects. However, its main result will be the well-studied and ready-to-use concepts of a universal sea platform, an aircraft carrier with a mixed manned and unmanned air group, etc. And already on the basis of these ideas, real projects of ships for various purposes will be developed - after receiving the corresponding orders.
Author:
Photos used:
Nevskoe PKB
152 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. SaLaR
    SaLaR 5 March 2021 18: 07
    +8
    Cranes are Flying.................
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 5 March 2021 18: 13
      -4
      the other day I was noted on the topic, I no longer consider it necessary ... empty ...
      1. Machito
        Machito 5 March 2021 18: 43
        +6
        Beautiful pictures.
        1. fa2998
          fa2998 5 March 2021 19: 01
          +10
          This cannot be taken away from us, we are the first in drawing!
        2. Svarog
          Svarog 5 March 2021 21: 43
          +1
          Quote: Bearded
          Beautiful pictures.

          Yes .. pictures .. unfortunately, all sane people understand that pictures are pictures and will remain in modern realities ..
          1. Machito
            Machito 6 March 2021 10: 26
            0
            Quote: Svarog
            Quote: Bearded
            Beautiful pictures.

            Yes .. pictures .. unfortunately, all sane people understand that pictures are pictures and will remain in modern realities ..

            Volodya, but how beautiful they are: they take for the soul.
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 6 March 2021 23: 05
              +3
              Quote: Bearded
              Volodya, but how beautiful they are: they take for the soul.
              Yeah, out of anger. The aircraft carrier not only without catapults, but even without a springboard, the deck length is less than 300 m, take-off only for one, displacement suggests that aviation has bombs and fuel only for 1 departure ...
    2. Gardamir
      Gardamir 5 March 2021 19: 14
      0
      At the same time, none of such projects has yet received approval and has not been brought to construction. A similar situation was previously observed in the context of universal amphibious assault ships.

      the current officials are afraid to take risks, and suddenly it will not work. But if someone else, from abroad, offers then money will be found to buy ready-made.
    3. antivirus
      antivirus 6 March 2021 03: 20
      0
      the military fleet is an expensive toy, .............. expensive toys are flying
      1. prior
        prior 6 March 2021 08: 47
        +9
        We ate "the leader" - now we will chew and chew "Varan".
        1. Observer2014
          Observer2014 6 March 2021 18: 56
          +1
          Quote: prior
          We ate "the leader" - now we will chew and chew "Varan".

          laughing wassat And you are observant however. Another blizzard. They hope not to be bored.
  2. Sagaidark
    Sagaidark 5 March 2021 18: 07
    +5
    In my opinion, we are now at the point where such a project can not only be implemented in metal, but also work out (including infrastructure issues) all problem areas in this area in the fleet on it. And the most important thing is the right project. For the first time in a long time, the project from the Nevsky PKB does not irritate me.
    1. Borik
      Borik 5 March 2021 18: 15
      +7
      We don't need pretty pictures, but real ships.
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 5 March 2021 18: 31
        +12
        Quote: Borik
        We don't need pretty pictures, but real ships.

        Look how cunning you are ... We read and are surprised:
        In all likelihood, project UMK and UDC "Varan" will remain at the level of proposals and partially worked out Projects. But the main result will be well researched and ready for implementation concept a universal sea platform, an aircraft carrier with a mixed manned and unmanned air group, etc. And already based on these ideas will be developed real Projects ships for various purposes - after receiving corresponding orders.
        1. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 6 March 2021 17: 45
          +6
          Quote: ROSS 42
          the project of UMK and UDC "Varan" will remain at the level of proposals and partially worked out projects. However, its main result will be the well-studied and ready-to-use concepts of a universal sea platform, an aircraft carrier with a mixed manned and unmanned air group, etc. And already on the basis of these ideas, real projects of ships for various purposes will be developed - after receiving the corresponding orders.
          can be reduced even more... This project, for working off - projects and concepts, for the sake of obtaining ordering for new PROJECTS (!).
      2. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 5 March 2021 21: 22
        +3
        Quote: Borik
        We don't need pretty pictures, but real ships.

        to begin with, we need a strategy for the development of the State, but to solve the tasks of implementing this very strategy, we need to build the appropriate ships, not according to the wishes of the admirals, but out of real need
        ships are a tool and you need to select them based on the tasks set
        1. bayard
          bayard 6 March 2021 00: 36
          +3
          Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
          to begin with, we need a strategy for the development of the State, but to solve the problems of implementing this very strategy, we need to build the appropriate ships

          A strategy without ideology (goal-setting) is not possible, so for now ... the president's task of "forming an ideological model of the state" is being fulfilled.
          But in the last few days, the Foreign Ministry began to snap at the enemies, Shoigu stirred - he went to the military-industrial complex enterprises to accelerate the launch of the series and production of products ... In the VTA, he was going to bring the number of IL-76 to 250 units. ... And then Iran also announced its desire to join the Eurasian Union - an almost forgotten and almost ... favorite idea of ​​structuring the geopolitical space of Eurasia ...
          So the smoking-room is still "alive" ...
          And just this project of the medium VI aircraft carrier looks quite acceptable - both in combat capabilities, and in the industry's capabilities for implementation, and in price (including the cost of operation / life cycle).
          But we must first build the already laid UDC in the Kerch Zaliv and understand that we can still build something large. Within a reasonable time frame and for a reasonable price.
          And it would be good to make sure that we have learned how to make marine engines and gearboxes for them.
          1. Vasilenko Vladimir
            Vasilenko Vladimir 6 March 2021 09: 54
            -1
            Quote: bayard
            And just this project of an aircraft carrier of a medium VI looks quite acceptable - and in combat capabilities

            and what are his goals and objectives, what will he solve ?!
            1. bayard
              bayard 6 March 2021 10: 24
              -1
              Ensuring the combat stability of the Fleet: KUG, a detachment of surface forces in the areas of combat deployment of missile submarines, disperse enemy anti-submarine aircraft with its own wing, provide air defense in the far zone and fight anti-ship missiles and other CDs in its zone of responsibility.
              In the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet, such ships are very much needed, because these functions cannot be performed with the forces of basic aviation ... at least with due speed and efficiency.
              1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                Vasilenko Vladimir 6 March 2021 21: 54
                +1
                Quote: bayard
                Ensuring the combat stability of the Fleet

                that's what I wrote about
                yes, this is not their task, their task is to solve the political goals of Russia and you think that their task is to shoot missiles
                Quote: bayard
                At the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, such ships are very much needed

                again, WHAT FOR? !!
                about "stability" leave what goals Russia will be able to achieve thanks to the AUG?
                Quote: bayard
                because these functions cannot be performed by the forces of basic aviation ...

                what exactly cannot be achieved, in what conflicts, who is the potential adversary? !!
                that's when you can answer THESE questions, then we will discuss whether AUG is needed or not
                with what note, I am not saying that they are not needed, I am saying what you need to know FOR WHAT

                a simple example you want to split a log and for this you need an ax or a cleaver
                you can buy just a cleaver for 300 rubles, you can buy a branded universal ax with a short handle for 2000-3000 you can buy a long-handled axle 4000-5000 you can buy a very good cleaver for 6000-8000
                the only question is what kind of log you have 10-30 cm, 20-50 cm or knotty under 90 cm
                and only after you figure out what to inject you will go and buy it anyway, either spend extra money or you will not be able to complete the task
                1. bayard
                  bayard 6 March 2021 23: 38
                  0
                  Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                  I do not say that they are not needed, I say that you need to know WHY

                  Well, at least don't say that.
                  The first task is to provide air defense. This is the main task, and for this it is necessary to have AWACS aircraft / helicopters on board.
                  The second task is to provide the ASW with anti-submarine helicopter forces (the number may vary depending on the specific mission to the combat exit / campaign. Accordingly, take on board more aircraft or up to a squadron of ASW helicopters. Such tasks (with an emphasis on ASW) can be performed in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk (cleaning "bastion" from enemy submarines and displacement / destruction thereof) and in the Barents Sea (with similar goals and objectives).
                  The third is the strengthening of the KUG / AUG by carrier-based aviation forces in strike operations with the main emphasis on reconnaissance (including AWACS aircraft / helicopters) and providing air defense of the KUG.

                  Our Fleet will not soon be able and will want to "project force" into the DMZ \ OZ, therefore, in the medium term, the tasks of such AB will be:
                  - providing air defense on distant lines from the sea direction of our naval base and the coast as a whole,
                  - strengthening the anti-submarine forces and the forces of the Fleet, as such, in the adjacent waters,
                  - and only in the third place - representative functions with "flag demonstration" and "force projection".
                  However, when these ABs are built (if they are built), there should already be a sufficient number of surface ships of the corresponding classes in the ranks for escort to the distant and oceanic zones.
                  Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                  yes, this is not their task, their task is to solve the political goals of Russia and you think that their task is to shoot missiles

                  Aircraft carriers do not "bullet" missiles. This is a naval aircraft carrier platform with near-zone air defense. AB has no other missiles.
                  As for "political tasks" ... politics is the business of diplomats, and war is the continuation of politics by other methods. The very presence of such (and not only) ships is already a political factor and exerts a certain pressure on reality. And how to use this factor for politicians is up to politicians. And for the Navy and the military leadership as a whole, these are combat units for solving a specific spectrum of tasks.
                  These are the tasks facing the Fleet.
                  Such a tool is needed.
                  Other forces and means do not solve such problems or are poorly solved.
                  The choice is with the political leadership.
                  There are funds for this program and the spreading of their expenditures for 15 years (the approximate time of the program implementation) will make the program completely burdensome for the budget. And it will bring a lot of benefits.

