Military Review

"Admiral Kuznetsov". Why does Moscow need this "junk"?

354
Caleb Larson of The National Interest has an interesting perspective on Russia's only aircraft carrier. Larson thinks Admiral Kuznetsov is "junk." And he immediately raises the question, why does Moscow continue to support him?
Russia's Only Aircraft Carrier Is Junk. So Why Is Moscow Sticking With It?



Source: nationalinterest.org


The Admiral Kuznetsov will probably sail smokily into the future with tugs in tow.

Surprisingly, Russia is still making plans to keep the Admiral Kuznetsov afloat. And this is surprising and strange at the same time from the American point of view.

Admiral Kuznetsov is the only Russian aircraft carrier. More precisely, an aircraft carrier. It has suffered many setbacks - its dry dock sank in 2018 and a nearby 70-ton crane crashed into the deck, killing four people and leaving a giant crater in the flight deck. At the end of 2019, the ship caught fire during repair work. In short, there are many problems. But "Admiral Kuznetsov" will sail further. At the very least, the Russian naval department is showing determination in implementing these plans.

"Damned" ship?


The non-nuclear aircraft carrier (technically classified as a heavy aircraft carrier, for the purpose of legal passage through the Turkish Straits) has a reputation for being a very unreliable ship.

Part of the problem stems from its rather ancient steam turbines and boilers. When deploying the Admiral Kuznetsov, she always accompanies the tugboat for support in the event of a breakdown, which will prevent the aircraft carrier from reaching the port on its own.

But why? Is there really something wrong with the ship? Maybe it's really time to sprinkle with holy water?

In an interview with The Telegraph, Peter Roberts, a naval expert at the Royal United Services Institute, explained the perception of "damned" ships in naval culture.

“There is something in nautical folklore called an unlucky ship, and Kuznetsov is undoubtedly an unlucky ship.

The Admiral Kuznetsov is one of those ships that go awry because of design and just luck. Anyway, this is not the ship you would like to be on. "


Indeed, many incidents in the recent past only confirm Roberts' statements.

After receiving the order to deploy Admiral Kuznetsov in Syria in 2017, he was escorted across the English Channel by ships of the Royal Navy fleet... As it passed through the channel, thick black smoke rose from the chimneys of the aircraft carrier.

This fact has been widely ridiculed on social media as a serious danger. For the environment.

During the operation in Syria, "Admiral Kuznetsov" lost two of its aircraft out of the blue. Non-combat losses were twice as many.

In 2018, the Admiral Kuznetsov was undergoing repairs and maintenance when the dry dock on which it stood, PD-50, sank. When the dock sank, a 70-ton crane also crashed onto the ship, knocking a huge hole in its hull.

PD-50 was one of the largest floating dry docks in the world. Without it, "Admiral Kuznetsov" will have to use a non-floating dry dock at the plant. While not ideal, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of Admiral Kuznetsov.

Plans to lift the PD-50 appear to be under development, although this remains to be seen. However, it is almost certain that the Admiral Kuznetsov will most likely not cope with the overhaul of its propulsion system, which was originally planned to be completed in 2021.

Most recently, the "Admiral Kuznetsov" was in Murmansk, moored for repairs. A fire broke out on the ship, presumably caused by the fact that hot metal from welding fell onto the oiled cloth, which then ignited the electrical wiring. The fire destroyed everything in an area of ​​600 square meters. m and it took about 20 hours to take it under control.

Although the fire was not serious, it caused massive damage of $ 1-1,5 billion and claimed two lives.

One source suggested that the high cost of repairing the aftermath of the fire may have been because the fire destroyed materials and components for repairs concentrated on the deck while awaiting installation.

In general - a very strange ship.

If Russia does have a need for an aircraft carrier, then the question of whether the money can continue to be spent on repairs elsewhere is moot. What, however, is undoubtedly the fact that, despite the countless setbacks experienced by the unlucky ship, the Admiral Kuznetsov is likely to sail smoky into the future in tow.

Caleb Larson is a writer with an MA in Public Policy and focuses on US and Russian security, European defense, German politics and culture.

Now it is worth making a few remarks about Mr. Larson from our side.

Yes, everything is according to American canons. Larson did everything to show the wretchedness of Russian reality and to amuse his readers.

Yes, Russia has only one aircraft carrier left. And they can't really give it a sense of the mind, first of all, because there are no goals and objectives for it, as well as the ability of the ship itself to perform these tasks. For many reasons.

But let's just take a look around. Why Brazil's aircraft carrier? Thailand? Italy? Such, you know, highly conditional aircraft carriers, with eight aircraft on board. Brazilian "Sao Paulo", by the way, is in a state that can compete with the state of "Admiral Kuznetsov". That is, not quite in combat.

"Admiral Kuznetsov". Why does Moscow need this "junk"?
Source: nationalinterest.org

And by the way, it also smokes ...



And what tasks can they accomplish? Yes, here you can still remember the French "Charles de Gaulle", which also just perfectly proved itself as a combat unit. And the newest French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier breaks down no less often than the Admiral Kuznetsov, only from our smoke as a negative impact on the environment, and if something happens in de Gaulle, then one can dream of smoke.

And something will happen to a French ship sooner or later, everything goes to that. And this floating Chernobyl will still say its weighty and radioactive word in modern stories.

And is everything smooth and smooth with American aircraft carriers?

2011: The F / A-18C Hornet fighter-bomber exploded and burned on a catapult while attempting to take off from the aircraft carrier John S. Stennis. 10 victims in the official statement, and how many in real life is a question ...

2015. On board the aircraft carrier "Ronald Reagan" at the entrance to Tokyo Bay, an early warning aircraft caught fire and burned.

2015. "Theodore Roosevelt" was unable to lead the squadron for circumnavigation due to clogging of the water pumping system.

An aircraft carrier is generally a very complex mechanism, and many more elements can break on it than on a corvette, simply because there are more of these elements.

As for the accidents on American aircraft carriers, there is a rich history there. And you can poke it, but we will not. Everything is on the Internet.

Why does Russia need this aircraft carrier - that is the question


Yes, so much has been said on this topic that you can easily repeat yourself. The Admiral Kuznetsov is perhaps the most controversial ship in all Russian fleets. And the most useless, because its functionality, let's say, is very, very poor.

But Russia does not have such tasks that need to be solved with the help of an aircraft carrier. As the same operation in Syria showed, land-based aircraft are much more effective in use than sea-based aircraft taking off from the Admiral Kuznetsov with half the supply of fuel and weapons.

But it still exists. Like a symbol. Yes, it looks silly, especially in the eyes of the Americans, who have 11 of these aircraft carriers and 2 more are under construction. Logical and logical.

But then again, why should the aircraft carriers of Spain, Italy, Brazil, Thailand, France, Great Britain? What tasks do they solve?

They just are.

Symbols, breakouts, consuming millions of dollars for upkeep, can be called whatever you like.

In principle, there are only three countries in the world whose presence of aircraft carriers is justified. This is the United States, as a world gendarme and two countries, which have dynamically developing armed forces and heaps of territorial claims, including against each other. India and China.

All the rest do not need aircraft carriers in principle. So this is just a demonstration of the level of ability to influence the situation in the world with the help of such ships.

Why can't Russia have such a ship? Can. So far, however, more "Admiral Kuznetsov" complicates the life of the country by consuming huge sums from the budget for maintenance, but in any case, with American costs, for example, this cannot be compared.

In any case, the construction of all these "Storms", "Leaders" and other "Vanguards" is a matter of a very distant and somewhat fantastic future, so let "Kuznetsov" still serve, at least as a training ground for naval pilots.

Fortunately, there are no missions in the world's oceans for which our country would require the presence of an aircraft carrier. And in general, it's even great.

As for Larson and his article, it remains to be seen who is the more loser - the smoking Admiral Kuznetsov or the fecal-stinking George W. Bush.


Source: nationalinterest.org

To each, in general, his own. And let everyone answer for themselves the questions of necessity and possibility, right?
Author:
354 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Doccor18
    Doccor18 22 March 2021 04: 30
    +23
    Maybe it's really time to sprinkle with holy water?

    Let the democrats sprinkle themselves, perhaps it will get a little better on Earth ...
    1. Malyuta
      Malyuta 22 March 2021 04: 40
      +25
      Kuzya will still serve, but his fate is difficult and they really like to cut money on him.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 22 March 2021 09: 07
        -10%
        All countries, which have the basis of economic life on the coast, must have aircraft located max far from megalopolises - the USA, China, India, Brazil, WB. and others. We are not like that - Kuznetsov is needed for show-off, like Russian space.

        They "saw" on the Kuza no more than on the Strategic Missile Forces and the Sukhput or the Aerospace Forces.
        1. Ryusey
          Ryusey 22 March 2021 09: 32
          +1
          You may not be like that, but you shouldn't speak for the rest.
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 15: 53
          +5
          Quote: antivirus
          "sawing" on Kuza no more

          you are much more wrong because it is more difficult to cut on serial products, it has an approved price and by the way all sorts of fires are also a way to steal something
        3. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 25 March 2021 13: 03
          0
          Forgive me, so if land aviation is much more effective, according to the author, why bother to drive a half-dead ship on a campaign? The war in Syria has eaten up the resource of half of the ships
          1. LastPS
            LastPS 25 March 2021 22: 42
            0
            To show that we can, this is more politics.
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 22 March 2021 05: 04
      -10%
      Quote: Doccor18
      Let the democrats

      The nicest thing to do with democrats is to apply democratizers.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 22 March 2021 05: 06
        +1
        It's not loyal laughing
        1. Alien From
          Alien From 22 March 2021 06: 04
          +8
          But cheap, reliable and practical lol
      2. Civil
        Civil 22 March 2021 06: 49
        +7
        "Admiral Kuznetsov". Why does Moscow need this "junk"?

        1. Because there is no other and it is not known when the replacement will be.
        2. The symbol of statehood.
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 22 March 2021 13: 31
          +7
          Quote: Civil
          "Admiral Kuznetsov". Why does Moscow need this "junk"?

          1. Because there is no other and it is not known when the replacement will be.
          2. The symbol of statehood.

          Also because Russia is now unable to build ships of this class. And it's not even the aircraft carriers themselves. For example, our shipyards simply cannot technologically build heavy missile cruisers of the Orlan project. But we are still able to repair and modernize. So ships of such classes need to be protected, at least until we learn how to build them. hi
          1. New Year day
            New Year day 22 March 2021 16: 55
            +6
            Quote: Proxima
            But we are still able to repair and modernize.

            Judging by "Kuznetsov" - not very
    3. ramzay21
      ramzay21 22 March 2021 07: 52
      +43
      The Chinese have a similar aircraft carrier, which they inherited in a much worse condition is regularly serving. And our Kuza was just unlucky with the owners, who have not been able to bring him to mind for 30 years, then the plane will be drowned due to sloppiness of some, then the PD 50 will be drowned due to the carelessness of others, then a fire was staged due to non-observance of safety precautions, then boilers cannot be changed on time.
      1. Overlock
        Overlock 23 March 2021 00: 23
        +26
        Quote: ramzay21
        The Chinese have a similar aircraft carrier, which they inherited in a much worse condition is regularly serving. And our Kuza was just unlucky with the owners, who have not been able to bring him to mind for 30 years

        And someone else says that embezzlers do not need to shoot! DO NOT move the beds, but change the girls!
      2. IC
        IC 24 March 2021 02: 38
        0
        The Chinese got the ship built by 80%. Naturally, they completed it using equipment and technical means of the 21st century.
        1. ramzay21
          ramzay21 24 March 2021 04: 49
          +5
          And we got 100% completed and serviceable. And they didn't have most of the technology to build such a complex ship.
      3. ver_
        ver_ 26 March 2021 09: 15
        +2
        ..in China the Jews of Nema ..
        1. andrew42
          andrew42 31 March 2021 13: 19
          0
          otherwise .. The Chinese generally consider themselves to be the world's first "masters of money", such is the Han pride. Competitors are not tolerated.
    4. GRIGORIY76
      GRIGORIY76 22 March 2021 08: 12
      +16
      A long-suffering ship. And his names were changed and money was laundered on it and all sorts of incidents, but the ship is really needed by the fleet, at least to keep and train personnel. But one gets the impression that the highest state authorities need it purely for the parade and propaganda in the news media: "an unparalleled aircraft carrier with missiles, and our planes take off on their own, not like NATO's, from a catapult." In general, if it is repaired and handed over, it will be another breakthrough.
    5. Xenofont
      Xenofont 22 March 2021 11: 50
      +1
      Well, if they only sprinkle themselves with sulfuric acid, and then it is doubtful that it will help the world.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 22 March 2021 11: 52
        +1
        The very thing.
        Then the planet would definitely breathe a sigh of relief.
      2. Titus_2
        Titus_2 23 March 2021 00: 41
        -1
        He was mistaken .... I suppose he wanted to emasculate the Democrats.
    6. Pravodel
      Pravodel 22 March 2021 16: 15
      +1
      Let the democrats sprinkle themselves, maybe it will get a little better on Earth

      And they will not only sprinkle, but also perform the rite of exorcism "exorcism". Then it will definitely be better on Earth !! ...
    7. Maz
      Maz 22 March 2021 22: 15
      -7
      I spoke with the guys from the naval intelligence, not those who sit in the offices, but with those who crawl along the bottom in San Diego and put bookmarks there in case of a special period ... So they are from Admiral Kuznetsov in full Akue. For them, this is an ideal home, it is an excellent cover for underwater and surface carrier delivery vehicles, a protective marine depot of all kinds of weapons for armed warfare, a helicopter carrier, a drone carrier, an aircraft carrier, a platform for an unmanned aerial vehicle, has a nuclear weapon on board and, if anything, will cover at least a regiment marines, communications and electronic reconnaissance, even contact the satellite, even bring it down, even though everything is in the wilderness within a radius of three hundred kilometers ... so such a huge city on the water, and even unsinkable, is very necessary for sailors, Better yet, three Baltic, Quiet ocean and Mediterranean. By the way, when the dill threw themselves at us in Crimea, it was Kuzya who was the base for all the pro-Russian military in Sevastopol, it was from there that we made it clear to the newly-minted Ukrainians that we could even tear off the bosses on land to anyone. But the Ukrainians could not reach Kuzi in any way, he was standing in the sea ... No one has such a ship except the Chinese and Indians, but they do not count.
      1. Overlock
        Overlock 23 March 2021 00: 25
        +25
        Quote: Maz
        By the way, when the dill rushed at us in Crimea, it was Kuzya who was the base for all the pro-Russian military in Sevastopol, it was from there that we made it clear to the newly-minted Ukrainians that we can shove off the boshes on land to anyone.