                  I already wrote about the funds above - the Ministry of Finance last year underfunded the economy by TRILLION rubles ... "saved money." This amount is enough for the construction of 6 (six) such aircraft carriers without an air wing and basic infrastructure. To finance the acquisition and create the missing one, you will need about the same amount.
                  FOR 15 - 17 YEARS !!!
                  All other plans for the construction of surface ships DM / OZ, already approved or agreed by the military and political leadership, will make them an escort. During the same time.
                  And do not forget that all the funds spent on the construction of the Fleet will be spent in Russia and, through cooperative chains, will feed the economy with life-giving financial juices. This is essentially an investment in your economy. This will increase GDP and tax revenues. The benefits will be for the economy as a whole.
                  By the way, the USA always got out of crises this way - pumped up the economy through military spending.
                  Stalin acted in exactly the same way, but with much (!) Greater efficiency.
                  Yes, and the Soviet Union was ruined not by military spending, but by the mediocre management of the economy as a whole, by those who later surrendered the country to the enemy. That is, the economic difficulties of the late Soviet Union were artificial and malicious.
                  We won the economic race.
                  1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                    Vasilenko Vladimir 7 March 2021 09: 45
                    0
                    The first task is to provide air defense
                    Don't you really understand? !!!
                    THE FIRST AND ONLY task is to promote the interests of Russia, everything else is games
                    it is possible that AUG is more important for promoting interests, and perhaps the work of cruisers on communications or pressure on the psyche through the nuclear submarine
                    As for "political tasks" ... politics is the business of diplomats, and war is the continuation of politics by other methods. The very presence of such (and not only) ships is already a political factor and exerts a certain pressure on reality
                    that's why we have everything in one place
                    once again the tool is selected for the task and not vice versa
                    and politicians and the military must act to achieve the interests of the State
                    you really are not able to paint on why AUG is needed or not needed, but you already claim that you cannot do without them

                    without any smearing on the plate
                    SMF who is the opponent of the AUG action task?
                    Pacific Fleet who is the opponent of the task of the AUG action?
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 7 March 2021 10: 18
                      -4
                      Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                      THE FIRST AND ONLY task is to promote the interests of Russia, everything else is games

                      Boy, how old are you?
                      Finished school?
                      What are the ratings?
                      Did you serve in the Army / Navy?
                      What rank?
                      The level of your competence and education does not allow you to discuss such serious topics.
                      Leave.
                      This is not yours.
                      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Vasilenko Vladimir 7 March 2021 13: 18
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        Boy, how old are you?

                        50
                        Quote: bayard
                        Finished school?

                        University Physics Department
                        Quote: bayard
                        Did you serve in the Army / Navy?
                        What rank?

                        military department
                        only the question is not in the topic, the question is not in the use of military equipment as a weapon, but in the use of the army as a tool in solving state problems, for this you need not have military experience, but experience in planning and development, and apparently YOU do not have this experience
                        you still could not say what exactly and against whom specifically the AUG will be engaged under what conflict YOU are planning them
                        Quote: bayard
                        The level of your competence and education does not allow you to discuss such serious topics.
                        Leave.
                        This is not yours.

                        once again WHAT DO YOU WORK? No experience in creating and purchasing equipment for specific tasks?

                        p / s / a genius doctor does not mean that a good head doctor and vice versa
                        a good commander on the battlefield does not mean that he is a smart and competent politician and strategist

                        p / s / 2 about illiterate planning due to incorrectly set tasks bald maize as an example for you
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 8 March 2021 00: 26
                        -1
                        [quote = Vasilenko Vladimir] 50 [/ quote]
                        [quote = Vasilenko Vladimir] University Physics Department [/ quo
                        Well, this is already an experience of life and education, I took you for the next schoolboy, who should be smart and play around. I'll be older.
                        And engineering education is good, it is systemic.


                        [quote = Vasilenko Vladimir] using the army as a tool in solving state problems, for this you need not have military experience, but experience in planning and development, and apparently YOU do not have this experience [/ quote]
                        You are mistaken, there is such an experience. One of my programs (of an economic nature) saved one of the leading industries (oil) from collapse in 1992. True, she is known under the authorship of another person, deeply respected by me.
                        So there is some experience.
                        [quote = Vasilenko Vladimir] you have no experience in creating and purchasing equipment for specific tasks? [/ quote]
                        yes And experience in creating and managing your own business.
                        [quote = Vasilenko Vladimir] commander on the battlefield does not mean that he is an intelligent and competent politician and strategist [/ quote]
                        When I was an officer, I was an officer in the combat directorate of an air defense formation as part of the RIC (intelligence information center), but left the service as a young man ... I thought into science ... but then the Union collapsed.
                        And at one time I met with ministers (for a long time), and with deputies, and with generals ...

                        [quote = Vasilenko Vladimir] you have not been able to say what exactly and against whom specifically will AUG be engaged under what conflict YOU are planning them [/ quote]
                        This topic has been around for many years. I wrote about this three and two years ago, and later, there will be several good articles. The topic has been beaten for a long time. after the twists and turns with the ideas of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Storm" and the nuclear-powered destroyer "Leader", how much effort it took to make this whim fall off ... Those plans did not fight with the economy. And with combat use too.
                        It makes no sense to have one or two aircraft carriers - it is not possible to organize a permanent presence in the desired zone. On one theater of operations, you must have at least 3 such ships, based on the calculation: one on duty / on a cruise, one in the base ready to go to sea for several days, and one under repair.
                        There is no other way.
                        It is impossible to organize this on atomic monsters - it is expensive, unjustified, excessive in terms of combat power. because we now need to think not so much about the projection of force, but about the fulfillment of urgent tasks about the defensive lines made in the naval theater of operations (Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet). Therefore, the idea of ​​an air defense aircraft carrier with a catapult (for launching an AWACS aircraft) of moderate VI was born. Just 45 - 000 tons. On gas turbines. Such an aircraft carrier will be 50 - 000 times cheaper to build and an order of magnitude cheaper in the life cycle than the atomic one hundred thousand-ton "Storm" or "Nimitz". But he will have enough combat capabilities for all possible tasks, having on board up to 5 fighters of the MiG-6K \ KUB or MiG-24K class, two or four AWACS aircraft of the Yak-29 type, and up to 35 PLO helicopters (all together will hardly fit , but by slightly reducing the number of fighters, you can increase the number of PLO helicopters, depending on the combat mission).
                        The main task of the Navy today is to ensure the security of the areas of combat deployment of missile submarines in the so-called. bastions. Covering them from the air from enemy anti-aircraft defense aircraft (which is extremely difficult to accomplish with the forces of basic aviation and limited effective means of air defense of surface ships), which are the main and most terrible enemy of submarines. SSBNs are nuclear deterrent forces, and by definition they cannot be left unprotected.
                        The second task of the surface fleet is ASW in the "bastions", because the enemy's MAPL is there for spawning cod. And this distracts very significant forces.
                        Without this it is impossible.
                        So it is precisely to provide air defense and anti-aircraft defense of combat deployment areas that aircraft carriers are needed, and not heavy atomic monsters, but air defense / anti-aircraft defense aircraft carriers of moderate displacement. This topic has long been calculated and played up, without them enemy aircraft will sink surface ships and SSBNs covered by them in a short time. In addition, the interception of the PK KR with a low-altitude profile is effective ONLY by the forces of fighter aircraft, and at the distant lines and under the guidance of AWACS aircraft (for a surface ship, the KR appears above the horizon at a distance of 15 - 25 km. And if the volley is massive, then the air defense simply cannot cope - not enough time to react). So for effective work you can't do without AV in any way.
                        It is for these purposes that "Admiral Kuznetsov" is valuable, no matter how his critics find fault. We still have no other.
                        The idea of ​​the need for AV medium VI has been pushed for a long time, and I have been writing about this in the comments for far from the first year, the topic is already quite hackneyed. Therefore, when the first rumors about such a project appeared, and now its appearance is known, I will say that this is exactly what our Navy needs.
                        The number of required, I repeat, 6 pieces. - 3 pcs. to the North and Pacific. This is the optimum for organizing constant combat duty.
                        Can such aircraft carriers be used to strengthen the expeditionary forces?
                        And how .
                        And the proposed number of ABs is quite enough for this.
                        About the escort.
                        All critics, saying that there are no escort ships, lose sight of the fact that today only 22350 frigates have been built, laid down and are being completed - 10 pcs. All processes must be viewed in dynamics - in 5 years all these ships will already be in service ... And the aforementioned aircraft carriers, most likely, will only be laid down. Considering that at the present time 2 frigate-class ships are laid down every year, and if this tradition continues, then in 10 years Russia will have a quite powerful fleet. Excluding aircraft carriers. And the first such aircraft carrier will enter service, most likely, not earlier than in 12 years. So this is a long-term perspective - medium and long term.
                        But that's how it should be - the Fleet takes a long time to build.
                        It will take 6 - 15 years to build a series of 17 such ABs at two shipyards at the same time.
                        And this is taking into account that the first bookmark will occur (if it happens) not earlier than in 4 - 5 years.
                        Previously, the industry simply would not be ready.
                        The cost of six such ABs will be about 15-17 billion dollars.
                        No air wing.
                        With an air wing and coastal infrastructure (piers, piers, barracks, warehouses, a boiler room, possibly a power plant for powering off the coast) - about the same.
                        Dividing this amount by 15 - 17 years (the period for the implementation of the program), we get annual expenses for it of about $ 2 billion, or from 100 to 150 billion rubles.
                        And this is not at all ruinous for the budget. In addition, these spending will stimulate industry and the economy as a whole - through cooperative chains.

                        And do not be offended for harsh words, I took you for an ordinary troll.
                      3. Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Vasilenko Vladimir 8 March 2021 09: 59
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        When I was an officer, I was an officer in the combat directorate of an air defense formation as part of the RIC

                        no more questions, roughly what I expected
                        a purely military approach, we are in charge, and you don't understand anything
                      4. bayard
                        bayard 8 March 2021 10: 06
                        -2
                        So it is, you absolutely do not understand ANYTHING.
                        Or THIS is a deliberate position.
                        And then you are the enemy.
                      5. Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Vasilenko Vladimir 8 March 2021 10: 08
                        0
                        Kindergarten
                        When you started your own business, you first bought equipment and thought about what to produce on it, or vice versa ?!

                        Once again, THE TOOL IS PURCHASED DEPENDING ON THE TASKS
                        the primary TASK, there is none, everything else is a waste of time and money
                        And yes, you still could not answer, the enemy of the AUG to the Pacific Fleet and the SMF?
                      6. bayard
                        bayard 8 March 2021 10: 22
                        -1
                        The young man, despite your declared age, my circle of contacts included people from the State Planning Commission and leading employees of the ministries. And judging by the vocabulary, you are still an ordinary troll.
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        you still could not answer, the enemy of the AUG on the Pacific Fleet and the SMF?

                        It was you who could not see the indicated enemy and the tasks related to stopping the threats from him.
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Kindergarten

                        Our opponent (s) have never changed.
                        They are traditional and you know them.
                        Moreover, most likely you represent them.
                        Based on the nature, character and degree of the threat from the invariable and familiar enemy, the strategy and rearmament plans are being built.
                        And if you continue to play Dunno, I will list them for you:
                        England
                        USA
                        Japan
                        NATO bloc.
                        and you can start counting pennants.
                      7. Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Vasilenko Vladimir 8 March 2021 10: 47
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        then I will list them for you:
                        England
                        USA
                        Japan
                        NATO bloc.

                        Are you a military man?
                        do you really think that in the conflict with the United States, the AUG will decide something?
                        Quote: bayard
                        The young man, despite the age declared by you, people from the State Planning Commission were included in my circle of contacts

                        we will measure pussies?
                        are you sure you know my circle of contacts?
                      8. bayard
                        bayard 8 March 2021 12: 21
                        -2
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Are you a military man?

                        smile You don't read what they write to you at all?
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        do you really think that in the conflict with the United States, the AUG will decide something?

                        What are AUG?
                        The first of these ships will enter service not earlier than in 12 - 15 years.
                        Will the above states be on the map then only Ahura-Mazda knows. lol
                        And if they do, we will talk about it.
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        we will measure pussies?

                        I am not interested in your "pussy".
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        are you sure you know my circle of contacts?

                        YOUR HIS ?
                        Is it really an English queen?
                        Or the presidential administration of the Russian Federation?
                        Chubais? Medvedev? Khodorkovsky?
                        Or the SBU department?
                        Your speeches are incoherent and meaningless, but at the same time impudent and provocative.
                        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                        do you really think that in the conflict with the United States, the AUG will decide something?

                        It's not me who decides. Take a closer look at Putin's speech when laying the UDC in Kerch, you can guess where such ships will be built.
                      9. Vasilenko Vladimir
                        Vasilenko Vladimir 8 March 2021 13: 05
                        0
                        all the best, I already understood that you are putting the cart in front of the horse
                  2. Vasilenko Vladimir
                    Vasilenko Vladimir 3 May 2021 22: 06
                    -1
                    Quote: bayard
                    Japan

                    scary for our army with such illiterate military
    2. Rubi0
      Rubi0 3 May 2021 21: 44
      0
      I would say that the initial task is to deliver the air group, but where is it? planes, helicopters, drlo, no, not even drones. There are already corvettes, frigates, and even FSB patrol ships were built for the possibility of basing Ansat, but they are not. And the hull can then be riveted in a couple of years, the industry has already mastered it, the current is useless if it hangs around the seas with an empty deck.
  3. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 7 March 2021 09: 46
    +1
    Quote: bayard
    This amount is enough for the construction of 6 (six) such aircraft carriers without an air wing and basic infrastructure.

    how much AUG is needed for the RF?
    Why an Aircraft carrier without a base and escort ?!
  4. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 7 March 2021 09: 47
    +1
    Quote: bayard
    This is essentially an investment in your economy. It will increase GDP and tax revenues

    not quite, partly yes, but far from quite
    Quote: bayard
    Stalin acted in exactly the same way, but with much (!) Greater efficiency.

    absolutely wrong
    1. bayard
      bayard 7 March 2021 10: 29
      -3
      Young man, you are absolutely incompetent in all of the above matters. You need to go to school, to the library, to educate yourself, broaden your horizons and gain life experience. These topics are too complicated for you, incomprehensible and unfamiliar. You have no idea about state and military planning, about the tasks of the Armed Forces and the Navy in particular. You do not know real history, political economy and other more complex disciplines. You need to ask and learn, learn to formulate questions CORRECTLY, get acquainted with the science of Logic. And then, after a while, perhaps you will be able to sensibly perceive the answers to your questions.
      Now you are not ready for this.
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 7 March 2021 13: 08
        +2
        Quote: bayard
        Young man, you are absolutely incompetent in all of the above matters.

        thank you for the boy
        about competence, look in the mirror, once again only an extremely illiterate person acquires an instrument without understanding the purpose
      2. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 7 March 2021 13: 12
        +2
        Quote: bayard
        You have no idea about state and military planning, about the tasks of the Armed Forces and the Navy in particular.

        Once again, answer the direct question, who do you work and at least once in your life have you designed from industrial enterprises?
  5. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 7 March 2021 10: 00
    +2
    Quote: bayard
    Aircraft carriers do not "bullet" missiles

    it is clear, it is pointless to argue, sorry for the direct question, who do you work?
    1. bayard
      bayard 8 March 2021 00: 46
      -1
      Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
      Quote: bayard
      Aircraft carriers do not "bullet" missiles

      It was a quote.
      Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
      yes, this is not their task, their task is to solve the political goals of Russia and you think that their task is to shoot missiles

      Your quote.
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 8 March 2021 09: 57
        0
        Quote: bayard
        It was a quote.

        don't you really understand?
      2. bayard
        bayard 8 March 2021 10: 07
        -2
        Such phrases can only be admitted by an absolutely incompetent person who has no idea about the subject of the conversation.
        And the grips of a banal troll.
        Or a robot?
      3. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 8 March 2021 10: 12
        0
        shit
        don't you understand the allegories?
        I'm scared if there are such specialists in our army
      4. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 8 March 2021 10: 14
        0
        Quote: bayard
        incompetent person who has no idea about the subject of the conversation.

        you are competent
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 9 March 2021 11: 35
    -2
    [
    Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
    without any smearing on the plate
    SMF who is the opponent of the AUG action task?
    Pacific Fleet who is the opponent of the task of the AUG action?

    enemy of the NATO Navy, covering the areas, deploying SSBNs from the surface forces of the enemy fleet, putting pressure on SSBNs and squeezing them out of patrol areas
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 9 March 2021 16: 47
      0
      Quote: Ryusey
      enemy navy nato

      in the event of a war with the AUG amers, they will be the first to go under the knife, and after taking off in the ocean, the planes will no longer land, completely different forces will be involved there
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. bayard
      bayard April 27 2021 00: 19
      +1
      Quote: morose
      And build samples of the aircraft of the air group (at least update the MiG,

      Aircraft for the wing of the first of such aircraft carriers will be needed no earlier than 12 years later (bookmarking no earlier than 4-5 years, time for construction, fine-tuning, gaining combat readiness), over such a period, monogo can change, a lot will appear. In principle, all types of aircraft can be designed from scratch, created and launched into series.
      Quote: morose
      And also to design and test catapults for aircraft, without steam, by the way (the Soviet backlog will not work).

      You can do without steam, and there is a Soviet groundwork in this - for "Ulyanovsk" they designed two types of catapults at once - steam and electromagnetic, for insurance. Both turned out. But they still wanted to put on a steam room.
      But in order for Russia to have aircraft carriers, Russia itself needs to continue its existence. Judging by the latest peacetime events, we have very little left.
  • antivirus
    antivirus 6 March 2021 03: 22
    0
    it is difficult to collect a lot + for comments aimed at working on yourself (you need a development strategy for the State - long-term tasks, until 2050 at least). easier to hyip. you will not get many advantages
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 6 March 2021 09: 56
      +2
      yes, I like it with a parting like
      I expressed my point of view based on experience
      the fleet is not an end in itself, the fleet is a tool for solving problems and until we decide WHAT tasks need to be solved "buying" "tool" is stupid, well, only if the dough is heaped up and it will always be so
  • antivirus
    antivirus 6 March 2021 08: 57
    0
    long acceptance tests of all nuclear submarines and large ships speak ... shout about a more careful approach to the quality of construction and the price of subsequent operation.
    the MO counts money for maintenance until 2050 or until it is written off (50 years?). just singing about a monitor lizard or sweet corn is just PR. for some, profit. for the state - expenses.
  • awdrgy
    awdrgy 5 March 2021 19: 10
    +1
    I agree that there is something in this ...
  • New Year day
    New Year day 5 March 2021 19: 57
    +1
    Quote: Sagaidark
    we are now at that point

    what is this life-giving point? laughing
  • venik
    venik 5 March 2021 20: 27
    +4
    Quote: Sagaidark
    And the most important thing is the right project. For the first time in a long time, the project from the Nevsky PKB does not irritate me.

    =======
    good And as for me - we do not need aircraft carriers "in all respects" superior to the American ones, but we need exactly those that most correspond to our military doctrine, goals and objectives our Navy! Compete with the states "who is longer"- nonsense! We do not have SUCH a defense budget. And therefore it is necessary to create - not something that is" larger and longer ", but exclusively THAT, what do we NEED TO!
    You can call this the "asymmetric response" ....
    PS And you can "throw slippers"! wassat
  • Constanty
    Constanty 5 March 2021 18: 10
    +3
    An aircraft carrier or a universal naval ship (UMK) of the "Varan" type should have ... a displacement of about 45 thousand tons. ...

    The ship should receive a gas turbine main power plant, unified in units with modern combat units of the Russian fleet. The maximum speed is estimated at 26 knots.

    The aviation group is proposed to consist of 24 fighter-bombers of the MiG-29K type and 6 helicopters. It is also possible to base up to 20 unmanned aerial vehicles.



    An interesting project, but in my opinion with a relatively small displacement for such an air group. Kuznetsov is 50% larger and can accommodate about 30 aircraft.
    There are also doubts about the turbines. Is Russia currently producing turbines that allow such a ship to reach speeds of up to 26 knots?
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 5 March 2021 18: 39
      +4
      Quote: Constanty
      The ship should receive a gas turbine main power plant

      Having tested nuclear power plants (project "Leader"), it is supposed to limit the cruising range of the UMK GTEU ... Simply fantastic in animation ...
      And what the hell to the UMK fleet with deliberate restrictions in the course and combat capabilities? For long trips to the shores of Syria?
      1. New Year day
        New Year day 5 March 2021 20: 00
        -1
        Quote: ROSS 42
        limit the cruising range of the UMK GTEU ... Simply fantastic in animation ...
        And what the hell to the UMK fleet with deliberate restrictions in the course and combat capabilities? For long trips to the shores of Syria?

        hi
        For Syria, just the right thing! The passage through the Bosphorus is prohibited for ships with nuclear reactors, therefore it is quite possible from Sevastopol. But is Syria worth it?
      2. venik
        venik 5 March 2021 21: 39
        +1
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Having tested nuclear power plants (project "Leader"), it is supposed to limit the cruising range of the UMK GTEU ... Simply fantastic in animation ...