        Do not carry nonsense! "Kuznetsov" was then standing on the outer roadstead, the crew was understaffed, and how could he help? Read the history of the Sevastopol events of those years
        1. Maz
          Maz 23 March 2021 11: 35
          -5
          Quote: Overlock
          Quote: Maz

          Do not carry nonsense! "Kuznetsov" was then standing on the outer roadstead, the crew was understaffed, and how could he help? Read the history of the Sevastopol events of those years
          What do you say, the groups from the ship to the shore went as needed and were taken from the water. Or do you think the lighthouses and booms on Donuzlav released ships by themselves, when the hohlopitheks threw themselves at almost every boat to keep them? After all, there were not just ordinary boats - top-secret ones. Yeah, wait ... OUN people are stupid people, of course, but they were led by guys from a serious office, and they could only be resisted in Sevastopol by our guys from naval intelligence, which they did, and not without loss, unfortunately. Thank God that "Kuzya" was, is and I hope will be. If not for him, the losses would have been incalculably greater. Well, yes, it's classified. How do you know? And the Ships by themselves from the Crimea in 1990-1991 hit the North from under the wing of the newly-minted title bosses. Moreover, the fuel was found, and the necessary supplies, and products for the crew were self-loaded, and the crews returned to the ships, and they gave anyone who needed to go to sea ..., Amazing naivety. Somehow someone will write about this horror thriller.
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 22 March 2021 04: 40
    +5
    The one who laughs last laughs well!
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 22 March 2021 04: 58
      -1
      Quote: Uncle Lee

      White in makeup black man oh, excuse me, African American, this is such a huge political incorrectness that for this they are fired from work, including from private companies, and politicians are forced to resign (including for the sins of their student years, those distant times when political correctness did not rule the country yet) , and finally can provoke the outraged African-American public into riots in the city with the destruction of shops and arson of state institutions. wassat
      1. ammunition
        ammunition 22 March 2021 06: 18
        +8
        This ship has too many names. - "Soviet Union" (draft), "Riga" (bookmark), "Leonid Brezhnev" (launching), "Tbilisi" (tests), "Admiral of the Soviet Union Fleet N. G. Kuznetsov." (1990 in connection with the hated "perestroika".) sad
        ---------------
        This ship needs to be ransacked .. But !! some atheists have gathered here. and that means .. poor ship !!
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 22 March 2021 09: 10
          +2
          can only be prayed for by his crew-crew ... who have they recruited there? ............................
    2. Pete mitchell
      Pete mitchell 22 March 2021 07: 12
      +7
      hi
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      The one who laughs laughs well ....
      ...without consequences
  3. Doccor18
    Doccor18 22 March 2021 04: 59
    +9
    But Russia does not have such tasks that need to be solved with the help of an aircraft carrier.

    There are tasks.
    There is no aircraft carrier ...

    All the rest do not need aircraft carriers in principle.

    Oh well...
    .. this is just a demonstration of the level of ability to influence the situation in the world with the help of such ships.

    Not "just", but a whole opportunity to influence the situation at sea and in the World.

    .. is a matter of a very distant and somewhat fantastic future, so let "Kuznetsov" still serve, at least as a training ground for naval pilots.

    Here I absolutely agree.
    1. tasha
      tasha 22 March 2021 05: 19
      +14
      There are tasks.
      Alexander, in the next branch I'm trying to get from the sailors what tasks our aircraft carrier should perform. Maybe you can enlighten the landlord? It is desirable with specific examples, possible situations. Thank...
      1. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter 22 March 2021 06: 10
        +23
        Quote: tasha
        Maybe you can enlighten the landlord?

        I dare to express also a land opinion, while Alexander is gone.
        In principle, the aircraft carrier fleet is the privilege of a great maritime power and our chairman, well, cannot part with it, because he himself has not been able to create anything in 20 years, and now it turns out that the electorate has not been able to save what he could not get. will not forgive. Now the elections will be held somehow ..... And then what happens, the World has drowned, we cannot launch anything orbital, we seal the holes with electrical tape, the food and oxygen are mattress, and if he also drowns Kuzyu ... This is some kind of shame ...
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 22 March 2021 09: 13
          -7
          his feat is not to build new ones, + to save-Kuzya and others of 1 rank. minimum cost in case of loss. It’s not a pity for old stuff ... before the ascent to paradise.
        2. Doccor18
          Doccor18 22 March 2021 11: 14
          +6
          Quote: Stroporez
          Kuzyu will drown ... It's a shame.

          It will be a disaster for the domestic carrier-based aviation ...
          1. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter 22 March 2021 11: 16
            +25
            Quote: Doccor18
            It will be a disaster for Russian carrier-based aircraft ..

            I agree to all 100%!
          2. New Year day
            New Year day 22 March 2021 17: 09
            -2
            Quote: Doccor18
            It will be a disaster for the domestic carrier-based aviation ...

            It just won't be! A logical question - why then THREAD and an analogue in Yeisk?
          3. max702
            max702 22 March 2021 17: 41
            +2
            Quote: Doccor18
            Quote: Stroporez
            Kuzyu will drown ... It's a shame.

            It will be a disaster for the domestic carrier-based aviation ...

            Do you need carrier-based aircraft? what is her goal? We don't have bombardiers now that cannon cannonballs can be shot with iron cannons, and there are no specialists for fighting in a line with the help of battleships, but somehow we don't worry about this at all .. That's the same with carrier-based aircraft .. It was but passed. It is not needed because an outdated solution once, in principle, there are two tasks for it in our country! to repair, sell to China or India and forget about it forever .. Space, hypersound is more promising .. And the means are not endless. We don't have a dollar machine ..
            1. Overlock
              Overlock 23 March 2021 00: 28
              +21
              Quote: max702
              Do you need carrier-based aircraft?

              But for some reason they began to develop it in the Union? True, the tasks of the USSR and the Russian Federation are different, alas
              1. max702
                max702 23 March 2021 01: 45
                +3
                The union ended 30 years ago, and battleships 100 years ago, cast-iron cannonballs 200 years ago .. Don't you notice the analogy? Maybe what was needed and not bad in the distant years is not needed today, but tomorrow it is simply disastrous .. We had a gorgeous sailing fleet fanned with legendary victories. How did he end up in the Crimean? But they also said that under Ushakov, how he was! And nafig these newfangled steamers, better proven solutions over the years!
                Russia has completely different tasks and solutions ... Now we do not need to feed the barbudos and cannibals around this world, and there is no need to escort these nishtyaks either, but for everything else, such boats are not needed ..
                1. LastPS
                  LastPS 25 March 2021 22: 56
                  0
                  The carrier group can do a lot of things - to conduct reconnaissance with the help of AWACS aircraft / helicopters, to conduct anti-ship warfare (and it’s bad), to protect their group from enemy aircraft (in an alliance, even under-aircraft carriers with yaks were built, which means they understood the need, there were simply no normal aircraft carriers), to put pressure on countries with their power, bringing democracy / spiritual bonds to the most remote corners of our ball, to defend the SSBN basing zones, which is especially important in the absence of naval aviation, like ours, for example.
                  1. max702
                    max702 26 March 2021 10: 29
                    +2
                    Who will our AUG do all of the above with? These are outdated goals and objectives! If NATO is one hell of a strategic nuclear forces, if China is the same! And with whom? What is this toolkit for? Forget about the union as you forgot about battleships and sailboats! What are you all the tasks that you set some unrealistic times of the Ochakovsky and the conquest of the Crimea! Look at the example of Syria! What distinguished AUG there? Nothing! The clamps were successfully carried by the Aerospace Forces and the MTR, the fleet only provided logistics! Have you tried something there and a wild fail in the form of the loss of two planes, if there was a full-fledged AUG, would it change something? NOT! in the same way, the VKS would have worked everything .. And if you look at the costs of the VKS and the Navy, it’s completely sad .. As for SSBNs, excuse me, why do they need them if they need a mega expensive AUG to cover? Give 10% of this amount to the Strategic Missile Forces and the Aerospace Forces and all the tasks of the SSBN will be solved! You are looking at real tasks, and not at the fantasies of the Navy, which with their own hands and naval aviation destroyed, because it is much more effective than ships! Carrying the flag frightening the Papuans, Duc Papuans did not remain on planet Earth, and those that are there will not even pay off the breakfasts of the AUG teams .. From the fleet we need a couple of helicopter carriers, a hundred multi-purpose nuclear submarines, frigates, corvettes, minesweepers and, most importantly, Troop transports! ALL! AUG and other leviathans are delirious and drank ..
        3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 22 March 2021 14: 20
          +2
          Quote: Stroporez
          the electorate will not forgive.

          come on, the electorate does not care about Kuzya. Come on, whip the electorate, as the mighty aircraft carrier Kuzya plows the seas and oceans, instilling fear in the foe - they will laugh at you. But the half-dead Kuzya as an object for cutting the state dough - this is seen by the electorate closer to the truth. And the fate of this old man does not affect the Kremlin patriarch in any way - in no way at all.
          1. New Year day
            New Year day 22 March 2021 17: 01
            -2
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            And the fate of this old man does not affect the Kremlin patriarch in any way - in no way at all.

            On the contrary, it affects! After all, he could have forced Rotenberg to build an aircraft carrier! laughing
            Or make your oligarch friends sell their yachts and invest money in Kuznetsov! I could! But he didn't want to!
            1. Alien From
              Alien From 22 March 2021 20: 04
              +5
              I could not and will not force! Other toys for them ...
          2. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter 22 March 2021 18: 34
            +17
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            And the fate of this old man does not affect the Kremlin patriarch in any way - in no way at all.

            I can get hammered! Chuk geka took him to the shamans on a Swedish all-terrain vehicle, showed him cheluin pumpkins, tried on horns and hooves, gave mushrooms last year, in general, the weekend was wonderful, the next thesis will be, "they deceived the fool by four fists" ha ha ha ha wassat
            1. max702
              max702 31 March 2021 20: 07
              0
              He went to Nashenskiy language, they do it here ..
        4. New Year day
          New Year day 22 March 2021 16: 58
          -3
          Quote: Stroporez
          Now the elections will be held somehow ...

          ... and it will be written off
        5. ver_
          ver_ 23 March 2021 18: 24
          0
          ..there is an analogue - the yacht Victory of Captain Vrungel ..
        6. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 25 March 2021 13: 16
          +1
          Quote: Stroporez
          Quote: tasha
          Maybe you can enlighten the landlord?

          I dare to express also a land opinion, while Alexander is gone.
          In principle, the aircraft carrier fleet is the privilege of a great maritime power and our chairman, well, cannot part with it, because he himself has not been able to create anything in 20 years, and now it turns out that the electorate has not been able to save what he could not get. will not forgive. Now the elections will be held somehow ..... And then what happens, the World has drowned, we cannot launch anything orbital, we seal the holes with electrical tape, the food and oxygen are mattress, and if he also drowns Kuzyu ... This is some kind of shame ...

          For a long time, the electorate does not care what ebalsy is doing there. Some individuals are trying to prove something, but there is no reception against scrap. Have you ever wondered why all disasters and archives are classified? Recently Shoigu classified the archives of the Second World War, opened by Serdyukov. The deputy explained this by the fact that the bad guys having familiarized themselves with them, they will blacken our country
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 07: 39
        +18
        Quote: tasha
        Alexander, in the next branch I'm trying to get from the sailors what tasks our aircraft carrier should perform

        today it is a cover for the deployment of our multipurpose submarines at a distance from the coastline over 200-300 km. That is, it is the countermeasures of enemy ASW aircraft. Of course, our only TAVKR will be destroyed as a result of all this, but such an operation of the US Navy will take a lot of time and effort, while while it is still operating, the ASW aircraft - the main enemy of the submariner - will be severely constrained in their actions.
        I can't find this quote right away, but one of our admirals said that without Kuznetsov, the deployment of the Northern Fleet submarine is simply impossible.
        1. tasha
          tasha 22 March 2021 07: 59
          -2
          this is a cover for the deployment of our multipurpose submarines at a distance from the coastline over 200-300 km.
          Andrei, these words are not very accessible to me, unfortunately.

          Let's imagine that there is an aircraft carrier. It's 2025. Something happens and our boats are moving away from the coastline by 200-300 km. Why, why, why?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 08: 51
            +13
            Quote: tasha
            Andrei, these words are not very accessible to me, unfortunately.

            OK
            Quote: tasha
            Something happens and our boats move away from the coastline by 200-300 km. Why, why, why?

            Let's start from the beginning - our SSBNs are constantly moving away from the coast by much more than 200-300 km. The essence of SSBNs is stealth, which does not allow the destruction of such ships in the first strike, and the inevitability of nuclear retaliation. In order to achieve such secrecy, you need to "get lost" in the open sea, patrolling along the coast it is not possible to reach it.
            At the same time, SSBNs at a considerable distance from the coast are forced to single-handedly evade enemy nuclear submarines and anti-submarine aircraft, which significantly reduces its combat stability. Trying to escort SSBNs on our own is pointless - we will simply show the enemy its place. Accordingly, it is possible to alleviate the position of SSBNs only by destroying enemy ASW forces, at least in the near sea zone (250-500 km from the coastline).
            If you look at a non-nuclear conflict, then for us the Tomahawks are a big threat, and the closer their carriers come to our shores, the further along our territory they will fly. Accordingly, in any case, we need to be able to destroy enemy nuclear submarines and PLO aircraft at least 500 km from our coast, but better - further away. It is almost impossible to work at such distances by land-based aviation forces, which is why an aircraft carrier is needed.
            1. tasha
              tasha 22 March 2021 09: 10
              -4
              As far as I know, our SSBNs are capable of launching their missiles at the territory of a potential enemy even from the area of ​​the base station, even from the pier. In peacetime, the location of our SSBNs, I think, is almost always known to the enemy. In a retaliatory strike situation, the aircraft carrier will not be able to help with anything, it simply will not have time to raise its aircraft to cover the DB area.
              I would not consider the situation of a non-nuclear conflict with a US-level adversary at sea. The forces are too unequal and trying to keep up - no money will be enough.
              Local conflict level 08.08.08 - our potential opponents are all within the range of ground aircraft.
              1. donavi49
                donavi49 22 March 2021 09: 49
                +15
                As far as I know, our SSBNs are capable of launching their missiles at the territory of a potential enemy, even from the area of ​​the DB, even from the pier.


                You have gracefully multiplied all SSBNs by zero.

                Tell me, if you score on the breakthrough of the nearest picket, why spend billions of dollars on Borei and other boats ???

                For one boat you can:
                - Build more PGRK based on missiles.
                - build a base for them.
                - there is still money left.

                Moreover, during a special period:
                - PGRKs are absorbed along the Kola Peninsula (if we take SSBN SF as an example) and they cannot be caught, not destroyed at once. Even nuclear weapons.
                - The time to get out of the boxes for everyone, not just the group on duty, needs much less than the boat, and it is calculated in tens of minutes, not tens of hours.
                - The safety of the launch area is provided by the air defense and aerospace forces without any difficulty at all.

                If you take Borei:
                - They are easier to track and predict before the breakthrough of the near contour of the ASW.
                - They will not be able to leave during a special period or in the event of a sudden disarming strike, they will die, and it is not a fact that someone other than those in the database will be shot.
                - One hit - a bunch of missiles. While even covering one group of PGRK -2-3 missiles.

                Actually, the whole point of building SSBNs is their withdrawal into the ocean and a retaliation strike, or a strike on an unexpected and overt missile defense trajectory. If this excludes the boats, this is a thoughtless squandering of budgetary funds.

                For example, you can take the Pacific Fleet - there Dolphin and Boreyev are covering 1 SSNS, and she still has to bring the strike force 949A to the enemy's AUG, and on good terms, find and attack Ohio. You yourself can evaluate the effectiveness and chances of jumping out of the Avachinsky Bay into the Ocean.
                1. tasha
                  tasha 22 March 2021 09: 58
                  +1
                  Actually, the whole point of building SSBNs is their withdrawal into the ocean and a retaliation strike, or a strike on an unexpected and overt missile defense trajectory.
                  I'm not against. winked The meaning of my comment was that when our SSBN is on a DB in some area of ​​the World Ocean, the aircraft carrier will be unable to help in any situation either in a retaliatory or preemptive strike. And it seems to me that the ships of anti-aircraft defense, anti-aircraft defense, which are located in the area of ​​the submarine cruiser's base, will bring more benefits.
                  And you are right about the PGRK. As far as I understand, with the current development of detection means, the secrecy of submarines is a big question. It is theoretically possible to build surface launch platforms, but they are vulnerable to weather, storms there, typhoons and are easier to destroy than a submarine.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 13: 56
                +10
                Quote: tasha
                As far as I know, our SSBNs are capable of launching their missiles at the territory of a potential enemy, even from the area of ​​the base station, even from the pier.

                You didn’t understand one simple thing.
                SSBN is not a weapon of war. It is a means of PREVENTING war. And it works only when at least 1 SSBN is undetected on the BS.
                Quote: tasha
                In peacetime, the location of our SSBNs, I think, is almost always known to the enemy.

                No not always. And in order to complicate the task of detecting our SSBNs, powerful ASW forces are needed, capable of identifying the main "escorts" - that is, the enemy's submarine submarines. In wartime, they must be destroyed.
                Quote: tasha
                I would not consider the situation of a non-nuclear conflict with a US-level adversary at sea.

                And you will consider. The enemy starts non-nuclear combat operations, breaks into our close naval, identifies and targets SSBNs. Next is a nuclear strike.
                More or less decent general-purpose forces will be able to restrain and impede the actions of the US Navy for a while, which will give us the opportunity to be the FIRST to order the use of nuclear weapons
                1. tasha
                  tasha 22 March 2021 14: 31
                  0
                  And you will consider. The enemy starts non-nuclear combat operations, breaks into our close naval, identifies and targets SSBNs
                  Such an outbreak of non-nuclear warfare by the sea will not be limited and will not end.
                  In 2018, Maxim Klimov published an article in NVO: "The Russian Navy ran into mines and submarines. Why the near zone of the Russian fleet was defenseless," where he pointed out the existing problems in protecting the near sea zone. The absence of an aircraft carrier as the main drawback of a modern fleet is not in this article.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 17: 14
                    +1
                    Quote: tasha
                    Such an outbreak of non-nuclear warfare by the sea will not be limited and will not end.

                    And what, excuse me? How this cancels the usefulness of the aircraft carrier
                    Quote: tasha
                    The Russian Navy ran into mines and submarines. Why the near zone of the domestic fleet was defenseless ", where he pointed out the existing problems in protecting the near sea zone. The absence of an aircraft carrier as the main drawback of the modern fleet is not in this article.

                    Because Maxim in that article did not describe the near sea zone, but, in fact, the problems of OVR, that is, the coastal areas.
                    1. tasha
                      tasha 23 March 2021 03: 45
                      0
                      SSBN is not a weapon of war. It is a means of PREVENTING war. And it works only when at least 1 SSBN is undetected on the BS.
                      The meaning of my comment was that when our SSBN is on a DB in some area of ​​the World Ocean, the aircraft carrier will be unable to help in any situation either in a retaliatory or preemptive strike. And it seems to me that the ships of anti-aircraft defense, anti-aircraft defense, which are located in the area of ​​the submarine cruiser's base, will bring more benefits.
                      but, in fact, the problems of OVR, that is, coastal areas.
                      I don’t think that everything seems to be clearly indicated by Maxim Klimov. Moreover, with the development of means of detecting and destroying submarines, the range of coastal anti-ship missile and air defense systems, and the range of aviation, the BMZ border will move farther and farther. The area of ​​this very BMZ will increase, and accordingly it will be necessary to increase the number of floating "forward bastions of the Motherland". Sooner or later, the BMZ border will reach the territorial waters of a potential enemy ... hi
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 06: 35
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        The meaning of my comment was that when our SSBN is on a DB in some area of ​​the World Ocean

                        They are not located in any areas, in the same north they "work" in northern latitudes, sometimes going under the ice.
                        Quote: tasha
                        I don't think that everything seems to be clearly indicated by Maxim Klimov.

                        Generally speaking, yes. He clearly wrote that there is no point in talking about large ships if we cannot withdraw these ships from the base. And his article was devoted to just this problem.
                        However, if you perceive Maxim as the prophet Muhammad, and "if Maxim does not write - hence all this is nonsense" - then stay with your opinion, of course
                      2. tasha
                        tasha 23 March 2021 07: 23
                        +1
                        They are not located in any areas, in the same north they "work" in northern latitudes, sometimes going under the ice.
                        Andrey, does this somehow change the meaning of my comment ?! These same latitudes are the SSBN duty area.
                        However, if you perceive Maxim as the prophet Muhammad, and "if Maxim does not write - hence all this is nonsense" - then stay with your opinion, of course
                        You still could not resist and "fie on you" ?! wink Well then, so am I. Alaverdy .. From communication with some authors of articles on what kind of fleet our country needs, I personally got the impression that some (!) Naval officers are completely devoid of imagination. They mentally in their head cannot imagine the options for using aircraft carriers, and even if they can, then "I understand, but I can't explain ..." will come in handy "," sometime later .... " wassat This is not for the purpose of offending or offending you, this is perplexity and constructive, I hope, remark ...
                        Yours faithfully, hi
                      3. tasha
                        tasha 23 March 2021 07: 43
                        0
                        I have already given an interesting picture. "Possible construction of the IVMU in 2025-2030". I will give you one more time.

                        Pay attention to Strike Echelon 2. of 70% of cruise missiles - 80% - SLCM. I think we need to think about how to destroy the launch vehicles and the missiles themselves within 1-15 minutes from the start of the attack. It is possible that this is one of the tasks of the fleet, if we talk about minimizing losses. If only aircraft carriers can solve this problem, then it is necessary to build aircraft carriers. It is possible that it will be possible to get by with less construction and maintenance costs with greater efficiency. One can think and argue about this. hi
                      4. ccsr
                        ccsr 23 March 2021 12: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: tasha
                        I have already given an interesting picture. "Possible construction of the IVMU in 2025-2030". I will give you one more time.

                        I don’t know the authors of these drawings, but I’ll note that as soon as the first commands are sent for execution at least in the fourth echelon (not to mention takeoff), all our Strategic Missile Forces and Aerospace Forces will receive a signal that they are ready to use nuclear weapons, and believe me in 40-50 minutes they will have time to destroy the United States. Actually, I think they will receive such a readiness command even earlier.
                        Quote: tasha
                        It is possible that this is one of the tasks of the fleet, if we talk about minimizing losses. If only aircraft carriers can solve this problem, then it is necessary to build aircraft carriers.

                        They will never solve this problem, because this will require huge investments, and the efficiency will be zero, if only because the American fleet has much more advantages for maneuvering in the world's oceans, even in terms of the number of naval bases and ships.
                        Quote: tasha
                        One can think and argue about this.

                        Yes, it has long been calculated and verified that the creation of a missile defense and air defense system around large industrial agglomerations will cost us much cheaper than all games with the navy. This was understood back in Soviet times, but then they thought that the USSR would exist forever and the economy would be the strongest in the world. Now the newly-minted "theorists", or rather swindlers like Timokhin and Klimov, are trying to convince us that we simply have to take care of the ocean-going fleet, otherwise we will lose the war to the Americans. In general, I don’t know what is more in this foolishness, but something tells me that these propagandists are not badly receiving for their scribbles on VO from their sponsors.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 08: 13
                      -1
                      Quote: tasha
                      Andrey, does this somehow change the meaning of my comment ?!

                      Of course. You wrote
                      Quote: tasha
                      The meaning of my comment was that when our SSBN is on a DB in some area of ​​the World Ocean, the aircraft carrier will be unable to help.

                      In some area of ​​the World Ocean, of course, it cannot, in the Barents or Okhotsk - very much even
                      Quote: tasha
                      You still could not resist and "fie on you" ?!

                      Sorry, but how else would you order to react to this? Klimov wrote at the very beginning of the article
                      There can be no question of any distant zone, aircraft carriers, naval strategic nuclear forces (NSNF), cruisers, destroyers, if an anti-mine exit from the base is not elementary and the ships will be shot by enemy submarines practically “on the exit fairways”.
                      The Soviet Navy was well aware of this and had powerful forces for the protection of the water area (OVR). Today, the forces of the near zone of the Russian Navy have completely lost their combat significance. Moreover, the situation with the forces of the near zone of the fleet can be described in one word - a catastrophe.

                      He further describes the state of the OVR. Maxim generally writes about the IPC, and touches the corvette 20380 only to show that it is not optimal for solving such problems. That is, although Klimov mentions the "near sea zone" in some places, in fact he writes about the coastal regions.
                      All this is quite clear from the text of the article itself, and I wrote to you about this. But it is not clear to you. What can I do?
                      Discussion is when opponents present arguments and counterarguments on the merits of the issue. You have reduced your proof of the uselessness of AB to the fact that Klimov does not mention them in one of his articles. Why are you angry when I told you about this directly? :)
                    3. tasha
                      tasha 23 March 2021 08: 24
                      0
                      of course, it cannot, in the Barents or Okhotsk - very much even can

                      Imagine lol
                      Our SSBN in the Barents Sea. Option 1. Enemies inflicted IWMU. The task of the SSBN is to fire a volley. Option 2. We strike a preemptive strike. The task of the SSBN is to fire a volley.
                      Where is "very much even possible" here ?. What if the order comes when our boat is hiding under the ice?
                      It is possible that our missiles may be shot down on the initial trajectory. You need to figure out who can, at what distance and how to prevent this.
                      ships will be shot by enemy submarines practically "on the weekend fairways
                      In what political situation is this possible? What do you think is happening in the world at this moment? For what purpose do our ships go to sea at the described moment?
                    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 08: 36
                      0
                      Quote: tasha
                      Imagine

                      Presented
                      Quote: tasha
                      Option 1. Enemies inflicted IWMU. The task of the SSBN is to fire a volley.

                      The task of SSBNs is not to "fire a salvo", but to wait for an order to use nuclear weapons. After the order is received, you need to make a series of preparations, take the "starting corridor". At the same time, with a probability of about 100% in one salvo, it will not be possible to launch all ICBMs (there was a case when it worked, but they were preparing for it for a year, and not the first time), it will be necessary to re-prepare. All this is the time that must be spent in conditions when the MAPL and enemy aircraft will be nearby.
                      Quote: tasha
                      Option 2. We strike a preemptive strike

                      This is possible only if we have undergone a massive attack with conventional weapons. In this case, in addition to the time required for the implementation of Option 1, it is necessary to add time to make a decision by our leadership on the use of nuclear weapons. That is, everything is even worse
                    5. tasha
                      tasha 23 March 2021 08: 56
                      0
                      Presented
                      Excellent.
                      So our SSBNs need some time to use nuclear weapons and launch all ICBMs. Estimated time (time to enter the "starting corridor" is unknown) 2-10 minutes. During this time, no AB will have time to raise the planes and cover the area of ​​the alleged location of the boat. A much greater effect will be from anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft defense ships, and torpedo submarines. This is all provided that, prior to the order, the location of the SSBN was unknown to the enemy.
                      This is possible only if we were subjected to a massive attack with conventional weapons ... that is, everything is even worse
                      Yes. Recently we discussed the actions of aviation 12 A in the early days of the war. There was aviation, but the whole day on 22.06 the pilots fought over their airfields and could not cover the troops. I think an analogy is appropriate. Tank division - SSBN, IAP at the airfield - aircraft carrier group. First of all, it is necessary to resolve the issue of the air defense of the tank division (anti-aircraft installations) ... Which is not now. In my opinion, these are air defense ships.
                    6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 09: 16
                      0
                      Quote: tasha
                      So our SSBNs need some time to use nuclear weapons and launch all ICBMs. Estimated time (time to enter the "starting corridor" is unknown) 2-10 minutes. During this time, no AB will have time to raise the aircraft and cover the area of ​​the alleged location of the boat.

                      No, it doesn't work like that :))))
                      Let's say the United States decided to start a nuclear missile. What will they do? First of all, they will saturate our areas with their submarines and aviation in search of SSBNs - even in peacetime. How can we fend it off? Yes, nothing. We are not at war yet.
                      Accordingly, all that remains for us is, if possible, to detect and "pencil" the enemy forces deployed in the zones under our control. They will not be able to constantly "lead" them, most likely, but if possible, localize the location is possible (if you do this, and not like now). And our SSBNs will find themselves in exactly the same position.
                      Then the war began. We need to destroy these previously discovered forces as quickly as possible before they find and destroy our SSBNs. And this is where the aircraft carrier, with its aircraft having a minimum flight time, will come in very handy.
                      Quote: tasha
                      Recently, we discussed the actions of aviation 12 A in the early days of the war. There was aviation, but the whole day on 22.06 the pilots fought over their airfields and could not cover the troops.

                      The analogy is understandable, but wrong. Our IAP could not cover our troops for 100500 reasons, of which "they fought over airfields" - almost the last. Let me remind you that the Air Force did not learn this even in 1944. Popel has this, if you like - he recalls how we buried fuel and ammunition depots in the ground so that they would not be found and bombed. The Americans set up their warehouses openly - their Air Force knew how to cover ground targets (by the way, they did not learn immediately, but by 1944 they did), ours did not, although air supremacy was ours.
                      As for those who fought over the airfields, I just remind you that the Germans in no memoirs and reports do not claim the losses in aviation that we suffered in the border battle.
                    7. tasha
                      tasha 23 March 2021 09: 30
                      0
                      Then the war began. We need to destroy these previously discovered forces as quickly as possible before they find and destroy our SSBNs. And this is where the aircraft carrier, with its aircraft having a minimum flight time, will come in very handy.
                      These detected forces are submarines, ships and PLO aircraft. Aircraft carrier aircraft are simply carriers of weapons that can destroy some of these forces. Need to compare the amount of weapons that a couple of aircraft and a ship will deliver? And planes still need a "flight time", which you delicately call "minimum". And you need to take off ... Airplanes cannot constantly hang over the area, and the ship ...
                      The analogy is understandable, but wrong. Our IAP could not cover our troops for 100500 reasons, of which "they fought over airfields" - perhaps the last one.
                      That’s the Yoskin cat .. I’m writing to you about the reasons why the specific 12 IAP 62 IAD could not cover the troops of 12A. On 22.06 9 raids were made to the airfield.
                    8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 10: 14
                      0
                      Quote: tasha
                      These detected forces are submarines, ships and PLO aircraft. Aircraft carrier aircraft are simply carriers of weapons that can destroy some of these forces.

                      Right.
                      Quote: tasha
                      Need to compare the amount of weapons that a couple of planes and a ship will deliver?

                      The question is that the ship is much less mobile, and much less effective against aerial targets. I can't imagine how to chase an PLO aircraft on a frigate :)))
                      Quote: tasha
                      And planes still need a "flight time", which you delicately call "minimum".

                      so it is minimal :)))) even on subsonic - 300 km in 20 minutes
                      Quote: tasha
                      And you need to take off ...

                      https://topwar.ru/143482-takr-kuznecov-sravnenie-s-avianoscami-nato-ch2.html
                      Films taken during the combat service of the aircraft carrier in 1995-1996 in the Mediterranean Sea show takeoff twice (see video from 2:46:46), while the first time it took 33 to lift three aircraft into the air, and the second time - 37 seconds.
                      Quote: tasha
                      Airplanes cannot constantly hang over the area, and the ship ...