        ========
        Cost, my friend, COST! And buildings and especially - operation! Ships with nuclear power plants - operating costs oh, how expensive! If I say - "an order of magnitude" more expensive - I think I will not be very mistaken .... Perhaps even - in less side!
        Submarine cruisers are one thing! There is no way to go anywhere! But with light aircraft carriers - alas! "Game - not worth the candle!" ...
        ---------
        Quote: ROSS 42
        And what the hell to the UMK fleet with deliberate restrictions in the course and combat capabilities? For long trips to the shores of Syria?

        ========
        And for trips to Syria - ALSO!
        This is the Yankees - they fence the "floating air bases" with a whole air division on board. This is understandable: they are "world gendarmes"! They need to poke their noses EVERYWHERE: from the Arctic to the Antarctic, from the Bering Strait to Magellan's ... They have "vital interests" EVERYWHERE!
        But we have a DIFFERENT doctrine: to ensure the deployment of strategic submarine forces; cover the strike groups of surface ships, assault forces and convoys from the air! And of course: presence in the World Ocean ... (but this is already SECONDARY!) ...
        That is why I am firmly convinced: NOW it is better for us to have a couple of light aircraft carriers (not too expensive to build and operate) than ONE nuclear super-aircraft carrier (for the same price) !!!
        Well, then - we'll see! hi
        1. Yuri V.A
          Yuri V.A 6 March 2021 02: 46
          0
          If everything is clear with submarine cruisers and you should dance to the possibilities of the budget, why are they not building SSBNs with six mines, because three such small boats, in your opinion, are better than one with 16/20/24 missiles?
          1. venik
            venik 6 March 2021 09: 40
            -3
            Quote: Yuri V.A.
            If everything is clear with submarine cruisers and you should dance to the possibilities of the budget, why are they not building SSBNs with six mines, because three such small boats, in your opinion, are better than one with 16/20/24 missiles?

            ======
            Yuri! Here is another arithmetic! A nuclear submarine with a nuclear reactor is already expensive in itself! And this is only in the building! And in operation - oo-oo-oo-oo! Do not forget - vigorous fuel needs to be produced (and this is expensive), then stored (also not cheap), then stored and disposed of ... Moreover, the reactor must be stored somewhere afterwards (300 years, if not more) ... ..
            Therefore, to (from my point of view, and I at least understand this) there should be as little as possible robberies from nuclear power plants! And only where they are really NECESSARY (several icebreakers and strategic submarines, accompanied by multipurpose nuclear submarines).
            And "rivet" 3 instead of 1 - it will be too ruinous!
            Now about aircraft carriers: we have - 4 (four, Hans!). At least two (SF and Pacific Fleet), aircraft carriers are badly needed! Moreover, they are needed for air cover of naval operations (deployment of SSBNs, amphibious operations, cover for convoys and strike groups aimed at destroying the enemy's AUG). Do you need "supergiants" with an entire air division on board for these purposes? No, they are not needed! The Americans need this for the presence of a "floating air base" anywhere in the world.
            Here is the question: What is BETTER for us: to build 1 (one) "supergiant" (which will turn out to be: "sew a mare's tail"), or for the same money provide at least TWO (or maybe three) fleets with light aircraft carriers, which they do you need "like air" and already "the day before yesterday"?
            1. Yuri V.A
              Yuri V.A 6 March 2021 10: 51
              +2
              The fact that aircraft carriers are needed is an axiom, but in size you contradict yourself - "rivet three instead of one is ruinous." The size of Nimitz is determined not by the gendarme function, but by the optimal (today) set of capabilities.
              1. venik
                venik 6 March 2021 19: 22
                -2
                Quote: Yuri V.A
                The fact that aircraft carriers are needed is an axiom, but in size you contradict yourself - "rivet three instead of one is ruinous"

                =======
                But no! And that's why:
                1. Do we have a lot of shipyards capable of building warships with a displacement of 100 thousand tons ("large" aircraft carrier), and even with a nuclear power plant (building such a colossus with a gas turbine or diesel installation is nonsense!)? De facto - only ONE! This is the Baltic plant. Far Eastern "Zvezda" does not count (it is focused on civil shipbuilding and does not have military competencies, and orders there - for years to come). The Kerch "Zaliv" also disappears - the Turks do not allow ships with nuclear power plants through the straits.
                2. A light aircraft carrier is not only smaller than a floating monster, it is also gmuch easier, both in production and in operation. Moreover, the difference may be half an order of magnitude!
                3. One The supercarrier seems to us unnecessarily - we need at least 3. And the military budget obviously will not pull such expenses!
                4. The construction of 3 nuclear supercarriers at the Baltic Shipyard (taking into account our pace) will take 20 years, if not all 30!
                Question: what to do? The answer is 3 light aircraft carriers for a little over one "super" ....
                Somewhere like that!
                PS As for the size of the "Nimitz", they are not determined "optimal (for today)" set of possibilities ", but just the imperial ambitions of the United States! hi
                1. bk0010
                  bk0010 6 March 2021 23: 15
                  -2
                  Quote: venik
                  2. A light aircraft carrier is not only smaller than a floating monster, it is also much simpler, both in production and in operation.
                  A light aircraft carrier is useless: an AWACS aircraft will not take off from it, it will not have enough fuel to ensure the constant presence of a duty unit in the air, etc.
                  Quote: venik
                  One supercarrier, as it were, and unnecessarily - we need at least 3
                  If we are to build aircraft carriers, then at least 12 (if everything goes well, then 8), since this is the minimum number of ABs, which will ensure the constant presence of AB at sea in the areas of responsibility of the Northern Fleet and TF (1 at sea, 5 under repair or in readiness, for the states: the service cycle of AB is 33 months, of which at sea - 6). And without the constant presence of AB at sea, we will also have to build ships that will perform the tasks of AB while it is docked or at the berth.
                  1. venik
                    venik 6 March 2021 23: 46
                    0
                    Quote: bk0010
                    A light aircraft carrier is useless: an AWACS aircraft will not take off from it

                    ======
                    belay ???? Can't Yak-45 fly from an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 44 thousand tons? Are you serious or is it such "subtle humor" ???
                    By the way, an AWACS helicopter of the Ka-31 type will certainly be able to! The detection range there, of course, is not very good, but ...
                    --------
                    Quote: bk0010
                    If we are to build aircraft carriers, then at least 12 (if everything goes well, then 8)

                    ========
                    what Well, if well, just "very, very good" well, or just "wonderful", then maybe 3-4 will do ??? laughing PS By the way, even the Americans get by, only 11 aircraft carriers, and the rest of the countries have no more than 2 of them (TWO, Karl!)
                    --------
                    Quote: bk0010
                    since this is the minimum number of AB, which will ensure the constant presence of AB in the sea

                    =======
                    And why should they be in the sea PERMANENTLY? request The Yankees need this "constantly", and we - as needed!
                    --------
                    Quote: bk0010
                    And without the constant presence of AB at sea, we will also have to build ships that will perform the tasks of AB while it is docked or at the berth.

                    ========
                    The logic is of course "iron" !!! So - we will not build an aircraft carrier, then "also build ships that will perform the tasks of AB"do not have to?
                    And HOW are we doing now? This is with one "Kuzey", which is standing next to the wall in the dock!
                    bully
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 6 March 2021 23: 59
                      0
                      Quote: venik
                      Can't Yak-45 fly from an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 44 thousand tons?
                      He is not and never was.
                      Quote: venik
                      By the way, an AWACS helicopter of the Ka-31 type will certainly be able to!
                      Not only the range is not very good there, everything is bad there. Better than nothing, but not the A-50 at all.
                      then maybe 3-4 will do ... and the rest of the countries have no more than 2

                      And why should they be in the sea PERMANENTLY? request The Yankees need this "constantly", and we - as needed!
                      We won't do it. There are two options for using aircraft carriers: as with "Kuzey", when it exists to create hemorrhoids for enemy admirals ("What if they use their aircraft carrier, it is necessary to include means to neutralize it in Fleet 6!") And for solving the daily tasks of the fleet (PLO, Air defense, cover for the deployment of SSBNs).
                      Work on the first option costs less money in total, but much more expensive in terms of exhausting: the project of AV roads, development and creation of an air group, training of crews and pilots, escort ships, even basing.
                      For the second option, AB must be at sea. AB is a complex ship, it spends a lot of time in repairs. In order for AB to be constantly at sea, there must be a lot of these ABs (if KOH is 0.25, then 4 ships, if 0.15, then 6, etc.).
                      1. venik
                        venik 7 March 2021 12: 27
                        -1
                        Quote: bk0010
                        He is not and never was.

                        =======
                        "No and never was"does not mean at all:"cannot be, in principle"! It won't take long to get back to the project! There would be a need .... And there are developments in radars!
                        ---------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Better than nothing, but not the A-50 at all.

                        ========
                        Interestingly, have you seen the E-3 "Sentry" take off or land on an aircraft carrier ?? belay
                        ----------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        For the second option, AB must be at sea.

                        ========
                        Sorry, but we have squadrons or squadrons of warships constantly in the distant sea and ocean zone are on duty and go on long trips?
                        I think the answer is - you know: infrequently, as needed! Such a luxury is expensive and our military budget is, alas (!) Not rubber, we don’t print dollars!
                        ----------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        In order for AB to be constantly at sea, there must be a lot of these ABs (if KOH is 0.25, then 4 ships, if 0.15, then 6, etc.).

                        ========
                        Give up these stupid American formulas at last! The Yankes - constantly (once again I stress CONSTANTLY!) three AUG are in the oceanic zone. 3 (THREE)!
                        And we, by the way, like the rest of the world's fleets, including the Chinese one) CANNOT afford such luxury!
                        PS Understand at last: for tasks such as covering anti-submarine forces, ensuring the deployment of SSBNs, covering convoys, landings and strike groups aimed at the enemy's AUG missile attack, the constant presence of an aircraft carrier in the sea is MANDATORY!
                        And finally - "the icing on the cake": to cover 1 (ONE) aircraft carrier, you need at least 4 escort ships for ships in the far sea and ocean zones: cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Those. only for direct cover of 6 aircraft carriers (I am glad that you have somewhat tempered apatites and are not talking about 8 or 12 aircraft carriers) - you will need at least 24 ships of rank 1 and 2 (only to cover aircraft carriers!
                        That is why I say that 3 light aircraft carriers for us are somewhere close to the optimum.
                      2. bk0010
                        bk0010 7 March 2021 12: 59
                        0
                        "No and never was" does not mean at all: "It cannot be, in principle"! It won't take long to return to the project! There would be a need .... And there are developments in radars!
                        Everything is a little worse than you think. Have you heard about the A-100? So, his equipment barely fit into the Il-76, they wanted to do it in Ruslan. Why can't a radar be worse and less installed? Because it is impossible for Hokai to have a better radar, this can ruin our entire AUG.
                        Interestingly, have you seen the E-3 "Sentry" take off or land on an aircraft carrier ??
                        And they don't need: there is no better deck AWACS anyway, but we can't get any worse - there will be Tsushima again.
                        Excuse me, but our squadrons or detachments of warships are constantly on duty in the distant sea and ocean zone and go on long campaigns?
                        I think the answer is - you know: not often, but as needed
                        Let it not be constantly, as necessary, what changes from this: at each moment of "need", both fleets must have a combat-ready aircraft carrier. This means that several of them are needed (the number is determined by the capabilities of ship repair and the characteristics of the ship itself).
                        Quote: venik
                        PS Understand at last: for tasks such as covering anti-submarine forces, ensuring the deployment of SSBNs, covering convoys, landings and strike groups aimed at the enemy's AUG missile attack, the constant presence of an aircraft carrier in the sea is MANDATORY!
                        Not necessary. Then other ships are needed to solve the same problems. As a result, it is necessary to have both an aircraft carrier and these ships.
                        Quote: venik
                        And finally - "the icing on the cake": to cover 1 (ONE) aircraft carrier, you need at least 4 escort ships for ships in the far sea and ocean zones: cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Those. only for direct cover of 6 aircraft carriers (I am glad that you have somewhat tempered apatites and are not talking about 8 or 12 aircraft carriers) - you will need at least 24 ships of rank 1 and 2 (only to cover aircraft carriers!
                        Well, aircraft carriers do not need cover ships for repair, 8 AUG ships for the fleet are enough (4 in AUG, 4 under repair (they are simpler, they are repaired faster)). When I talk about 6 aircraft carriers, I mean 6 aircraft carriers per fleet (12 per country). We are talking about the prospects: now we have one aircraft carrier.
                        Quote: venik
                        That is why I say that 3 light aircraft carriers for us are somewhere close to the optimum.
                        I think light aircraft carriers are a waste of money. It is possible to deal with them if an AWACS aircraft, PLO and a supply ship with fuel and ASP for the air group are created for them.
                      3. venik
                        venik 7 March 2021 13: 29
                        -1
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Everything is a little worse than you think. Have you heard about the A-100? So, his equipment barely fit into the Il-76

                        =========
                        I heard, heard ... There is a problem in something else: there were used imported components, access to which for some time now closed! And domestic counterparts ... Here we are still "skidding"!
                        ---------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        And they don't need: there is no better deck AWACS anyway, but we can't get any worse - there will be Tsushima again.

                        ========
                        Oh, is it? Is it really "Tsushima"? Why not "worse"? Note: they have neither Onyxes nor Zircons! There are only "Tomogavki" in the anti-ship missile version, and this is .....
                        Even if our carrier-based AWACS aircraft is inferior to the Hokai in range, for example, to detect a target with a certain RCS not at 150, but only at 100 km .... So what? Firstly, it will not "hang over the aircraft carrier", but will fly forward ... And secondly, its task is to warn in time about the approach of enemy aircraft at ultra-low altitudes (in the radar shadow zone), the rest can detect ship radars, and at a distance 500 km and even more!
                        ---------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Not necessary. Then other ships are needed to solve the same problems.

                        =======
                        WHAT KIND???
                        ---------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Well, aircraft carriers do not need cover ships for repair, 8 AUG ships per fleet are enough

                        ========
                        Aha! And cruisers, destroyers and frigates "sucks" at the wall and repairs are NOT NECESSARY ??? We have them "forever at sea" ?! belay
                        ------------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        I think light aircraft carriers are a waste of money. It is possible to deal with them if an AWACS aircraft, PLO and a supply ship with fuel and ASP for the air group are created for them.

                        =========
                        Now, when they CREATE (all this) - then we will discuss!
                        PS Judging by the comments, you did not serve in the Army, let alone the Navy (from the word - in general), so advice: Be a REALIST!
                        soldier
                      4. bk0010
                        bk0010 7 March 2021 13: 51
                        0
                        Why not "worse"?
                        To have time to launch our missiles. Otherwise, we will simply be flooded.
                        Note: they have neither Onyxes nor Zircons!
                        And they do not need such missiles: they do not need to break through the Aegis AUG, their opponents have few ships, but they have a lot, they will be overwhelmed by numbers.
                        Firstly, it will not "hang over the aircraft carrier", but will fly forward ...
                        That's right, the AWACS will be put forward in a threatened direction, due to the weak capabilities of the radar, it will slam the enemy.
                        And secondly, his task is to warn in time about the approach of enemy aircraft.
                        They forgot about the detection of enemy ships and the issuance of the control center.
                        Aha! And cruisers, destroyers and frigates "sucks" at the wall and repairs are NOT NECESSARY ??? We have them "forever at sea" ?!
                        I have not forgotten: it was written above: 4 in business, 4 in repair.
                        Now, when they CREATE (all this) - then we will discuss!
                        Not when, but if. I think that they will not build new aircraft carriers in our country, the Kuzyu will be kept afloat as long as possible and that's it ...
                      5. venik
                        venik 7 March 2021 15: 30
                        -1
                        Quote: bk0010
                        To have time to launch our missiles. Otherwise, we will simply be flooded.

                        =======
                        Is not a fact!
                        --------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        And they do not need such missiles: they do not need to break through the Aegis AUG, their opponents have few ships, but they have a lot, they will be overwhelmed by numbers.

                        =======
                        First: "Aegis" is BIUS! It is BIUS, not rockets! Missiles there RIM-66 SM-2 "Standard-2. By the way, for air defense missions (not missile defense!) This is not the best option, although not bad!
                        ---------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        That's right, the AWACS will be put forward in a threatened direction, due to the weak capabilities of the radar, it will slam the enemy.

                        =======
                        Do you, in general, understand anything about radar? Judging by such a statement - NOTHING at all! (Sorry if I offended, but it looks like you only saw the radars in pictures!)
                        ----------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        They forgot about the detection of enemy ships and the issuance of the control center.

                        =======
                        Not understood! belay request Did I "forget" that? Oh well!
                        ----------
                        Quote: bk0010
                        above it was written: 4 in business, 4 in repair.

                        =======
                        And the escort ships - are they, HOW? No longer in need of repair and maintenance? T.N. after the campaign they do not need revision and repair of machines and mechanisms? belay Oooh !, How everything is "started"!
                        =======
                        Quote: bk0010
                        I think that they will not build new aircraft carriers in our country, the Kuzyu will be kept afloat as long as possible and that's it ...

                        ----------
                        Here I agree with you! drinks Very, very unlikely! It's a pity! crying I would love to see (while alive)! But I think - "Varan" is the most real project! And "Storms", "Leaders", etc. - it is rather "unscientific fantasy" ..... If they appear, then most likely they will be able to see only my children, and even then it is unlikely - rather grandchildren (more precisely - granddaughters. I already have 3 of them, and more than one grandchild not yet foreseen, though ... At this point, how "the card will fall"!)
                        hi
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Yuri V.A
          Yuri V.A 7 March 2021 02: 10
          0
          Well, of course, it was imperial ambitions that influenced the size of the new British and planned French and Chinese ABs. Even Ulyanovsk did not escape megalomania. Or, nevertheless, when creating, proceeded from an understanding of the tasks of these ships?
          It's not about what we can, but what we need. The fact that Karakurt is much easier to manufacture and operate does not negate the need for at least project 22350M.
          Our budget pulled the costs of the contrived coronavirus, which is more than the cost of three full-fledged aircraft carriers.
  • antivirus
    antivirus 6 March 2021 03: 25
    0
    the task is to reach Constantinople. ..... and Nagasaki.okiyan is far away
  • bayard
    bayard 6 March 2021 00: 49
    +1
    Quote: Constanty

    An interesting project, but in my opinion with a relatively small displacement for such an air group. Kuznetsov is 50% larger and can accommodate about 30 aircraft.

    In general, it is not clear whether this is a normal displacement (45000 tons) or full, in the process of construction it can grow. And it is not much less - 45 tons versus 000 tons. The take-off deck is shorter, but there are catapults, not a springboard, and the landing deck is definitely not less, if not more than Kuznetsov's. As a concept, it's not bad at all, and you can build the required number without ruining the budget.
    Quote: Constanty
    There are also doubts about the turbines. Is Russia currently producing turbines that allow such a ship to reach speeds of up to 26 knots?

    If we take turbopairs M-90FR / FRU for two shafts, we get a power of 110 l / s. This power is quite enough. And if not enough, you can consider a three-shaft scheme, or tie three turbines to one gearbox.
    The turbines are just there.
    1. ver_
      ver_ 6 March 2021 18: 32
      -4
      ... at one time, the Americans called our nuclear-powered ships (submarines) roaring cows - they could not normally make the drive shafts for the propellers ... - the roar was all over the Atlantic ... What time is it? .. One * Kuzya * what is worth .. - Epic * War and Peace * ..

      -
      1. bayard
        bayard 6 March 2021 19: 47
        0
        Quote: ver_
        ... Have you learned anything? What time is it? ..

        And already for a VERY long time.
        You probably haven't heard about the scandal with the Japanese company "Toshiba-Kikai"?
        In the 70s?
        About the supply by them to the USSR of machine tools for processing propeller shafts and manufacturing gearboxes?
        America has piled up sanctions. yes
        Penalties. yes
        Japan has strongly apologized. yes
        And our submarines, starting with the 971 project, have become quieter than the Losy.
        Rybinsk makes gas turbine engines. Two sets of power plant for project 22350 have already been delivered to St. Petersburg shipbuilders. For the production of travel gears, a new production facility was built - new workshops, new gear cutting and other machines in an amount SUFFICIENT to meet all the needs of the construction of the Fleet.
        So there are turbines (M-70FR \ FRU, M-90FR \ FRU, I think there will be others, with a capacity of up to 35 and 50 thousand liters / s. On the latter, R&D has begun.
        M-90FR - power 27 l / s.
        Quote: ver_
        One * Kuzya * which is worth.