                      Just the same aircraft carrier may well organize constant patrols in the air with a pair of fighter units. From sushi, this is utopian.
                      Quote: tasha
                      That’s the Yoskin cat .. I’m writing to you about the reasons why the specific 12 IAP 62 IAD could not cover the troops of 12A.

                      And make them this profound conclusion about the uselessness of carrier-based aircraft. Why not land-based? Why do we need these air forces, if in the event of war they will only defend their airfields, and nothing else will be able to?
                    9. tasha
                      tasha 23 March 2021 11: 31
                      +2
                      Just the same aircraft carrier may well organize constant patrols in the air with a pair of fighter units. From sushi, this is utopian.
                      Hand face request ... We compare the capabilities of a ship and aircraft carrier aircraft to destroy enemy forces (PLO ships, submarines and PLO aircraft).
                      And make them this profound conclusion about the uselessness of carrier-based aircraft.
                      Are you so deliberately trying to hurt me, or do you have such phrases built by themselves, without thinking? You were mistaken, I do not draw such a conclusion, let alone "profound".
                      I'm tired of it. I decided that when there are 3500 comments, then once again I will stop activity on VO and I will eat a piece of paper with a password smile ... This one will be 3496 and I don't want to spend the leftovers on it is not clear what. hi
                      Good articles to you!
                    10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 12: 21
                      +2
                      Quote: tasha
                      Hand face

                      And what about this time?
                      Quote: tasha
                      We compare the capabilities of a ship and aircraft carrier aircraft to destroy enemy forces (PLO ships, PL and PLO aircraft).

                      The PLO ships will not be there, except for the submarine. ASW aircraft are destroyed by an aircraft carrier better than land-based aircraft, plus the deck at sea makes it possible for the same ASW helicopters to operate.
                      Quote: tasha
                      Are you so deliberately trying to hurt me, or do you have such phrases built by themselves, without thinking?

                      You wrote
                      Quote: tasha
                      Yes. Recently we discussed the actions of aviation 12 A in the early days of the war. There was aviation, but the whole day on 22.06 the pilots fought over their airfields and could not cover the troops. I think an analogy is appropriate.

                      That is, you say that the carrier-based aircraft will be tied up in battle and will not be able to solve cover tasks.
                      I answered you this
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The analogy is understandable, but wrong. Our IAP could not cover our troops for 100500 reasons, of which "they fought over airfields" - perhaps the last one.

                      You wrote to me in response that you made such far-reaching conclusions from the combat experience of just one iap
                      Quote: tasha
                      I am writing to you about the reasons why the specific 12 Iap 62 Iad could not cover the troops of 12A.

                      Well, I ask you why your conclusion that if "a specific 12 IAP did not cope with the tasks of covering the troops, then the aircraft carrier will not cope", you extend it to carrier-based aircraft, but you do not extend it to the Air Force as a whole. After all, there are exactly the same reasons for this.
              3. ccsr
                ccsr 23 March 2021 12: 58
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                First of all, they will saturate our areas with their submarines and aviation in search of SSBNs - even in peacetime. How can we fend it off? Yes, nothing.

                This is nonsense, if only because such "saturation" will be immediately revealed, and the Americans will not achieve surprise, which means that with such actions they will be guaranteed the destruction of the US population even before they release their first missiles. Therefore, the real scenario of the upcoming war will be based on a surprise strike by the US Strategic Nuclear Forces on duty, and at the same time weakening our retaliatory strike by enhanced combat alert of anti-missile defense systems, in which the naval component will also be used. Only with such actions can they hope for some positive result for themselves if they decide to destroy us.
                But they will not agree to this - they also understand that we will find ourselves in paradise, and they will die, and who, and how many minutes earlier, will no longer play the role.
                That is why all the dancing around our surface fleet is not worth a damn, because apart from submarine missile carriers, in principle, we do not need anything else from the fleet for our defense capability.
              4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 13: 07
                +1
                Quote: ccsr
                This is nonsense, if only because such "saturation" will be instantly revealed, and the Americans will not achieve surprise.

                I have to upset you - the Americans have been doing this "nonsense" for a very long time and very successfully.
              5. ccsr
                ccsr 23 March 2021 13: 58
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                I have to upset you - the Americans have been doing this "nonsense" for a very long time and very successfully.

                You yourself probably did not serve, which is why you do not know how to justify their salaries and positions, some military men come up with awesome tasks for themselves, which in reality will never arise. It is useless to explain something to you, it’s a pity that ignorant people can believe you, and this in itself is bad. I sympathize with you, but you will never make a normal military analyst, if only because you have no idea of ​​the real life of the army.
              6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 14: 44
                +2
                Quote: ccsr
                You yourself probably did not serve, which is why you don’t know how to justify their salaries and positions, some military men come up with awesome tasks for themselves, which in reality will never arise

                Do you seriously think that this exists only in the Armed Forces? :)))) You are a naive person.
                There is a FACT - the Americans are constantly searching and trying to escort our SSBNs, using for this purpose both ASW and submarine aircraft and much more. And there is you who, with a tenacity worthy of better use, denies the obvious.
                I will not wish you good luck, since I don’t believe in it for a penny.
                Quote: ccsr
                I sympathize with you, but you will never be a normal military analyst

                Taking into account the nonsense that you carry in the comments, the value of your opinion for me cannot be underestimated.
              7. ccsr
                ccsr 23 March 2021 17: 52
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Do you seriously think that this exists only in the sun ?:

                Then why are you waving your words
                Americans have been doing it for a long time and very successfully.
                How do you know that they will start preparing for an attack with "saturation"?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                There is a FACT - the Americans are constantly searching and trying to escort our SSBNs, using for this purpose both ASW and submarine aircraft and much more.

                We are doing this too, and what does this prove? What does your "saturation" have to do with it?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Taking into account the nonsense that you carry in the comments, the value of your opinion for me cannot be underestimated.

                No matter how you pose as a military specialist, you will not get up to them, no matter how much fiction you read and pour out on the forum. So learn something from you, don't respect yourself ..
              8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 March 2021 07: 00
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                How do you know that they will start preparing for an attack with "saturation"?

                Because the deployment of forces before an attack is the basics of military strategy. Otherwise, it is impossible to fight.
                Quote: ccsr
                We are doing this too, and what does this prove?

                We do not do this. Previously, they tried to do something else, now - no
                Quote: ccsr
                So learn something from you, don't respect yourself ..

                No question, learn elsewhere. Anything :))))
              9. ccsr
                ccsr 24 March 2021 11: 32
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Because the deployment of forces before an attack is the basics of military strategy.

                You have wild ideas about modern strategy that has changed dramatically since ICBMs appeared in large numbers back in the seventies. Now, in order to defeat any country in the world, including the United States, a nuclear strike by our SNF on duty is enough. And no deployment will be carried out to avoid revealing our plan. And we knew this back in the eighties, and you still cannot understand these basics. What's the point of listening to your rubbish if you don't even understand the basics of modern military affairs in Russia?

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                We do not do this. Previously, they tried to do something else, now - no

                And what, our combat readiness immediately dropped to zero?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                No question, learn elsewhere. Anything:

                You are just a narcissistic dilettante in military affairs, and you think that someone from military specialists will take you seriously.
                Do not hope - the lack of basic military education has a strong effect on you, so, relatively speaking, you will not be a "doctor", no matter how much popular medical literature you read, for this you need to have at least systemic medical knowledge.
              10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 March 2021 12: 27
                +1
                Quote: ccsr
                You have wild ideas about modern strategy that changed dramatically after ICBMs appeared in large numbers back in the seventies.

                They only seem wild to you. Simply because you do not know, and have never read the plans of preparation for war of the same USA in the same 70-80s of the last century. You indulge in unrestrained fantasies about them, having nothing to do with reality :)
                Quote: ccsr
                And no deployment will be carried out to avoid revealing our plan.

                I will not accuse you of lying - only of deep illiteracy.
                Quote: ccsr
                And what, our combat readiness immediately dropped to zero?

                You do not even understand that the deployment and combat readiness I mentioned are not related things.
                Quote: ccsr
                You are just a narcissistic dilettante in military affairs, and you think that someone from military specialists will take you seriously.

                I do not think. I - I know :))) For privately I received reviews from the officers of the Navy, and - in a fairly high rank. And you can call me whatever you want.
                Your level of proficiency in the topic is so low that I would be seriously worried if you praised my materials.
              11. ccsr
                ccsr 24 March 2021 12: 57
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                They only seem wild to you. Simply because you do not know, and have never read the plans of preparation for war of the same USA in the same 70-80s of the last century.

                I will disappoint you - you will never see the materials that I read on this topic in the eighties in your life, so save your aplomb for others.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I will not accuse you of lying - only of deep illiteracy.

                Refute to begin with, referring to at least one reliable source.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You do not even understand that the deployment and combat readiness I mentioned are not related things.

                Your fantasies are really incomprehensible to me, because this is a set of some home-grown ideas, and when you ask you about specifics, then you are immediately in the bushes.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I do not think. I know:

                Leave these statements for impressionable schoolgirls - you may impress them, but not on people like me.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                For privately he received reviews from naval officers, and in a fairly high rank.

                This is all verbiage, especially if it is such as Klimov or the pseudo-military expert Timokhin, then these reviews are worthless.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Your level of proficiency in the topic is so low that I would be seriously worried if you praised my materials.

                You have nothing serious to evaluate your materials - ordinary consumer goods, and nothing new. Moreover, you are misleading ignorant people with your writing, and this is bad from the point of view of the development of our armed forces, since people will simply cease to understand which direction of movement is correct, and will think that amateurs rule everywhere, and people like you are a ray of light in the dark kingdom. And this is far from the case, and even vice versa.
              12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 March 2021 13: 48
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                I will disappoint you - you will never see the materials that I read on this topic in the eighties in your life, so save your aplomb for others.

                You lie without blushing. You don't know the basics.
                I recommend reading ... Well, at least with Kahn's theory of escalation (Kahn H. On Thermonuclear War). The person identified as many as 17 (!) Stages in the development of conflicts, defined the so-called "nuclear threshold", that is, the stage of an armed conflict at which nuclear weapons can be used.
                I also strongly recommend that you study, at least in general terms, with the concept of "flexible response" adopted by the Kennedy administration. There were 3 main stages -
                1) Protection with conventional weapons during an attack by the USSR on Europe
                2) Use of TNW, if item 1 fails
                3) the so-called "general nuclear response", if item 1. and item 2 did not help
                Since about the mid-70s, 3 doctrines have been simultaneously considered in the same USA
                1) The conflict immediately begins as a full-scale nuclear
                2) The conflict begins with a disarming strike on nuclear facilities and control points
                3) The conflict begins with conventional weapons
                At the same time, directives NSDM 242, PDD No. 59 and NSDD No. 13, as well as in the 1984 US National Military Strategy, considered, again, three types of conflicts - protracted nuclear, short-term nuclear and local, in a separate theater of operations with limited use of TNW ... Moreover, in all these cases, it was not about the destruction of the USSR, but about, so to speak, forcing it to peace.
                Thus, in most American theories, the deployment of conventional weapons is of paramount importance. This is confirmed by the plans for the deployment of AUS, and the transfer of US Air Force and ground forces to Europe.
                What you are talking about is the Prompt Global Strike, which actually appeared in the early 2000s (it was approved in 2004), and which really does not require the deployment of general-purpose forces. But - that's bad luck! This same global strike is not supposed to be used against the Russian Federation due to the complete hopelessness of the latter. The basis of the global strike is non-nuclear ICBMs launched from SSBNs, and here the early warning systems are all in hand. PGS is designed for local conflicts with nuclear powers, and involves the defeat of a limited number of targets.
                Quote: ccsr
                and when you ask you about the specifics, then you are immediately in the bushes.

                Uh-huh. Well, here's the specifics. How will you inflate your cheeks now? :)
              13. ccsr
                ccsr 24 March 2021 18: 34
                -2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I recommend reading ... Well, at least Kahn H. On Thermonuclear War's theory of escalation. The person identified as many as 17 (!) Stages in the development of conflicts, defined the so-called "nuclear threshold", that is, the stage of an armed conflict at which nuclear weapons can be used.

                Nonsense when it comes to nuclear superpowers.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I also strongly recommend that you study, at least in general terms, with the concept of "flexible response" adopted by the Kennedy administration. There were 3 main stages -

                You are definitely illiterate, because it was my duty to study documents of a more serious level than the nonsense you are referring to. I wrote a couple of articles on VO, and if you understood at least something in military affairs, then even after reading them, you would understand that your links are to one place for me.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                3) The conflict begins with conventional weapons

                Dream. Better yet, tell us when the United States and I fought with conventional means against each other after World War II, when nuclear weapons appeared. Just do not bring those military conflicts where we used advisers or helped military specialists - this is not a war between our countries.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Since about the mid-70s, 3 doctrines have been simultaneously considered in the same USA

                For various laymen, they slipped these options, which amateurs buy into. But in reality they considered only one option - a sudden nuclear strike.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Thus, in most American theories, the deployment of conventional weapons is of paramount importance.

                For jackets like you, you are undoubtedly a simpleton, so you believe in this nonsense.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                This same global strike is not supposed to be used against the Russian Federation due to the complete hopelessness of the latter.

                Who told you this, or have you heard enough of journalistic tales? Why are they deploying the first echelon of missile defense in Europe then?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Uh-huh. Well, here's the specifics. How will you inflate your cheeks now? :)

                Your set of theses for housewives does not impress those who have dedicated their best years to military service and, unlike you, have become the professional you will never be. So come up with something more serious, otherwise you will simply be considered a verbiage.
              14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 March 2021 06: 25
                0
                So - instead of at least some attempt to argue on the merits of the issue, you staged a hysteria. Except for shouts "both you and the Americans are writing nonsense, I alone know the Truth" - nothing.
                And why am I not surprised? :)
              15. ccsr
                ccsr 25 March 2021 10: 24
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                So - instead of at least some attempt to argue on the merits of the issue, you staged a hysterics.

                There were no questions from your side, but there was only demagoguery with reference to some figures who do not define the US military doctrine. And why am I not surprised that amateurs buy into this nonsense?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You and the Americans write nonsense, I alone know the Truth "

                Many people know the truth, that's why they laugh at you and Timokhin, and as you should have noticed, I'm not the only one who rate you this way.
              16. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 March 2021 10: 49
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                There were no questions from your side, but there was only demagoguery with reference to some figures who do not define the US military doctrine.

                laughing
                You are given the names of the US guidelines. Which, as, for example, the same "US National Military Strategy" - directly defines the US military doctrine. This is a document being prepared for the US Congress, which outlines the main problems in the field of US national security and ways to solve them.
                In general, everything is as I expected. No names, no documents, ANYTHING from you in response was not heard. The usual childish babble: "This is all for amateurs, but in fact the United States is guided by completely different documents, but I will not name them."
                Quote: ccsr
                Many people know the truth, that's why they laugh at you and Timokhin

                Uh-huh. As many as two people - you and your reflection in the mirror.
              17. ccsr
                ccsr 25 March 2021 11: 49
                -2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You are given the names of the US guidelines. Which, as, for example, the same "US National Military Strategy" - directly defines the US military doctrine.

                These are documents for housewives, and the military is always guided by orders, plans and instructions, in which they do not write this nonsense, but define specific actions, in which there are no general words from the text of the US National Military Strategy, but there are real plans and standards. By the way, we did exactly the same - even Burlakov said that he would deliver a nuclear strike without an order from Moscow, if only an attack on the group began.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In general, everything is as I expected. No names, no documents, ANYTHING from you in response was not heard.