        What does "Admiral Kuznetsov" have to do with it?
        There are STEAM turbines on it.
        Do you understand the difference between gas turbines and steam turbines? lol
        And faulty boilers were smoking at "Kuznetsov".
        Working on MAZUT.
        Similar boilers are also installed on Sarych-class destroyers.
        Quote: ver_
        .. at one time the Americans called our nuclear-powered ships (submarines) roaring cows

        But what is this all about?
        In the first series of nuclear submarines, not only the travel gearboxes (and not so much) were mercilessly noisy, but, first of all, the circulation pumps of the reactors. In the submarine fleet, these problems have long been eliminated - back in the 70s of the last century.
        Half a century ago.
        Your overdue training manuals.
        And what does the noise of ancient nuclear-powered ships (SUBMARS) have to do with a promising aircraft-carrying ship? wassat He and other sources of noise are more than enough - aviation alone is worth a lot. lol For a surface ship, noise is not at all critical.
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra 5 March 2021 18: 16
    0
    How much does the Su-57 cost in, for example, units? And what will be more needed?
  • lucul
    lucul 5 March 2021 18: 18
    -3
    Recently, we have been doing everything on an initiative basis - the Ministry of Defense regrets money.
    The same Shell was made with the money of the Arabs.
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 5 March 2021 18: 23
      -3
      Quote: lucul
      The same armor was made with the money of the Arabs

      you can continue ... T 90 ... oh shit .... long, but like this: [media = https: //topwar.ru/104475-10-nesostoyavshihsya-dorogih-voennyh-proektov.html]
      1. venik
        venik 5 March 2021 23: 22
        +1
        Quote: Aerodrome
        Quote: lucul
        The same armor was made with the money of the Arabs

        you can continue ... T 90 ... oh shit .... long, but like this: [media = https: //topwar.ru/104475-10-nesostoyavshihsya-dorogih-voennyh-proektov.html]

        ========
        According to some "rumors", the Ambassador of the Soviet Union to Sweden, Alexandra Kollontai, during a briefing on a question from a Swedish journalist:
        - "How are you going to build socialism? I was in your country and did not even find there, excuse me ... warm toilets!"
        Answered the following:
        - "Everyone sees WHAT he NEEDS MOST!".... lol
    2. venik
      venik 5 March 2021 21: 57
      +2
      Quote: lucul
      Recently, we have been doing everything on an initiative basis - the Ministry of Defense regrets money.
      The same Shell was made with the money of the Arabs.

      ========
      And what's wrong with that? Made with the money of the Arabs "Shell"? So the whole civilized world is striving for this: to develop an effective system for myself и for export, and even for someone else's money? Yes it is "aerobatics"!!!
    3. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 6 March 2021 18: 00
      0
      Quote: lucul
      Recently, we have been doing everything on an initiative basis - the Ministry of Defense regrets money.
      if MO was sorry, there would be no temptation for such a number of projects and R&D from USC !!!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Donhofleo
    Donhofleo 5 March 2021 18: 52
    +7
    An interesting project, it looks modern. I doubt that this number of planes will be able to fit. Although if the emphasis is on drones, it seems promising.
    1. 1331M
      1331M 5 March 2021 19: 02
      +9
      This is the corporate identity of the Nevsky PKB - a modern and futuristic design. It would also be nice to embody this beauty in hardware, but this is a wish for the Ministry of Defense.
  • cobalt
    cobalt 5 March 2021 19: 00
    +5
    I wonder who will produce the catapults and which ones, steam or electromagnetic, as with the production of catapults, we had no way before. Aerofinisher cables at Kuznetsovo were made in Ukraine, which of the domestic manufacturers will make them now. I think that the situation with elevators is no better.
    1. New Year day
      New Year day 5 March 2021 20: 06
      -2
      Quote: cobalt
      I wonder who will produce the catapults and which ones, steam or electromagnetic, such as with the production of catapults

      Well, what if you steal? laughing
      Quote: cobalt
      Aerofinisher cables at Kuznetsovo were made in Ukraine, which of the domestic manufacturers will make them now.

      Because of which, during the last arrival of "Kuznetsov" to Syria, the MiG-29 and Su-33 fell into the water? -No adequate replacement yet.
      1. Overlock
        Overlock 5 March 2021 22: 54
        +19
        Quote: Silvestr
        Well, what if you steal?

        Nobody canceled industrial espionage. Maybe buy from China? After all, they will have subsequent aircraft carriers with a catapult. But will the "Chinese comrades" want to share?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 6 March 2021 22: 49
          0
          I think they will share it with pleasure.
          In exchange for the military technology they need.
          They will put a condition: that the aircraft carrier should not be in the Pacific Ocean. The rest of the Chinese do not care.
    2. businessv
      businessv 5 March 2021 20: 27
      +1
      Quote: cobalt
      Aerofinisher cables at Kuznetsovo were made in Ukraine, which of the domestic manufacturers will make them now. I think that the situation with elevators is no better.
      I didn’t even think about these positions - we produce both hydraulics and cables. Catapults are more interesting. Who will master this production? Or are they hoping to buy from "partners"? smile
      1. Overlock
        Overlock 5 March 2021 23: 02
        +19
        Quote: businessv
        the other is produced by us - hydraulics and ropes.

        The cables of the Svetlana-2 aircraft finishers of the Kuznetsov TARK, due to which 2 aircraft fell into the sea, have been produced since 2014 by the St. Petersburg enterprise Proletarskiy Zavod (part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation).
        In total, the plant produced 11 aerofinishers: 3 were installed on the Indian aircraft carrier Vikramaditya, 2 - at the training complex for training naval aviation pilots in Indian Goa, 3 - at a similar domestic complex in Yeisk, and 3 more - on the Indian aircraft carrier Vikrant.
        1. businessv
          businessv 6 March 2021 18: 07
          0
          Quote: Overlock
          has been produced since 2014 by the St. Petersburg enterprise "Proletarskiy Zavod"

          I talked about this, thanks for the specification! hi
    3. Avior
      Avior 5 March 2021 22: 07
      +2
      Maybe in 1991 the cables were made in Ukraine or even in the Ukrainian SSR. But they have already been changed to others a hundred times.
      But the cables that stood on Kuznetsov during the epic campaign to Syria were made in a completely different place.
      The Defense Ministry identified the manufacturers of cables for aircraft finishers produced by Proletarsky Zavod PJSC back in 2006 at a special meeting with representatives of the metallurgical industry, dedicated to the repair of the aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov. Then it was decided that the final products would be produced by the Volgametiz enterprise, which is part of the Severstal-metiz group, wire rod for cables would be supplied by the Beloretsk plant (Mechel group), and the Zlatoust metallurgical plant - square billets of 180 mm profile (grade steel "100") .... according to the information on the website "Goszakupki", in January 2016 PJSC "Proletarsky Zavod", which produces aircraft finishers, entered into an agreement with JSC "Redaelli SSM" for the supply of steel rope A-36.5-GL-Zh -L-N-T TU 14-4-1594-89. In total, the joint-stock company was supposed to supply 10 km of cable for the amount of 84 million rubles.

      Import substitution, however ....
      hi
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 6 March 2021 00: 05
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        agreement with JSC Redaelli SSM for the supply of steel rope A-36.5-GL-Zh-L-N-T TU 14-4-1594-89. In total, the joint-stock company was supposed to supply 10 km of cable for the amount of 84 million rubles.

        That is, 1 meter for 8,4 thousand rubles? I found it here in half a minute at a price of 517 rubles.
        1. Avior
          Avior 6 March 2021 00: 44
          +1
          he broke even for 8,4 thousand :(
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 6 March 2021 00: 49
            0
            Quote: Avior
            he broke even for 8,4 thousand :(

            To hang these figures on this very cable, there probably would not be torn.
        2. businessv
          businessv 6 March 2021 18: 11
          +3
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          That is, 1 meter for 8,4 thousand rubles? I found it here in half a minute at a price of 517 rubles.
          Well-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo! A rollback to bureaucrats !? And the skid for the order ?! And the payment of housing for the entire chain of mistresses and others like them ?! This is Russia and its realities! smile
    4. bayard
      bayard 6 March 2021 00: 57
      +1
      Quote: cobalt
      I wonder who will produce the catapults and which ones, steam or electromagnetic

      In the Soviet Union, both those and these were developed - for "Ulyanovsk", and the electromagnetic one as a backup option (if you are not lucky with the steam one). Good results were obtained for both, and although steam was still going to be installed, the EMC developments should have been preserved.
      At worst, you can order from the Chinese, if they themselves do not work out, they are just such for their flat-deck.
    5. SVD68
      SVD68 6 March 2021 09: 17
      +1
      Quote: cobalt
      I wonder who will produce the catapults and which ones, steam or electromagnetic

      Where can I get enough steam on a ship with gas turbines?
  • knn54
    knn54 5 March 2021 19: 07
    +2
    Vitaly, I agree. In particular, "floating" airfields for the Arctic.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 5 March 2021 19: 19
    +2
    For ground forces, aviation, missile affairs, everything is more or less clear. It is necessary, i.e. without them in any way.
    The fleet of the coastal zone, closed waters, too, more or less understandable ...
    And then how much, why, where ... and most importantly, against whom?
    They will throw themselves at an effective, combat, ocean-going fleet, beyond their strength ... for objective reasons. To build an underflot, just to practice ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? and what are the prospects for the future? Questions, questions ...
    Do you need a swing for a ruble, and the exhaust for half.
    I would like to understand what they want and why.
    1. bayard
      bayard 6 March 2021 01: 20
      +2
      Quote: rocket757
      The fleet of the coastal zone, closed waters, too, more or less understandable ...
      And then how much, why, where ... and most importantly, against whom?

      Have you looked at the map of our waters for a long time?
      At the Pacific Fleet?
      On the Northern Fleet?
      How to cover our submarine missile carriers and surface forces of the Fleet in the areas of combat deployment, in the so-called. "bastions"?
      From enemy anti-submarine aircraft?
      From enemy air strikes?
      From the latest anti-ship missiles - low-profile, low-profile?
      Conventional air defense systems fight them badly - too little time for a reaction. And if you overload the ship's air defense systems in number, then there will be a rout. It is fighters that are best able to fight the CD. Controlled by AWACS aircraft. Because for them there is no "radio horizon" and closing angles.
      And this type of AV medium VI will just be in place. At a cost, it will be 4 - 5 times cheaper than a heavy nuclear one, and it has enough capabilities to provide air defense in the zone / area of ​​combat deployment.
      Quote: rocket757
      They will throw themselves at an effective, combat, ocean-going fleet, beyond their strength ... for objective reasons. To build an underflot, just to practice ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? and what are the prospects for the future? Questions, questions ...

      Yes, you just need to build the Fleet and ships for it, based on the tasks at hand and the available capabilities.
      It is necessary to solve YOUR problems, and not to measure up with ambitions.
      The cost of such a ship will be about $ 2 billion. Divide by the construction time and multiply by the number of ships needed. And you will see that this is not at all a rash idea.
      Because of the losses from the "coronavirus" hysteria, we get much more in a year.
      The Ministry of Finance won, last year UNDEFINED (!!!) the economy (government programs) for (drum roll) TRILLION rubles !!!
      THIS alone is enough for the construction of the entire required fleet of medium aircraft carriers (6 pcs. - 3 pcs. For each) for TWO fleets! For the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet.!
      For ONE year the amount has ALREADY been saved. yes
      It remains only to dispose of this.
      And in 15 - 17 years to build all 6 AB.
      And in one SUCH year, you can save on air wings and coastal infrastructure for this armada. yes
      Easy. wink
      And you say "no money" ... bully
      There is EVERYTHING in Russia. bully
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 6 March 2021 06: 06
        +1
        And I say ..... the Yankees have never built many icebreakers, they never had to .... now they swooped down, it is necessary, but no, they cannot.
        1. bayard
          bayard 6 March 2021 07: 52
          +2
          Quote: rocket757
          And I say ... the Yankees have never built many icebreakers.

          Russia has no aircraft carriers
          And the States don't have icebreakers
          But we will answer (gathering strength)
          AIRCRAFT ICEBREAKER!

          The proud Norwegians will shudder
          Angles and pins ... gwines will be intimidated
          And sleepy Canada will be hammered
          Under deer skins and feather beds

          Pushing the gray ice with my chest
          Over the gray plain of the Arctic
          "Varan" crawls out in the Blue Sea
          And it will come true ... an ancient legend ...

          Or it won't happen ...
          ... Liberals ...
          They won't give money for accomplishments ...
          And they will give ... Rogozin a trampoline ...
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 6 March 2021 12: 13
            +3
            It's just that our realities - money alone is LITTLE, we need production capacities and .... much more.
            Build every next super ship, take it into the fleet, after the previous one has been around for ten years, somehow it's not ... but not at all.
            You have to be realistic.
            What and how to change, I don’t want to talk about it ... the song is long, discussed many times, and since things are still there, why knead the water in a mortar?
      2. ver_
        ver_ 7 March 2021 06: 17
        +1
        * .. we have no mind .. * - said the cat Matroskin ..
        1. bayard
          bayard 7 March 2021 07: 18
          0
          Of two problems, we sort of coped with one
          The roads in the Fatherland have recovered.
          Bitter grief remained - one
          Not fools, but power ... No. unforgiving ...
      3. 3danimal
        3danimal 7 March 2021 07: 52
        0
        At a cost, it will come out 4 - 5 times cheaper than a heavy nuclear one, and it has enough capabilities to provide air defense in the zone / area of ​​combat deployment.

        With our pricing, and even for a new ship, I would not have wondered ..
        In terms of the cost / efficiency ratio, it will be inferior to the heavy nuclear one. But you have to build what you can do.
        1. bayard
          bayard 7 March 2021 08: 19
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          With our pricing, and even for a new ship, I would not have wondered ..

          Head, of course, will be more expensive. but the Nevskoye PKB promised to present a medium-sized VI (45 tons) to AV with gas turbines worth 000-1,5 billion dollars a year ago.
          For my part, I put another half billion on unaccounted expenses, that is, $ 2-2,5 billion. And this price quite beats with the assigned price of new UDCs with a displacement of almost the same (36000 - 40000 tons) - 100 billion for two ships. If we take into account that the unit cost of a metric ton for AB will be two times higher than that for UDC (due to more complex saturation), then 100 billion rubles (or even a little more) shows the correctness of the calculated price of "Varana".
          And this is just a very comfortable price.
          For it allows, for the cost of a heavy nuclear aircraft carrier with an air wing, to build all the necessary 6 (SIX) Varan-class aircraft carriers.
          Without air wing and coastal / basic infrastructure.
          The air wing and the entire infrastructure will require about the same amount of money. But since the entire program can be implemented within 15 - 17 years, the costs for one year will not exceed $ 1,5 - 2 billion. USA. Or 100 - 150 billion rubles.
          And this is quite a bit for such a purpose and task.
          And we have the capacity for such construction.
          And power plants too.
          It's up to a political decision.
  • dumkopff
    dumkopff 5 March 2021 19: 24
    +7
    Or maybe just ban by a harsh moderator's decision all publications on the topic of promising Russian aircraft carriers? And in five years there have already been about fifty such notes. And not a single building has yet been laid. I suggest: the next publication on this topic should be done when there is a bookmark. Well, or at least when the funding is approved. And best of all - after the acceptance tests.
    And then the news is the same (they drew, made a layout, presented), and the comments are the same (a beautiful ship, an interesting idea; they will never build, just words; aircraft carriers are not needed; destroyed the country / fleet).
    1. Drugov
      Drugov 5 March 2021 23: 05
      +2
      I fully support it. Would include a ban on enthusiastic publications about the booming UAV industry.
  • garri-lin
    garri-lin 5 March 2021 19: 33
    +3
    If we develop this project, then not as an aircraft carrier, but as other ships of the line. And come to the aircraft carrier in 10 years or even 15. It is more rational.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 5 March 2021 20: 09
    +3
    "It provides for the manufacture of separate sections of the hull with all the necessary equipment inside, which must then be docked into a single structure. A similar method can be used in the construction of any ships on a universal platform."
    This is more likely not a sectional, but a large-block construction method. Well, that is ... Not the point ...
    "The ship should receive a gas turbine main power plant, unified in units with modern combat units of the Russian fleet. The maximum speed is estimated at 26 knots."
    From this place, I would like in more detail ...
    That is, there is already a domestic-made gas turbine unit capable of accelerating such bandura to 26 knots?
    Otherwise, how could constructor A have been able to calculate their speed?
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 5 March 2021 22: 38
      +2
      That is, there is already a domestic-made gas turbine unit capable of accelerating such bandura to 26 knots?
      Otherwise, how could constructor A have been able to calculate their speed?
      Still, I can say that rather "yes" than not (although not a fan of "Zvezda", to be honest, they sometimes rarely have a little interesting information):
      1. Here about the BDK:
      2. And here about GTU, a little:
  • Mark kalendarov
    Mark kalendarov 5 March 2021 20: 20
    +3
    "Don't shoot the pianist ..." Etc ....
    The project is, of course, interesting. For its class of aircraft carrier platforms. And what provides for the active use of UAVs is a huge step forward. Again, modularity. And this is only a plus.
    I can’t understand the groans of the equipment that doesn’t exist yet or it is still imperfect. If the terms of reference were issued only based on the available technologies, then what would then move forward science and technology ?? !! TK and is issued with the aim of coming up with, working out and implementing. Moreover, these projects are not of today, but of tomorrow.
    The so-called intermediate option. Before completely abandoning aircraft and replacing them with unmanned aerial vehicles ...
    All the best!
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 5 March 2021 20: 23
    +5
    "What does it cost us to build a house! Let's draw we'll live!" (from) wassat
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 5 March 2021 20: 48
    +5
    In addition, after a smoke break and reflection, the following questions came to me.
    "The Varan project proposes to use a modular architecture. It provides for the manufacture of separate sections of the hull with all the necessary equipment inside, which must then be joined into a single structure. A similar method can be used in the construction of any ships on a universal platform."
    To the beloved modular scheme.
    Is it really assumed that somewhere there will be some ready-made blocks, from which steamers will be sculpted at the request of the customer?!. How do you imagine that?
    The ship is not a Lego constructor. It just won't work.
    "In particular, a hospital ship and a support ship for the Arctic zone are being proposed."
    In particular, even this moment speaks about it.
    Vessels of the Arctic zone have a fierce ice class.
    That is, completely different thicknesses of the outer skin / set. And this is, forgive me, the different cost of materials / qualifications of workers at the SZ. This is a different piece of equipment after all.
    From cubes, you can't add a steamer here ...
    1. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 5 March 2021 21: 33
      +2
      For "modularity" it's time to beat the muzzle.
    2. Overlock
      Overlock 5 March 2021 23: 08
      +22
      Quote: Benzorez
      From cubes, you can't add a steamer here ...

      So this is for life! And in a picture or in a movie, it is very possible. Fashion is now, everything is modular.
    3. SVD68
      SVD68 6 March 2021 09: 25
      0
      Quote: Benzorez
      To the beloved modular scheme.