                Unfortunately, I was not allowed to take official documents upon dismissal, so I have nothing at hand except the 1992 GSVG reference book, and you skillfully speculate on this. But you have never held such a reference book in your hands, and this is obvious. It’s clear to me that most of the military professionals on this forum don’t refute me, and this already says a lot.
              18. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 March 2021 14: 22
                +1
                Quote: ccsr
                Unfortunately, I was not allowed to take official documents upon dismissal, so I have nothing at hand except the GSVG 1992 reference book, and you skillfully speculate on this

                "Friend" my, if you have read something there, then you should be able to refer to the AMERICAN documents, which suggest this or that development of events. And you should have known them, regardless of whether you have official documentation or not.
                Quote: ccsr
                and the military is always guided by orders, plans and instructions, in which they do not write this nonsense, but determine specific actions

                Well, where are these documents? We are discussing the AMERICAN war plan. You are here talking about some kind of nonsense about the SOVIET service documentation.
                You are so at odds with common sense that you cannot even understand how different these documents are. A simple example - both we and the United States must have a plan of action in the event of a sudden and unprovoked large-scale nuclear attack. But this DOESN'T MEAN that the USA or the USSR are planning such a strike.
                AMERICAN war plan from SOVIET official documents at the level of orders, etc. you cannot withdraw. Instructions and orders are drawn up FOR PROBABLE scenarios of the development of events. And not only those for which the potential enemy is directly preparing.
              19. ccsr
                ccsr 25 March 2021 17: 38
                -2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                then you must be able to refer to AMERICAN documents,

                It is you who are capable of referring to open documents, but I had to study those whose names do not even exist on the web, because even their names are hidden.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                A simple example - both we and the United States must have a plan of action in the event of a sudden and unprovoked large-scale nuclear attack.

                In fact, in the event of a sudden attack, they act according to the instructions, because there will simply not be time to look at the plan - here, too, you manage to show your ignorance.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But this DOES NOT MEAN that the USA or the USSR are planning such a strike.

                And here you are again talking nonsense, because a sudden strike by the SNF duty officers is possible both in response and as a preemptive attack by the enemy.
                Therefore, the duty forces of the strategic nuclear forces may not be aware at all when they receive a signal, which is the reason for its return.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                AMERICAN war plan from SOVIET official documents at the level of orders, etc. can not be withdrawn.

                You are definitely inadequate, because many official intelligence documents just use the materials that have been obtained in various ways, including undercover.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Instructions and orders are drawn up FOR PROBABLE scenarios of the development of events.

                As a rule, there is only one instruction from the operational duty officer, and he must know it by heart - you are talking nonsense here too. But what actions he is obliged to take depends only on what signal he will receive and what packet he will open - unless, of course, he has all this automated. At least that was the case in Soviet times, but I don’t think that anything has changed much now.
              20. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2021 06: 26
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                In fact, in the event of a sudden attack, they act according to the instructions, because there will simply not be time to look at the plan - here, too, you manage to show your ignorance.

                Sit down, deuce. In fact, a PLAN is drawn up first in case of a surprise attack, and on the basis of the plan, instructions are written. So I can only repeat - you do not know the basics, but you are climbing somewhere, and trying to present yourself as a major authority
                Quote: ccsr
                It is you who are capable of referring to open documents, but I had to study those whose names do not even exist on the web, because even their names are hidden.

                Tell me the names of the AMERICAN documents that we hiding :))))
                Quote: ccsr
                There is usually only one instruction from the operational duty officer, and he must know it by heart - you are talking nonsense here too

                Tell me, is your military rank - ensign?
              21. ccsr
                ccsr 26 March 2021 12: 47
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Sit down, deuce. Actually, a PLAN is drawn up first in case of a surprise attack, and on the basis of the plan, instructions are written.

                How many plans should you have if we have several potential adversaries, including the United States, China and NATO, and the situation can change quickly due to the transfer of troops and the deployment of new weapons? Indeed, there are plans of different levels, for example, cover plans, but the one who sits at the console will never see them in his life, because he has the main document INSTRUCTIONS, but such amateurs as you do not understand that it is he who launches the missiles, and not the one who makes plans. You have a mess in your head from military terms, so you are talking jacket nonsense.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Tell me the names of the AMERICAN documents that we hide

                Ask one of your "friends" to familiarize you with the newsletters of the GRU General Staff, and there you will find links to the names of various documents that the Americans are guided by.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Tell me, is your military rank - ensign?

                I will answer you with the words of a child:
                https://vk.com/video-82974438_456239042
              22. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2021 13: 33
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                Indeed, there are plans of different levels, for example, cover plans, but the one who sits at the console will never see them in his life, because he has the main document INSTRUCTIONS

                Yes, I do not care about the main document sitting at the console. I spoke about PLANS FOR WAR, it was you who dragged instructions here neither to the village nor to the city.
                Quote: ccsr
                I will answer you with the words of a child:

                So you do it already which comment
              23. ccsr
                ccsr 26 March 2021 13: 58
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Yes, I do not care about the main document sitting at the console.

                And I don't give a damn about your opinion, because people like you do not understand that at night, when everyone is asleep, it is those who have the instructions who will make the decision - you simply have not grown up to this.
              24. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2021 14: 02
                +1
                Quote: ccsr
                And I don't give a damn about your opinion, because people like you do not understand that at night, when everyone is asleep, it is those who have the instructions who will make the decision.

                The only question is that the conversation was about the PLANS of the war, which you tried to blurt out with instructions.
              25. ccsr
                ccsr 26 March 2021 18: 11
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The only question is that the conversation was about the PLANS of war,

                What other plan of war have you come up with - name at least against whom specifically, in order to understand how adequate you are.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 22 March 2021 12: 09
    0
    Accordingly, it is possible to alleviate the position of SSBNs only by destroying enemy ASW forces, at least in the near sea zone (250-500 km from the coastline).
    And how can an aircraft carrier help here?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 13: 56
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      And how can an aircraft carrier help here?

      Destruction of enemy PLO aircraft.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 22 March 2021 15: 00
        +5
        With all due respect ... but ...
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 16: 18
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Destruction of enemy PLO aircraft.

        and here for more details, where are you going to destroy it? Over the ice of the Arctic Ocean? will your AB freeze in the ice off the coast of California? he will not get there in person ... on the Faroese border and he will not get there either ... the destruction of enemy ASW aircraft is the lot of long-range coastal aviation, including ...
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 16: 08
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    at least 500 km from our coast, but better further. It is almost impossible to work at such distances with land-based aviation

    your untruth! even front-line aviation flies for 500 km, come back from 1913 at last
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 March 2021 18: 06
      +3
      Quote: vladimir1155
      your untruth! even front-line aviation flies for 500 km, come back from 1913 at last

      One-time fly for 500 km and further is possible. You can't work all the time. For the effective radius of coastal aviation is determined not by the flight range of aircraft, but by the detection range of enemy forces.

      Simply put, the effective radius of coastal aviation is determined on the basis that the time for the arrival of reinforcements to the duty unit from the coastal airfield should be less than the time interval between the detection of the enemy and his exit to the launch range. Do you want to arrange a permanent watch at the turn of 500 km from the airfield? Be so kind as to provide a target detection range of 600 km from this line. Otherwise, reinforcements from the shore will arrive in time when the duty unit will, at best, sail on lifeboats.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 18: 18
        -2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        500 km from the airfield? Please provide a target detection range of 600 km from this line.

        I already once answered you this question ... return to reality, from 1941, front-line aviation has not been engaged in patrolling and searching for targets for a very long time ... for this there are 1) satellites, 2) ground-based radars in Voronezh up to 6000 km horizon and up to 8000 km vertically (near space). 3) A100 Radar station (radar) of the A-100 aircraft has the ability to track up to 300 targets at a distance of 650 kilometers. A-100 is capable of staying in the air at a distance of 1.000 kilometers from the base for up to 6 hours .... your SU33 and Kuzi are resting
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 22 March 2021 18: 36
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          1) satellites, 2) ground-based voronezh radars up to 6000 km horizontally and up to 8000 km vertically (near space). 3) A100 Radar station (radar) of the A-100 aircraft has the ability to track up to 300 targets at a distance of 650 kilometers. A-100 is capable of staying in the air at a distance of 1.000 kilometers from the base for up to 6 hours .... your SU33 and Kuzi are resting
          1) Forget about satellites, they won't help. 3) A-100 exists only as a flying laboratory and is no longer foreseen (due to sanctions, with our equipment, he barely climbed into Ruslan). And the Su-33 can shoot down the enemy, but the A-100 cannot, so they have no time to rest.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 18: 46
            0
            Quote: bk0010
            Su-33 can shoot down the enemy

            Not only! can still su57 su35 from the shore ... and there are also tu22 su34 and others ..... you ignored my question about Voronezh ... I hope there will not be any sanctions and the combat mission will be completed without your Kuzi?
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 22 March 2021 18: 49
              +3
              Quote: vladimir1155
              ..... you ignored my question about Voronezh ... I hope the sanctions will not interfere there and the combat mission will be completed without your Kuzi?
              I didn’t ignore it, but simply didn’t know about the possibilities of Voronezh. And Kuzya is not mine, I am not a fan of aircraft carriers. But the task does not disappear from this, it must be solved with something.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 23 March 2021 12: 14
              +1
              Quote: vladimir1155
              you ignored my question about Voronezh ...

              Voronezh - over-the-horizon radar. Its epic ranges are for targets well above normal aircraft. And at "aviation" heights, it is likewise limited in range by the radio horizon.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 22 March 2021 18: 41
          +1
          Quote: vladimir1155
          front-line aviation has not been engaged in patrolling and searching for targets for a very long time ... for this there are 1) satellites,

          A satellite tracking in real time squadrons of carrier-based or coastal aircraft?
          Quote: vladimir1155
          2) Voronezh ground-based radars up to 6000 km horizontally and up to 8000 km vertically (near space).

          And at the same time they are over-the-horizon radars. That is, hello again, radio horizon.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          3) A100 Radar station (radar) of the A-100 aircraft has the ability to track up to 300 targets at a distance of 650 kilometers. A-100 is capable of staying in the air at a distance of 1.000 kilometers from the base for up to 6 hours ...

          The Air Force flying AWACS has a squadron. All live aircraft will be used in the interests of the Air Force and Air Defense, they simply will not be given to neighbors. The maximum that can be expected is the A-50 with its 300 km detection range (which means that the reserve from the shore will come later than the enemy's approach.)
          Most likely, the Navy will have only the Ka-31. Their duty at the turn of 500 km from the shore is unscientific fantasy.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 18: 50
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The Air Force flying AWACS has a squadron

            Unit cost, $ 330 million the result, instead of one unnecessary Kuzi with his SU unit, we get a lot of A100 pieces will come in handy? .....
            1. Overlock
              Overlock 23 March 2021 00: 31
              +21
              Quote: vladimir1155
              the result, instead of one unnecessary Kuzi with his SU unit, we get a lot of A100 pieces will come in handy? .....

              You forget the specifics of Russia: if it decreases somewhere in the state, this does not mean that it is arriving somewhere in the state. They steal. sir, they steal!
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 23 March 2021 14: 53
              0
              Quote: Overlock
              They steal. sir, they steal!

              if out of 20 A100 they steal one, then the country will receive 19 of them, and thievery on Kuza is continuous and hopeless
    2. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall 23 March 2021 08: 36
      +2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Quote: vladimir1155
      your untruth! even front-line aviation flies for 500 km, come back from 1913 at last

      One-time fly for 500 km and further is possible. You can't work all the time. For the effective radius of coastal aviation is determined not by the flight range of aircraft, but by the detection range of enemy forces.

      Simply put, the effective radius of coastal aviation is determined on the basis that the time for the arrival of reinforcements to the duty unit from the coastal airfield should be less than the time interval between the detection of the enemy and his exit to the launch range. Do you want to arrange a permanent watch at the turn of 500 km from the airfield? Be so kind as to provide a target detection range of 600 km from this line. Otherwise, reinforcements from the shore will arrive in time when the duty unit will, at best, sail on lifeboats.


      We need a heavy multifunctional vehicle with a long range and duration. With the ability to cruise supersonic. With a large ammunition load, with a large and powerful AFAR. With anti-missile missiles. A certain conditional MiG-41.

      And such a machine is needed by both the Air Force and the Navy.

      And it needs a new engine, and a radar, and much more.

      This is what we need to spend money on - on the creation of critical technologies - AFAR / ROFAR, engines for aircraft and missiles, electronics, laser weapons. And not on infrastructure projects such as an aircraft carrier, which will devour all the funds and become the target number 1 for the enemy, which is guaranteed to be sunk.

      The reasons and concepts of such machines I have previously considered:
      2050 year combat aircraft concept and weapons based on new physical principles
      https://topwar.ru/161314-koncept-boevogo-samoleta-2050-goda-i-oruzhie-na-novyh-fizicheskih-principah.html

      Where will military aviation go: will it cling to the ground or gain altitude?
      https://topwar.ru/162562-kuda-ujdet-boevaja-aviacija-prizhmetsja-k-zemle-ili-naberet-vysotu.html

      B-21 Raider: Bomber or More?
      https://topwar.ru/174256-b-21-raider-bombardirovschik-ili-nechto-bolshee.html
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 22 March 2021 09: 07
    +7
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    this is a cover for the deployment of our multipurpose submarines at a distance from the coastline over 200-300 km. ... countering enemy anti-aircraft defense aircraft

    So I used to work in anti-submarine aviation
    (PLA), and I understand a little about the principles of organization
    PLA work. Well, tell me specifically (point your finger),
    - where is the enemy submarine looking for our boats? That is, where
    aircraft from "Kuzi" can and should destroy them?
    Just let's speak in detail, otherwise your mantras
    about the need to shoot down an enemy submarine in the open
    I know the sea from the last "meeting".
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 12: 12
      +9
      Well, tell me specifically (point your finger),
      - where is the enemy submarine looking for our boats? That is, where
      aircraft from "Kuzi" can and should destroy them?


      I'm not an author, but I'll try.

      BPA is looking for our boats in the Arctic and adjacent areas of the World Ocean where the circles are drawn.
      An aircraft carrier makes sense in the circle labeled AB.



      Approximately in this area, our SSGNs will be used to strike at enemy surface ships, and our surface ships will be deployed there for this.
      They will need fighter cover and aerial reconnaissance. And it is there that it is necessary to prevent the use of UUVs against our submarines, moreover, SSGNs and multipurpose, and not SSBNs.
      In the north, they will start flying from Norway and Keflavik immediately, a little later from Britain.

      If we can at least tie up the enemy forces in the Norwegian Sea, and prevent their UUVs from freely destroying our submarines, then, firstly, our SSBNs and all existing surface ships in the Barents Sea and to the east will only deal with enemy submarines and rare patrol aircraft , who slipped bypassing Spitsbergen from the north. But there the Aerospace Forces will be easier to intercept them than over the Norwegian Sea.

      Since we have no reconnaissance and missile-carrying aviation left, and ships and submarines are still available in some quantities, and even a little bit under construction, it will be them who will have to solve the problems. And they need protection from air strikes.

      If all this is not done, then in the Barents Sea we will have their surface ships, hydroacoustic reconnaissance vessels, deck anti-submarine helicopters, and solving the problem of ensuring the combat stability of SSBNs will become much more complicated.
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 23 March 2021 06: 45
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Approximately in this area, our SSGNs will be used to strike at enemy surface ships, and our surface ships will be deployed there for this.
        They will need fighter cover and aerial reconnaissance. And it is there that it is necessary to prevent the use of UUVs against our submarines, moreover, SSGNs and multipurpose, and not SSBNs.

        This is a sensible tactic of using an aircraft carrier!
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 22 March 2021 12: 31
      -1
      Quote: Bez 310
      Well, tell me specifically (point your finger),
      - where is the enemy submarine looking for our boats? That is, where
      aircraft from "Kuzi" can and should destroy them?

      In fact, this aircraft carrier was conceived not to combat enemy submarines, but as the first echelon of the country's air defense in our North in the event of a massive raid by US strategic aviation at that distant time when our general secretaries sacredly believed Gorshkov and his ideas about a future war. That is why a catapult-free take-off system was chosen, since it should not have depended on extremely low negative temperatures. Then the first war in the Gulf happened and the opposition of the Kyrgyz Republic became almost the main thing in that situation, i.e. it seems like there were always tasks for him. But what it is for now, no one can intelligibly say, and the author of the article directly points to this:
      Fortunately, there are no missions in the world's oceans for which our country would require the presence of an aircraft carrier. And in general, it's even great.

      I will say even more - in the future, too, such tasks are not foreseen, and therefore it is time to finish cutting the money for this useless ship and transfer it to the Navy Museum, where it will remind us of the former might of the USSR and make us proud of the ability of Soviet people to create such equipment.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 13: 14
        +5
        That is why a catapult-free take-off system was chosen, since it should not have depended on extremely low freezing temperatures.


        The ensign's madness is off the charts.
        Ustinov stabbed the catapult on this hull, where does Gorshkov have to do with it?
        And enough talk nonsense about the dependence of the catapult on temperatures, there are 220 degrees of steam, what is the dependence?
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 22 March 2021 13: 38
          -2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Ustinov stabbed the catapult on this hull, where does Gorshkov have to do with it?

          If this is so, which I strongly doubt, then Ustinov simply rejected Gorshkov's fantasies about sending an aircraft carrier for war to other regions, and with the help of the General Staff assigned him a combat zone.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          And enough talk nonsense about the dependence of the catapult on temperatures, there are 220 degrees of steam, what is the dependence?

          Dreamer Timokhin has a poor idea of ​​what a frozen technique is and how long it will take to warm up the entire deck of an aircraft carrier to remove ice from steam both on the surface and under the deck, where moisture from the steam catapults that were used at that time will get.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 13: 49
            0
            Stop throwing out your delusional fantasies in public.
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 16: 29
            -2
            Quote: ccsr
            Dreamer Timokhin has a poor idea of ​​what a frozen technique is and how long it will take to warm up the entire deck of an aircraft carrier to remove ice from steam both on the surface and under the deck, where moisture from the steam catapults that were used at that time will get.

            that's right, steam in the north is ice and condensation and snow where it is not needed ... and in general Kuzya is bad even for Murmansk, as those who had to serve on this ship wrote about, everything freezes there, planes simply do not fly in winter, ice, danger of icing, both stripes (decks) and devices, .... this ship is a disaster
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 22 March 2021 18: 48
              +1
              Quote: vladimir1155
              that's right, steam in the north is ice and condensation and snow where not needed.

              You understand perfectly well that those who were involved in the operation of equipment and weapons in the army know perfectly well what problems arise even without steam in the usual frost, and even fuel tanks must be filled under the neck so that there is no condensation. But Timokhin did not serve in the army, and he has no idea what it is, how they fight the icing of planes and airfields, so he cannot admit that abandoning the catapult is a purely technical solution for northern latitudes.


              Quote: Alexey RA
              Poor Yankees ... and as soon as they, instead of writing a cloud of reports in the style of "this is impossible", worked from the decks of "America" ​​and "Truman" in the Arctic Circle.

              There is no need to fantasize - they only went there, and even then at above-zero temperatures:
              For the first time in 27 years, an American aircraft carrier has entered the Arctic Circle. Yesterday, October 19, USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75) was in the Norwegian Sea, southwest of Bodø.

              Where is something said about aviation flights here?
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 19: 40
                0
                Prapor, where I was and what you did you do not know, and there is no need to balabol here, but with the equipment I had to deal with such, in which the wheel bearings did not turn from freezing, and I revived it, okay? And I started a diesel engine in the cold without ESP and warming up, on cars with dead batteries.

                Such as you balabolki to me as to China on all fours. They only poured the tanks under the throat ... But in real life it happens that there is NOTHING to pour, how much splashes there on this and you have to get there.
                And the mesh on the fuel intake was covered with paraffin.

                In short, go to the children's garden, theorist.
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 22 March 2021 20: 08
                  -1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  and there is no need to balabolit here, but with the technique I had to deal with one in which the wheel bearings did not turn from freezing, and I revived it, okay?

                  I say that you are a paid propagandist, or you are lying that you worked in a severe frost, because if that were so, you would immediately understand why you cannot use steam catapults in the North.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  to me as to China on all fours.

                  Better tell me how much you get paid for your writing on Russian-language sites, since you are promoting such nonsense.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  This is not the case, of course, but nonetheless.

                  After that, you generally look like a provocateur - the way to take off with ice on the deck is possible only with such planes. And if you use a steam catapult, then the layer of ice will be even larger, not to mention the fact that due to resistance to moving mechanisms, it will not be able to accelerate the plane to the required speed.
                2. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 20: 56
                  -1
                  then you would immediately understand why you cannot use steam catapults in the North.


                  But they are USED there!
                  The aircraft in the photo is a carrier-based A-6 Intruder. How would he take off in front of this landing approach photo?

                  And I will repeat what I wrote to another adorable - the temperature of water freezing at pressure. 1 atm. - 0 degrees.
                  Not 100, not 200. 450 enters the boiler of the catapult, into the water, at the exit an increased amount of steam with a temperature of 220.
                  How can something freeze at 220 degrees? The speed of the ship when lifting aircraft with a weak or zero wind is usually 10 knots, this is 5 meters per second blowing speed, plus the exhaust of the aircraft at the moment of separation from the deck is directed to the deck, well, what kind of freezing there can be. and a weirdo?

                  In the north, the ferry knocks down the ice, ensign, melts it. There is even a special technique for this.
                  And within the framework of your logic, it should freeze at temperatures well over a hundred. But this does not happen, the laws of nature do not allow ice to form at temperatures above the boiling point of water.
                3. ccsr
                  ccsr 23 March 2021 12: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  But they are USED there!

                  Lies - the Americans did not conduct any military operations and large-scale exercises in the winter in the Arctic, only at positive temperatures they went there.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  The aircraft in the photo is a carrier-based A-6 Intruder. How would he take off in front of this landing approach photo?

                  It could have been just a test, and it is not a fact that this plane took off from this aircraft carrier.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  How can something freeze at 220 degrees?

                  You definitely didn't go to school - when the steam expands in the catapult, it cools down, and if it leaks somewhere, then at temperatures of -15 or -20 C on a huge mass of iron, it will simply condense. This is why there will be frost in many places.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  In the north, the ferry knocks down the ice, ensign, melts it.

                  You're lying, because for this they use spent jet engines, which are installed on a car chassis, and no steam - you are just a dense person in this matter.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And within the framework of your logic

                  Enlighten verbiage:
                4. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 23 March 2021 13: 59
                  +1
                  Prapor, photo by Intruder from the winter military exercises NORPAC 83, in the north of the Bering Sea in winter.

                  There, of course, is far from the Arctic, but minus 20 happens periodically.
                  Just the same as in the Westfjord in winter, where they are deployed for Arctic operations.

                  You definitely didn't go to school - when the steam expands in the catapult, it cools down


                  Yes, but not to dew point, surprise.

                  This is why there will be frost in many places.


                  There is ice there, but not around the catapult, there is usually a thawed patch along it. The box does not have time to cool down.

                  You're lying, because for this they use spent jet engines, which are installed on a car chassis, and no steam - you are just a dense person in this matter.


                  Prapor, with such steam generating installations in the north they defrost anything, from waxed oil wells to flooded and icy valves, vents, wells, etc.



                  Steam melts ice, prapor.
                  On this planet at least.
                5. ccsr
                  ccsr 23 March 2021 14: 05
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Prapor, photo by Intruder from the winter military exercises NORPAC 83, in the north of the Bering Sea in winter.

                  This lie is not proven by anything, like what was the temperature at that time, and what are the results of these teachings.
                  For at least 27 years they did not go there at all, and this already tells the professionals everything.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  There, of course, is far from the Arctic, but minus 20 happens periodically.

                  So prove that they have flights at this temperature are mandatory for carrier-based aircraft.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  from waxed oil wells to flooded and icy valves, vents, wells, etc.

                  Well, verbiage - he compared the take-off deck or airfield with an oil well and valves. Go play in your sandbox if you haven't heard anything about airfield equipment.
                6. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 23 March 2021 14: 09
                  -1
                  This lie is not proven by anything, like what was the temperature at that time, and what are the results of these teachings.
                  For at least 27 years they did not go there at all, and this already tells the professionals everything.


                  Prapor lies are what you are talking about.

                  Well, verbiage - he compared the take-off deck or airfield with an oil well and valves.


                  I did not compare the airfield with the valves, I tried to explain to you a dumbass that steam with a temperature above 100 degrees simply cannot freeze, it will first be dispersed in the air, only then it will condense somewhere.
                  This applies to the catapult of an aircraft carrier.
                7. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 23 March 2021 14: 14
                  0


                  Look at the photo, do you see that the snow is melting above the boxes of catapults or not?
                8. ccsr
                  ccsr 23 March 2021 17: 46
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Look at the photo, do you see that the snow is melting above the boxes of catapults or not?

                  Precisely inadequate - the plane can be carried to the side due to ice, not to mention landing on such a deck. And in general it is not clear from the photograph that the plane took off.
                9. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 23 March 2021 18: 54
                  0
                  On the contrary, everything is clear to people in the subject. There was no takeoff, but the box heating works. And the snow melts around him. What I'm trying to prove unsuccessfully to the insane ensign
                10. ccsr
                  ccsr 23 March 2021 19: 20
                  +1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  On the contrary, for people in the subject, everything is clear there. There was no takeoff

                  So why then did he bring a picture and lie that the Americans supposedly calmly start with steam catapults beyond the Arctic Circle?
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And the snow melts around him.

                  And where does the water go then, and how does the rest of the deck get rid of the snow?
                11. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 23 March 2021 19: 27
                  +1
                  So why then did he bring a picture and lie that the Americans supposedly calmly start with steam catapults beyond the Arctic Circle?


                  This particular photo was cited as proof that no ice builds up on the catapult when it is running - because it is warm. And the only lie is the ensign who has fallen into madness, for whom it is high time for the amputation of the brain.

                  And where then does the water go, and how the rest of the deck


                  Stupid question. Where does the water go from any hot blown surface? Although where is the insane ensign understand this ...

                  and how is the rest of the deck cleared of snow?


                  In those places where the ice under the wheels of the aircraft is dangerous - with scrapers to the flooring, on the rest with shovels, the snow is removed and that's it. There are 5000 crew members, there are no problems with cleaning.
                  Scrapers, brushes and shovels also cling to towing tractors.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 19: 43
    +2


    This is not the case, of course, but nonetheless.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 23 March 2021 14: 52
    +1
    Quote: ccsr
    But Timokhin did not serve in the army, and he has no idea what it is, how they fight the icing of airplanes and airfields, so he cannot admit that abandoning the catapult is a purely technical solution for northern latitudes.

    Refusal of the catapult is a purely administrative decision of Ustinov and Amelko. And the reason for it was the desire to provide a "green light" for Yakovlev with his verticals - because after the abandonment of catapults, technically only Yaks could take off from 11435.
    But the springboard ruined everything - as it turned out, apart from the Yakovs, MiGs and Su could take off from it.

    And even if you abandon the catapult (which, by the way, does not care about ice - it has preheating included in the preparation cycle), icing will still not go anywhere - the ship goes in the middle of the ocean, and even at the level of the takeoff deck, either water dust or spray.
    So I had to put this miracle on Kuznetsov:
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 23 March 2021 18: 03
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Refusal of the catapult is a purely administrative decision of Ustinov and Amelko. And the reason for it was the desire to provide a "green light" for Yakovlev with his verticals - because after the abandonment of catapults, technically only Yaks could take off from 11435.

      If you believe in your version, then such an aircraft carrier should have been based on other fleets, or aircraft carriers with a catapult would have been made for them. And I don’t believe that Ustinov was solving something with Amelko - these are incommensurable values, even the NSH could visit Ustinov only on call. However, I do not presume to judge how it was in reality until the archives are opened, or this topic does not slip through in the memoirs of someone outstanding.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      So I had to put this miracle on Kuznetsov:

      This is used at all aerodromes, because the deck, like the runway, must be dry.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 March 2021 19: 23
      0
      Quote: ccsr
      If you believe in your version, then such an aircraft carrier should have been based on other fleets, or aircraft carriers with a catapult would have been made for them

      Four such non-catapult aircraft carriers were built up to 11435. smile
      When the fleet, having received two TAVKR 1143, offered to proceed to the construction of the classic catapult AV pr. 1160, Ustinov pushed through the continuation of construction 1143. And the third Novorossiysk, which was built, went to the Pacific Fleet - where the use of catapults certainly did not interfere with the use of catapults.

      Moreover, Ustinov applied the Jesuit policy of "postponing" ejection AV "until tomorrow":
      ... at the suggestion of D.F.Ustinov, as an alternative to the proposal of SMEs, MAP, Navy and Air Force to build a series of three AV pr. 1986 before 1160 in the fall of 1973, it was decided to create modernized anti-submarine cruisers (ASC) instead type "Kiev", starting in 1975 the construction of the third ship of this type (project P 43 M, then - 11433), based on it supersonic VTOL fighters (Yak-36 MF, then Yak-41), the design of the next (from the fourth ship) should be carried out taking into account the basing on them of light ejection take-off aircraft (types MiG-23K and Su-25K) with a corresponding increase in their displacement.

      That is, the fourth 1143 was supposed to be with a catapult. Four years have passed - so what?
      At the insistence of the new Minister of Defense D.F. Ustinov, in 1977-1978. decisions were made to terminate the work begun on technical pr. 1153 and to continue the construction of anti-ship missiles (then reclassified as heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers - TAKR) of the "Kiev" type. In 1978, instead of the head cruiser pr. 1153 the fourth ship of the "Kiev" type was laid down (along pr. 1143 M, then 1143 A, 11434), designed for basing VTOL Yak-41... The fifth aircraft carrier was to be built according to a new project 11435 with ejection aircraft (types MiG-29K, Su-25K, Su-27K) and VTOL Yak-41.

      That is, now the fifth 1143 was supposed to be with a catapult. Everyone remembers how it ended with the catapult at 11435.
      Quote: ccsr
      And I don’t believe that Ustinov was solving something with Amelko - these are incommensurable values, even the NSH could only visit Ustinov on call.