      It's about something else, about the unification of individual parts of ships during design and construction, and not about replaceable elements during operation.
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 6 March 2021 16: 12
        +1
        I can't understand how you imagine it ...
        Which parts? ...
        Everything is already unified in accordance with GOST.
        Nichrot doesn't fit anywhere. In real production processes.
        Looks like GOSTs in different workshops are different ...
        And then it turns out that one block is thirty-five millimeters larger than the other. What a twist! The assembly joint is only one hundred mm according to the drawing. And how to win back such a difference? ..
        In general, the train of thought is understandable. But these are just theories.
        Having little to do with practice.
        1. SVD68
          SVD68 8 March 2021 14: 36
          0
          So I imagine that the ship is assembled from ready-made sections for various purposes. Project type MEKO. The aft sections of the Egyptian UDCs were manufactured in St. Petersburg, delivered to France and already assembled there in a finished product.
          1. Petrol cutter
            Petrol cutter 8 March 2021 17: 30
            0
            Let's start apparently all the same with the fact that even the section (to hell with it) needs to be made.
            Who, how much and at whose expense will they be made?
            After all, you need to pay money to assemblers, welders for their manufacture. These are only those who directly make it. And, there are still a lot of people preparing and providing all this. Or how?
            This is a section. The finished block must still be assembled.
            Then installers, ERA, insulators, painters, etc. will work there. etc.
            They all need to be paid salary. Or how?
            Then this block must be stored somewhere (until better times).
            Who will do it and where? Who will pay for it?
            And, then suddenly Bam! And the military doctrine has changed!
            And no one needed the block even close.
            What a twist!.. request
  • Alexey Stepanov
    Alexey Stepanov 5 March 2021 21: 11
    0
    With whom are they going to fight, so to speak, on the distant approaches? wassat
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 5 March 2021 22: 31
      0
      With whom are they going to fight, so to speak, on the distant approaches?
      with enemies of Busurmans in the Black and Mediterranean, plus in the Baltic - SP-2, to guard and "flex their muscles" in front of all sorts of Norwegians, there is "someone to show, sea wings"!
      1. Overlock
        Overlock 5 March 2021 23: 11
        +17
        Quote: Intruder
        with vrazhin Busurmans in Black

        Montreux Convention: aircraft carriers do not have the right of passage through the straits, since Article 10 stipulates the conditions of passage only for light surface ships, small and auxiliary ships, and specifically stipulates that besides them, only battleships (Article 11) and submarines (Article 12) have the right of passage. ... Aircraft carriers are de facto excluded from the list of ships entitled to pass the straits.
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 6 March 2021 12: 41
          +1
          Montreux Convention: aircraft carriers are not allowed to pass through the straits, as Article 10 specifies the conditions of passage only for light surface ships, small and auxiliary ships, and
          I remember her and if my memory does not fail me, I hope so winked , Then:
          For the military ships of non-black sea powers introduced significant class restrictions (only small surface ships pass) and tonnage. The total tonnage of warships of non-Black Sea states in the Black Sea should not exceed 30 thousand tons (with the possibility of increasing this maximum to 45 thousand tons in the event of an increase in the naval forces of the Black Sea countries) with a stay of no more than 21 days
          , so that if it is a UMK or UDC, within a displacement of up to 30 tons, and even more so for a Black Sea power, which has a territory and a state border in the water area, or along the Black Sea coast, then there are no obvious violations ... fellow
  • bandabas
    bandabas 5 March 2021 21: 36
    0
    A logical question arises. How much of this will Rogozin, Serdyukov and others have.
  • Avior
    Avior 5 March 2021 22: 01
    +4
    the project proposes the construction of an aircraft carrier with broad capabilities .... should have a flat deck without a springboard ..... catapults are provided for takeoff ... can be used as a basis for ships and other types of vessels .... a hospital ship and a support ship are offered for the Arctic zone .... or other ships on a unified platform at all major domestic factories ... placement on board of a large number of UAVs, incl. of different classes and types ... The Russian Navy does not yet have full-size deck-based UAVs ..... the main goal of current advance projects, incl. "Varana", is the study of new ideas and solutions

    Reminded of old fiction
    “His Majesty called the meeting right after the evening burp. We listened to the committee on cats and dogs. It turned out: there are no cats or dogs. Long discussed the acute shortage of both. Then the meeting was closed, and those who had not yet fallen asleep went to bed. "

    Robert Heinlein, Tunnel in the Sky.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 5 March 2021 22: 28
    +2
    In addition, the dimensions and weight of the UAV are of great importance. Modern drones of the heavy class, showing fairly high performance, turn out to be more compact and lightweight in comparison with full-fledged aircraft
    an interesting statement, especially for fans of manned "cars" !?
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 5 March 2021 22: 44
    0
    useless aircraft carrier, raft of sick fantasy
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 5 March 2021 22: 53
      +4
      useless aircraft carrier
      rather more, about:
      Aircraft carrier or universal naval ship (UMK) of the "Varan" type
      , or rather a new class already: UMK !?
  • Drugov
    Drugov 5 March 2021 23: 01
    0
    While ideas are spinning, they get a little muddled up and down. These are the next projects without a future.
  • paco.soto
    paco.soto 5 March 2021 23: 22
    +1
    Wiping an old tear with his beard: how good it is! Author Cyril, you will be in Paris, please inform me in advance, I have lunch at the restaurant. Respect the old man!
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 5 March 2021 23: 28
    -1
    Damn, here "Leaders" have to be built in three shifts, and they have fun by drawing the non-aviation carriers.
  • bugagich
    bugagich 6 March 2021 05: 41
    +1
    Is it really not possible to understand that the state created by the oligarchs for the oligarchs will go to the construction of such ships (and not only) in only 2 cases:
    1) benefit (profit)
    2) if he finally understands that there are threats from the outside for their own (oligarchs) interests ... and for their own (and their interests) protection, such ships are needed.
    everything.
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 6 March 2021 09: 03
    +2
    By the way, IMHO, and in drawing pictures - in beauty - the West and China are starting to overtake us.

    They have already started to draw models with shadows, reflections, texture ...
  • jayich
    jayich 6 March 2021 12: 50
    +1
    This lizard is nonsense, firstly it is an air group, the moment 29 is already yesterday, it is necessary to design a car for su57 or even heavier, but not for an easy 29.
    The second superstructure in the nose on the take-off deck is nonsense.
    The third catapult they are not from the word at all, when they do not know.
    Fourth, the gas turbine directly into the furnace; in the presence of catapults, the jasu is all the more preferable to the serial rhythm 200.
    Fifth, why fence a vegetable garden when there is a project of Ulyanovsk that has been worked out and requires minimal alterations, so it needs to be built, plus there will be no other UDCs being built.
    1. Artemion3
      Artemion3 6 March 2021 19: 24
      0
      In principle, catapults can be ordered, if there were 3 - here it is preferable to YSU
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 7 March 2021 07: 59
      0
      Su-57 is too heavy. The Americans suffered a lot with the F-14, in the end they switched only to versions of the lighter F-18. And this is with their super-AB, where the deck is larger.
      A new aircraft will be needed, no heavier than the MiG-29, with a larger wing area (after the stories about "steep" landings from the Indians). Unobtrusive, possibly single-engine (product-30 will do just fine).
      And finally, to finish the production technology of the glazing of the lantern - to make it WITHOUT binding.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 6 March 2021 17: 02
    -1
    If you build a UDC, build ... with the development of domestic UAVs, it will acquire a new look. On its basis, you can and should make different ships. But an aircraft carrier with a displacement of less than 100 tons is a flawed non-aircraft carrier. Especially with Su57 fighters (heavy fighters)
  • Artemion3
    Artemion3 7 March 2021 11: 26
    0
    The monitor lizard is such a monitor ...
  • Dilettante grandfather
    Dilettante grandfather 7 March 2021 13: 35
    0
    Quote: Silvestr
    Quote: Sagaidark
    we are now at that point

    what is this life-giving point? laughing

    Maybe the fifth? Well, just as a guess ... laughing
  • Dilettante grandfather
    Dilettante grandfather 7 March 2021 13: 43
    0
    Let's think about what an aircraft carrier is? This is, well, so, for a second, offensive weapons... Are we going to be offensive? Trumpets on every corner: we strengthen defense... The aircraft carrier, let there be five, ten ... will NOT strengthen the defense, it will increase offensive the potential of the Navy.
    And if the project is fundamentally inconsistent with the defensive strategy, then why waste energy and money on it? ..
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 8 March 2021 14: 38
      0
      Aircraft carriers can be different. Shock, multipurpose, air defense, convoy.
      1. Dilettante grandfather
        Dilettante grandfather 10 March 2021 12: 52
        0
        If you can find an aircraft carrier related to Defensive, I will applaud you.
    2. Starshina
      Starshina 8 March 2021 16: 32
      0
      The best defense is offense !!!!
  • hostel
    hostel 7 March 2021 17: 54
    +1
    It is better not to build such a ship without AWACS aircraft.
  • Starshina
    Starshina 8 March 2021 16: 31
    0
    Aircraft-carrying ships must be built only with a nuclear power plant !!! --- which will give the ship greater autonomy of movement and greater power-to-weight ratio of the ship for the use of weapons on new physical principles, as well as greater independence from naval bases in the far oceanic zone of operations !!! We will need aircraft-carrying cruisers in which all aviation will consist exclusively of drones of various classes and purposes !!! All escort of such ships are cruisers ... destroyers ... support ships - must have nuclear propulsion systems !!! This will give the squadron a large power-to-weight ratio, independence and speed !!! This is the future of the Russian fleet !!! And gas turbine installations are a thing of the past - they are very capricious and low-power and also do not meet all the requirements of modern combat and are unreliable in the Arctic Ocean !!!
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 12 March 2021 12: 28
    0
    One question for the project. Only one. How, in the context of the use of modern UAV systems, hypersonic missiles and other weapons of the "air-to-ground" (water) type), the authors propose to implement air defense, which undoubtedly exceeds the means of attack?
  • Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 12 March 2021 15: 45
    0
    Initially, as soon as the project was published, I was skeptical about it. Some kind of "non-aircraft carrier" with the capabilities of an icebreaker (and not the most passable). But now I see the reason for this unusual layout - standardization and unification. As some will remember, we are now developing the northern sea route. The bottom line is that this "universal platform" borrows a lot from the ships built for the northern route. This not only reduces the cost of arbitrariness, but also allows you to quickly establish construction on existing production facilities or those that will appear soon.
    But most importantly, unification will allow, in the event of the outbreak of war, to quickly make / repair new aircraft carriers and UDC using built or unfinished ships of another class of the same series (rescue, cargo or supply). This leads to a position in which our aircraft carrier may still be weaker than the American ship, but the cost of loss, recovery and mobilization allows us to quickly make up for losses and mobilize forces.
  • andrew42
    andrew42 15 March 2021 14: 09
    0
    Project for creating projects, and, Plan for making plans. Creative managers: slow, expensive, shitty.
  • Vladimir Lenin
    Vladimir Lenin 7 May 2021 20: 19
    -1
    Srach in the comments on VO was growing! Tufts of hair and swears flew! And Red Kim watched all this from afar, smiling with a sly squint. He still methodically continued to cut the hulls of new ballistic missiles from the boards with his father's plane and smelt uranium ore in his grandfather's old crucible. He believed that maybe not today, but one day, his missiles will still reach the damned city of Washington and make a rustle in the stronghold of democracy! laughing
  • Anachoret
    Anachoret 7 May 2021 20: 40
    0
    this is called the restyling of projects of the 70s with deteriorated characteristics due to the loss of design qualifications in general for the design bureau, well, or hack-work on the knee cobbled together from raw essays