      In Morin's article "Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of project 11435" Admiral of the Soviet Union Fleet Kuznetsov ", the names of AV opponents in the Defense Ministry leadership are directly named:
      Such an increase in the displacement of the new aircraft carrier in comparison with the built and under construction ships of pr. 1143, 11433, 11434 provoked objections from the General Staff (where Admiral N.N. Amelko was the deputy chief for the Navy at that time, before that the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, and in the General Staff - the main opponent of S.G. Gorshkov on the prospects for the development of the Navy, an ardent opponent of the creation of large aircraft-carrying ships), who enjoyed the support of Chief of the General Staff N.V. Ogarkov and Minister of Defense D.F. Ustinov.

      It was they who killed the catapult 11435.
      Quote: ccsr
      This is used at all aerodromes, because the deck, like the runway, must be dry.

      That is, this car is on all AB. And why then the moans about freezing of the catapult AV?
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 23 March 2021 19: 51
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      It was they who killed the catapult 11435.

      Yours is not true - even in the top management of the Navy there was no consensus about these aircraft carriers, if we take the text you quoted as a basis:
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Such an increase in the displacement of the new aircraft carrier in comparison with the built and under construction ships of pr. 1143, 11433, 11434 caused objections of the General Staff (where the deputy chief for the Navy at that time was Admiral N.N. Amelko, before that Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, and in the General Staff - the main opponent of S.G. Gorshkov on the prospects for the development of the Navy, an ardent opponent of the creation of large aircraft-carrying ships), who enjoyed the support of the Chief of the General Staff N.V. Ogarkov and the Minister of Defense D.F. Ustinov.

      What does Ustinov and "boots" have to do with it, if not all naval commanders believed that they were promising?
      On my own note, as soon as the naval forces get from the General Staff of the Navy to the General Staff, after a while they suddenly begin to see clearly, and begin to understand that the fleet is not all the Armed Forces.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      That is, this car is on all AB. And why then the moans about freezing of the catapult AV?

      Yes, for them it is much stronger because of the steam, which is carried by the wind, and moreover, it takes time to warm up the catapults themselves, and this is a loss of efficiency when the AB is put into combat readiness.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      In Morin's article "Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of project 11435" Admiral of the Soviet Union Fleet Kuznetsov ", the names of AV opponents in the Defense Ministry leadership are directly named:

      I do not know who he is, and what relation he had to the General Staff, but this surname is not heard in order to understand his awareness of this issue.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 March 2021 20: 07
      0
      Quote: ccsr
      Yours is not true - even in the top management of the Navy there was no consensus about these aircraft carriers, if we take the text you quoted as a basis:

      Amelko at that time practically moved to the camp of the landowners. smile
      Quote: ccsr
      On my own note, as soon as the naval forces get from the General Staff of the Navy to the General Staff, after a while they suddenly begin to see clearly, and begin to understand that the fleet is not all the Armed Forces.

      Rather, they begin to do everything to stay in the General Staff, whose policy is determined by the "boots".
      Quote: ccsr
      I do not know who he is, and what relation he had to the General Staff, but this surname is not heard in order to understand his awareness of this issue.

      Chief Designer 1160, Deputy Chief Designer of TAVKR pr. 1143.
    5. ccsr
      ccsr 23 March 2021 20: 22
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Amelko at that time practically moved to the camp of the landowners.

      Here I am about what people see when they move from their main command to the General Staff, and not only naval forces but also from other types of the Armed Forces.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Chief Designer 1160, Deputy Chief Designer of TAVKR pr. 1143.

      Is there no personal resentment here? As far as I know, designers are not dedicated to the operational designation of such projects; this is customary in order to preserve state secrets.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 22 March 2021 18: 19
    +3
    Quote: ccsr
    Dreamer Timokhin has a poor idea of ​​what a frozen technique is and how long it will take to warm up the entire deck of an aircraft carrier to remove ice from steam both on the surface and under the deck, where moisture from the steam catapults that were used at that time will get.

    Poor Yankees ... and as soon as they, instead of writing a cloud of reports in the style of "this is impossible", worked from the decks of "America" ​​and "Truman" in the Arctic Circle. smile
  • Overlock
    Overlock 23 March 2021 00: 35
    +25
    Quote: ccsr
    then Ustinov simply rejected Gorshkov's fantasies about sending an aircraft carrier

    D.F. Ustinov was categorically against the construction of aircraft carriers in principle
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 23 March 2021 12: 17
      0
      Quote: Overlock
      D.F. Ustinov was categorically against the construction of aircraft carriers in principle

      Yes, this was exactly what happened, and as far as I understand, it was not so much our military that convinced him of this, but A. N. Kosygin, who clearly understood that the economy was already slipping, and such spending as the Americans did not we can afford. It is difficult to say what played a decisive role now, but I think that in the archives of the Ministry of Defense, reports that were submitted to the Politburo on this issue are sewn up somewhere, and from them one can understand what was the decisive factor - financial costs or vulnerability in a nuclear war.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 23 March 2021 19: 34
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        Yes, this was exactly what happened, and as far as I understand, it was not so much our military that convinced him of this, but A. N. Kosygin, who clearly understood that the economy was already slipping, and such spending as the Americans did not we can afford.

        As a result, the money was simply thrown to the wind - instead of three expensive but full-fledged AB, the fleet received three no less expensive TAVKRs with "mast defense aircraft", a view to the radio horizon and strike missile weapons, inferior to the four times smaller "Glory".
        That is, no savings.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 16: 23
    -3
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    dependence of the catapult on temperatures, there steam is 220 degrees

    look at the leisure diagram of the state of water steam (Rivkin) you will understand a young man, one hundred 20-30 degrees is a lot .... this is summer and winter
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 19: 34
      0
      What's the difference? The boiler of the catapult is in the heated space inside the ship, the temperature of the steam when it is supplied to the valve of the cylinder of the catapult is stable, the cylinder itself is massive, and after warming up it cools down for a long time.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 20: 03
        +2
        [quote = timokhin-aa] the temperature of the steam when it is fed into the valve of the cylinder of the catapult is stable, the cylinder itself is massive, and after warming up it cools down for a long time. [/ quote
        philistine talk, and slogans, you still tell us that engines never break and jeans never break ... the temperature is unstable and highly dependent on the environment, pipes and devices have relatively large surfaces through which heat is released into the environment , and the temperature changes the viscosity of the oil, its fluidity, the processes of convection mixing, temperature gradients, turbulence begin, the cylinder is not as massive as the Egyptian pyramid, its thermal inertia is less than that of a stone, over time, thermal inertia loses its intensity, the metal experiences temperature gradients begins to change its shape to bend strength decreases, leaks appear in the cylinders ... in short, full seams,
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 20: 12
            -1
            Vladimir, the freezing point of water at a pressure of 1 atm. - 0 degrees Celsius.
            Not 220.
            Not 100.
            Do you understand this or not?
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 20: 52
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            understand this

            you do not understand that the temperature inside the vessel has different meanings, and the pipeline can freeze in at low temperatures, .... do you know what temperatures are at the North Pole where are you going to drive your beloved Kuzya?
          3. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 21: 00
            -1
            What vessel? Boiler or slave cylinder?
          4. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 21: 04
            +2
            pipes if we're talking about freezing
          5. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 21: 05
            -1
            So they are inside the body in a heated volume.
          6. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 21: 36
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            So they are inside the case in a heated volume

            the catapult is a device of parodic action, it does not always have steam, it will simply freeze and you must warm up from the first years and then give steam to the cold one ... it can break the metal like a glass glass when the freeze warms up, even microcracks of curvature are provided by 1000 percent, it will burst under pressure ... horror for what? ..... in general, there are a lot of cost complexities and why? After all, your aircraft carrier is nowhere needed, neither in a warm sea nor in a cold one, ... you defrost a diesel engine in the Arctic Circle, but it is not water ... so there will be problems ..... Indicators of form deviations - deviation from roundness, deviation of the profile of the longitudinal section, variability of the diameter in the transverse and longitudinal sections. The tolerances of the shape of the seats of the shafts (axes) and the openings of the housings in the radius dimension (roundness tolerance, tolerance of the longitudinal section profile) and in the diametrical dimension (tolerances for the variability of the diameter in the transverse and longitudinal sections) should not exceed the values ​​indicated in table. 97 and 98
          7. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 21: 54
            -1
            Vladimir, are you sure a mechanic? Have you heard about the fact that warming up can be slow? About the fact that having free (!) Steam you can ALWAYS keep the catapult warmed up, did not you guess? Or to warm up the box with an UNLIMITED amount of electricity (it is generated with a margin)? About the fact that air patrols from an aircraft carrier ALWAYS fly, and some catapults (1-2 out of 4) are not idle, they usually did not know either?

            Stop clinging to straws.
          8. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 22: 03
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            free (!) steam

            I didn’t hear it, I don’t have it at my dacha, tell me where, I’ll make it for myself in a moment tongue
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            UNLIMITED amount of electricity (it is generated with a reserve)? About the fact that air patrols from an aircraft carrier ALWAYS fly, and some catapults (1-2 out of 4) do not usually stand idle either?
            .

            eternal electricity contradicts the second law of thermodynamics and I also want it for my dacha ... tongue Well, about the continuous flights of aircraft ... I will not say anything ... in my opinion they do not even fly every year, for many years they have not fly at all, and there is also weather at sea ... tongue give up already at last
          9. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 22: 44
            0
            There is no need to build a fool of yourself, YOU perfectly understand that there can be no problems with steam on a ship of 50 kilotons or more, there will be ENOUGH FOR EVERYTHING, especially if it is a nuclear ship, and the same applies to electricity, especially on a nuclear ship.

            in my opinion they don't even fly every year


            No need to pass off the squalor of our Navy as a model
  • New Year day
    New Year day 22 March 2021 17: 17
    -1
    Quote: ccsr
    but as the first echelon of the country's air defense in our North

    As far as I remember, it was not built for the North and its operation in the North had a very detrimental effect on the hull. I tried to reproduce Kasatonov.
    Quote: ccsr
    it's time to finish cutting money for this useless ship

    This entails the following logical decisions: the elimination of 2 regiments, THREAD and the airfield in Yeisk. And it was just built request
    And in the end result: further on, you can forget about carrier-based aircraft for many years!
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 18: 58
      0
      Quote: Silvestr
      This entails the following logical decisions: the elimination of 2 regiments, THREAD and the airfield in Yeisk. And it was just built

      quite logical! I support, you need to convert these regiments into coastal aviation regiments and sleep peacefully
    2. Drugov
      Drugov 22 March 2021 22: 24
      0
      And today, what is the use of carrier-based aircraft and in what real state is it?
      1. Overlock
        Overlock 23 March 2021 00: 40
        +20
        Quote: Drugov
        And today, what is the use of carrier-based aircraft and in what real state is it?

        Not in any! How many real pilots have a real takeoff and landing on the deck is a military secret. The press reported the number 17-18.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 22 March 2021 18: 12
    +2
    Quote: ccsr
    In fact, this aircraft carrier was conceived not to combat enemy submarines, but as the first echelon of the country's air defense in our North in the event of a massive raid by US strategic aviation at that distant time when our general secretaries sacredly believed Gorshkov and his ideas about a future war. That is why a catapult-free take-off system was chosen, since it should not have depended on extremely low negative temperatures.

    Since when did Ustinov and Amelko change their names? smile
    In early 1980, the Minister of Defense signed the directive prepared by the General Staff, which set the Navy, Air Force, SMEs and MAP tasks to reduce the displacement of TAKR pr. 11435 and reorient its air group, mainly to aircraft of vertical and short take-off and landing (NE / UVP) . To ensure the takeoff of short-run aircraft, it was proposed to provide a springboard instead of catapults on the ship. This was followed by instructions to ensure the take-off of VTOL Yak-41 with a short take-off.

    Among the aircraft based on the ship, it was proposed to provide, in addition to the Yak-41 SK / GDP, Su-27K, MiG-29K and RLD aircraft with their take-off from a springboard with two take-off tracks. The issue of a catapult for this ship was removed. Moreover, the General Staff raised the question of the cessation of all work on the creation and development of catapults.
    After the Nitka’s repeated visits by various commissions of the Ministry of Defense, with the participation of N. N. Amelko, the catapult intended for flight tests of aircraft and training pilots to ejection take-off was excluded from the equipment of this complex and only the technological (called the booster device) required for testing, calibration and verification of aerofinishers. Work on the creation of catapult take-off aircraft, begun in 1972, was curtailed.
    © Maureen
    The sailors held on to the catapult to the last. Because it was the only one that provided the basis for the 11435 AWACS aircraft. No catapult - no AWACS, and you can forget about solving problems of zonal air defense with an aircraft carrier.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 22 March 2021 19: 00
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Since when did Ustinov and Amelko change their names?

      Ustinov was actually a minister and did not change his surname, but gave orders. And Amelko was only a performer from the Navy and, by and large, nothing depended on him at this level, because then Gorshkov was in charge.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      In early 1980, the Minister of Defense signed a directive prepared by the General Staff, which set the Navy, Air Force, SME and MAP tasks to reduce the displacement of the aircraft carrier pr. 11435 and reorient its air group, mainly to vertical and short take-off and landing aircraft (SV / UVP) ...

      So it follows from this that it was the General Staff who determined the location of this aircraft carrier in the operational formation of the country's air defense system, and not the naval commanders, which is why their wishes were cut off "to the best of my ability."
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The issue of a catapult for this ship was removed. Moreover, the General Staff raised the question of the cessation of all work on the creation and development of catapults.

      That's right - in the General Staff, realists rule, and they don't give a damn about the naval wishes, so they gave the command not to deal with garbage, but to make such an aircraft carrier, from which the country will be of real benefit during the threatened period.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The sailors held on to the catapult to the last.

      This is their business, but this option did not work in the northern latitudes, which is why their use was banned.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 23 March 2021 16: 14
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        Ustinov was actually a minister and did not change his surname, but gave orders. And Amelko was only a performer from the Navy and, by and large, nothing depended on him at this level, because then Gorshkov was in charge.

        The times when the commander of the Navy could steer everything ended even under Khrushchev. Since the days of the maize, the final word in the affairs of the fleet belonged to the boots from the Ministry of Defense. It was the Ministry of Defense that hacked the pr. 1160, 1153 promoted by Gorshkov and put an end to the catapult version of 11435.
        As for Amelko, this "executor" was in fact the deputy chief of the General Staff. It was he who almost killed 11435 and further with his "Halzans", which he brought right up to the inclusion in the Resolution of the Central Committee and CM.
        Quote: ccsr
        So it follows from this that it was the General Staff who determined the location of this aircraft carrier in the operational formation of the country's air defense system, and not the naval commanders, which is why their wishes were cut off "to the best of my ability."

        The General Staff did not determine anything by its decision. He turned AB into a useless toy with SCVVP and reduced its zonal air defense capabilities to near-zero, excluding AWACS aircraft from the air group.
        Quote: ccsr
        That's right - in the General Staff, realists rule, and they don't give a damn about the naval wishes, so they gave the command not to deal with garbage, but to make such an aircraft carrier, from which the country will be of real benefit during the threatened period.

        What real benefit can there be from an AV, which cannot provide long-term over-the-horizon detection and control center on its own? And whose air group is a priori inferior to the likely enemy?
        There is no need to pass off administrative games as a well-thought-out policy. Ustinov created greenhouse conditions for the Yakovlev Design Bureau, but did not such an aircraft carrier, from which the country will be of real benefit during the threatened period.
        Quote: ccsr
        This is their business, but this option did not work in the northern latitudes, which is why their use was banned.

        Oh yes ... a piece of iron heated up to 100-120 degrees before working with steam is extremely prone to failure due to freezing. smile
        As for the deck and equipment, they freeze over both with a catapult and without it - with a springboard. Around AB there is an almost endless source of water mist and spray that precipitates on the superstructure, deck and everything on it.
        It is not for nothing that TM-11435 has repeatedly appeared on deck 59.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 23 March 2021 18: 29
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Since the days of the maize, the final word in the affairs of the fleet belonged to the boots from the Ministry of Defense.

          And this is correct - whoever has great combat power should be at the helm, and naval traditions are not taken into account in this case, because rules the Strategic Missile Forces.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          As for Amelko, this "executor" was in fact the deputy chief of the General Staff.

          This was due to completely different things, at that time they planned to create a unified space reconnaissance system for the armed forces and he was apparently promised this position, especially since he received the most prestigious award for this:
          Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Sergei Gorshkov offered Amelko the post of his deputy for anti-submarine forces. He at first refused. Then Brezhnev himself asked him what was the matter. The admiral replied: "Comrade Supreme Commander-in-Chief, I know where you can refuse, and where you shouldn't."
          Nikolay Amelko will change several more positions in Moscow, will receive the Lenin Prize for participation in the development of space communication systems...

          By the way, deputy. The NGSH for the fleet is a purely nominal position at that time in the General Staff, and even the management for this deputy was not created, not to mention the fact that in terms of status it is at the level of the Deputy Commanders-in-Chief of the Navy. Therefore, he could not decide something of principle in matters of the fleet - this is not accepted in the central apparatus of the Ministry of Defense. That is why I do not believe that it was he who decided the issue of catapults, and could only justify the operational deployment of aircraft carriers while in this position.

          Quote: Alexey RA
          The General Staff did not determine anything by its decision. He turned AB into a useless toy with SCVVP and reduced its zonal air defense capabilities to near-zero, excluding AWACS aircraft from the air group.

          So smart people are sitting there, and they realized that we need to give the naval this toy, otherwise they will eat the baldness of the secretaries general, and the money will be spent on things that did not increase our nuclear power of the fleet.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          There is no need to pass off administrative games as a well-thought-out policy. Ustinov created greenhouse conditions for the Yakovlev Design Bureau,

          I haven't heard anything about this, so I can't take their word for it. Can you cite at least someone's memoirs for credibility?
          Quote: Alexey RA
          a piece of iron heated up to 100-120 degrees before working with steam is extremely prone to failure due to freezing.

          How long does it take, and why do you think that steam from the catapult only settles on it? Can you explain why the Americans did not conduct a single winter exercise of their AUG in the Arctic and, apart from a short-term call, they did not have anything?
    2. Drugov
      Drugov 22 March 2021 22: 27
      +1
      The most accurate observation. For some reason, all commentators, when discussing this vessel, completely forget that it is useless without an air wing, and with it it is just full of seams.
  • Overlock
    Overlock 23 March 2021 00: 38
    +22
    Quote: ccsr
    In fact, this aircraft carrier was conceived not to combat enemy submarines, but as the first echelon of the country's air defense in our North in the event of a massive raid by US strategic aviation

    Much broader:
    - ensuring the safety of strategic nuclear submarine missile cruisers in areas of combat patrol;
    - air defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
    - search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
    - detection, guidance and destruction of enemy surface forces;
    - ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 23 March 2021 13: 11
      +1
      Quote: Overlock
      Much broader:

      I know how to justify such things, so do not believe everything that is written in the report documents. It is much more useful to look at the current operational plans for the use of such an aircraft carrier, and then it suddenly turns out that when it is ready to go to sea, it cannot be GUARANTEED even in the air defense system if it comes to a sudden massive takeoff of US strategic aviation.
      .
      Quote: Overlock
      - search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;

      He will be destroyed before he begins the search - for the Americans this is an easy target in terms of detection and defeat.
      .
      Quote: Overlock
      - ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.

      Against whom - for me it is still a big mystery, and not one "naval commander" has never named (and will not name), even hypothetically, the area into which we should drive the aircraft carrier with a very dubious task.
      How do you personally represent the landing in the modern war against NATO or China? Well, or at least against weaker countries - where else can we climb after Syria and Karabakh?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 14: 00
    +5
    Quote: Bez 310
    That is, where
    aircraft from "Kuzi" can and should destroy them?

    Alexander answered you, although I would add significant areas of the Barents and Okhotsk seas to these circles
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 22 March 2021 14: 31
      +6
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      areas of the Barents and Okhotsk seas

      We exclude the Inland Sea of ​​Okhotsk, not so much
      Americans (censorship) to launch their submarine there.
      The position of our TAVKR to the west (southwest) of the island
      Bearish seems more logical, but only at first
      sight.
      600-700 km from Norway, a NATO member country, will allow
      destroy our TAVKR with coastal-based weapons.
      Unfortunately, our TAVKR is simply locked in our
      The Barents Sea, and is a great target
      which we cannot protect and maintain.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 16: 07
        +4
        The position of our TAVKR to the west (southwest) of the island
        Bearish seems more logical, but only at first
        sight.
        600-700 km from Norway, a NATO member country, will allow
        destroy our TAVKR with coastal-based weapons.


        And then NATO begins to eat our problems with a spoon, in organizing an attack on a mobile surface target by basic aviation. The solution of which you were engaged in due time.

        Naturally, if our combat readiness is brought to acceptable, and there is no Air Circus. them. Hero of Russia I. Kozhin, as it is now.

        Well, since we started discussing the war in the comments - in theory, it is necessary to seize Bear in the very first hours of the conflict, and Spitsbergen, and if NATO is occupied by Kuznetsov all this time, then for me this is an acceptable price, and if NATO still does not succeed , then it turns out that "behind" Kuzi there are also aerospace forces fighters at the Svalbard airfield, for example.

        and is a big target
        which we cannot protect and maintain.


        Decoy for enemy aircraft, which must be destroyed while trying to reach targets such as Kuzya, Peter and Nakhimov.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 16: 38
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Decoy for enemy aircraft, which must be destroyed while trying to reach targets such as Kuzya, Peter and Nakhimov.

          and you go to the same place as your friend Andrey! bait with 5000 and 600 hp, do not feel sorry for the sailors then? and that only NATO would spend 5-15 minutes flying several missiles from the coast to them? you do not highly value the lives of sailors, you are ready to exchange them for a penny ... and they all have mothers, fathers, sisters and wives and children, do you want to be orphaned? the sect of the aircraft carrier witnesses devours its children .... throw the victim into the mouth of the Vaal, throw the martyr to the dogs, the Almighty will take revenge on you .... bad, for an officer, it is a mortal sin not to spare the sailor soldier .... isn't it better to use the folds of the terrain on shore and destroy the enemy from there. modern war is a war of camouflage at sea, under water, in aviation by shooting false targets, speed of movement, means of operation, on land, quick change of positions using green paint ... and then everyone can see your unnecessary monster floats out from behind the island, like a tasty target for everyone types of enemy weapons ...
        2. Bez 310
          Bez 310 22 March 2021 16: 41
          +5
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          problems in organizing an attack on a mobile surface target by basic aviation.

          Judging by the latest news,
          they won't have a problem with that ...
          I mean AGM-158C LRASM.
          But in general, all this talk is not
          worth a damn, we do not
          need an aircraft carrier for a simple reason
          is an arms race in its purest form,
          and it is worth somehow "holding the horses".
          I think I need to focus
          on less costly but effective
          types of weapons, for example, to work
          over increasing the launch range and control center
          "Zircon".
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 17: 48
            +3
            Judging by the latest news,
            they won't have a problem with that ...
            I mean AGM-158C LRASM.


            There, too, not everything is simple. She, of course, can look for goals herself, but the area she needs to be asked, and not very large.
            Plus, the Americans lied with the range, I don't know how much, but there is now a sluggish investigation in the Navy about the fact that it does not fly as far as it should.
            Well, not only the fleet must fight their aviation.

            It will be easier for them with satellite reconnaissance, they have developed it, and AWACS works from a long distance at sea targets, but here, too, with nuances such as the difficulty of identifying targets at a great distance, electronic warfare, etc.

            But in general, all this talk is not
            worth a damn, we do not
            need an aircraft carrier for a simple reason
            is an arms race in its purest form,


            Is Yaseny not an arms race? And the Poseidon hyper-super torpedo? Are submarines carriers for her? Patrol troughs of project 22160 with one three-inch, saw-kickbacks? An ekranoplan, VTOL aircraft - these themes are also trying to revive. And two UDCs of 50+ billion each, for which there are still no landing helicopters? In fact, we have smacked at least one ship slightly smaller than Kuznetsov into the fleet since 2009. We have already spent, and, most importantly, we have not received anything serious with this money.
            I am not calling for an increase in military spending, but if we revise them in the direction of cutting off irrational and idiotic undertakings, then just a couple of aircraft carriers will be scraped together in ten years, by the beginning of the thirties.

            do some work
            over increasing the launch range and control center
            "Zircon".


            Yes, at least just decide with the Central Office. But by the way, carrier-based aircraft can solve this issue, after special revision.
            And really anywhere.

            And finally, everything is not reduced to a war with a single NATO bloc.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 21: 45
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Is Yaseny not an arms race? And the Poseidon hyper-super torpedo? Are submarines carriers for her? Patrol troughs of project 22160 with one three-inch, saw-kickbacks? An ekranoplan, VTOL aircraft - these themes are also trying to revive. And two UDCs of 50+ billion each, for which there are still no landing helicopters? In fact, we have smacked at least one ship slightly smaller than Kuznetsov into the fleet since 2009. We have already spent, and, most importantly, we have not received anything serious with this money.

              people mixed horses ... about the UDC I fully support, they are not needed ... and Ash and Poseidons are an order of magnitude more useful than your Kuzi, 22160 are cheap and few, consider this PSKR for pirates ...
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 21: 59
                +2
                .a Ash trees and Poseidons are an order of magnitude more useful than your Kuzi


                Did you chew on Poseidon a little here? As for the Ash, then against the enemy against whom they are creating this thing in themselves - they will never go through the PLO and there is nowhere to take target designation for the anti-ship missile system.

                In addition, they have a bunch of technical problems, possibly irreparable - they have not been able to hand over Kazan for three years, even our corrupt Navy does not accept it.

                22160 are cheap and few in number, consider it a pirate PSKR ...


                I will not consider this the PSKR for pirates, I will consider it as a cut of money made by SPKB, Zelendolsk and Chirkov. What these useless troughs are.
            2. Drugov
              Drugov 22 March 2021 22: 33
              +4
              So about this in general, they are trying to tell you that the maintenance of a useless air cruiser to all the existing problems of the fleet is a stone on the neck. There is no way for him to prove himself. There is no air wing, no worthy escort by surface ships.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 22: 48
                -1
                Two air regiments manned by planes and pilots, URO ships in the Northern Fleet can be easily counted.
                Tasks ... well, in Syria, they would have lasted another six months and would have either to fight with Kuzi, if he was ready, or to surrender everything to terrorists.
                Every country in Africa has a billion dollars of finished trade turnover, soon the "partners" will start to squeeze all this out, and there, for example, Uranus.
                There will be tasks, they will not go anywhere. The hectic time is approaching, you will have to fight a lot, and in the right version this should be done by planes from the decks, and not by 19-year-old motorized riflemen.
              2. Drugov
                Drugov 22 March 2021 23: 03
                +3
                Let's frankly, the combat effectiveness of these regiments in relation to Kuznetsov, to put it mildly, raises a lot of questions. About the cruiser itself, you yourself mention in the context, if only .... You can talk as much as you like about the countries of any Africa, but you must remember that these arguments are hypothetical and they will not be solved by using Kuznetsov alone or the like. There is either a global revision of the entire naval doctrine with appropriate specific decisions, or it is simply naive to expect that Kuznetsov is capable of changing something.
              3. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 23: 19
                -1
                Let's frankly, the combat effectiveness of these regiments in relation to Kuznetsov, to put it mildly, raises a lot of questions. You yourself mention the cruiser itself in the context, if only ...


                Yes, but it is fixable, if you fix it.

                You can talk as much as you like about the countries of any Africa, but you must remember that these arguments are hypothetical and they will not be solved in any way by using Kuznetsov alone or the like ..


                Yes, but they will not be solved even without an aircraft carrier - precisely because there is no aircraft carrier.

                There is either a global revision of the entire naval doctrine with appropriate specific decisions


                It should not be revised, but written from scratch, with reference to political goals and a forecast of threats for the country, truthful, and not as it is now.
              4. Drugov
                Drugov 23 March 2021 02: 59
                +2
                To globally revise or write from scratch is a play on words, but the meaning in this case is the same, namely, that the country does not have yesterday, not today and tomorrow there is no meaningful understanding of how and in what way the fleet should develop. Hence all these endless experiments and other wanderings. Do you need a cruiser in such a vacuum? It is highly doubtful.
              5. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 23 March 2021 13: 45
                -1
                Hence all these endless experiments and other wanderings. Do you need a cruiser in such a vacuum? It is highly doubtful.


                It's like a bandaging bag. It really isn't usually needed. But if you suddenly need ...
              6. Drugov
                Drugov 23 March 2021 15: 05
                0
                Well, here you are again, if suddenly and so on. We seem to have come to some agreement with you that this patient cannot be saved with a bandage bag, here we need resuscitation followed by a long hospital.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 23 March 2021 13: 17
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Tasks ... well, in Syria, they would have lasted another six months and would have either had to fight with Kuzi,

        You're lying, verbiage, and insolently, because our VKS coped with the assigned tasks quite calmly, and to drive Kuznetsov there is simply the height of the illiterate use of the armed forces. However, you will hear nothing but lies from such a propagandist as Timokhin, because he deliberately distorts even well-known events, especially since smaller ships from the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean also worked in Syria.
        There will be tasks, they will not go anywhere. The hectic time is approaching, you will have to fight a lot, and in the right version this should be done by planes from the decks, and not by 19-year-old motorized riflemen.

        Every word Timokhin says is a lie, because we are not planning any wars and will not pull off - this is even seen in the example of Ukraine, which we could simply smear in Donbass, completely freeing two regions. And no one sent 19 year old conscripts to Syria, but Timokhin cannot do without lies.
      3. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 23 March 2021 13: 49
        0
        You're lying, verbiage, and insolently, because our VKS coped with the assigned tasks quite calmly, and to drive Kuznetsov there is simply the height of the illiterate use of the armed forces.


        And if the strikers had reached Khmeimim by the summer of 2015?

        And no one sent 19 year old conscripts to Syria, but Timokhin cannot do without lies.


        There are many things you do not know as ensign.

        But the question here is not in Syria. There were local conscripts in Syria. Or there may be a situation when there will be no local conscripts. And there will be a handful of local fighters, pinned to the shore, who can do something if Mother Russia helps them with firepower.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 22 March 2021 19: 42
    +2
    Quote: Bez 310
    But in general, all this talk is not
    worth a damn, we do not
    need an aircraft carrier for a simple reason
    is an arms race in its purest form,
    and it is worth somehow "holding the horses".

    You will not convince this sect of small-town "admirals of the fleet" - some will not understand this due to their blinkeredness as Klimov, and such as Timokhin apparently drips well from the sponsor, so he dresses up in the toga of the defender of the Fatherland, although it is clear that this is a paid client ...
    Quote: Bez 310
    I think I need to focus
    on less costly but effective
    types of weapons, for example, to work
    over increasing the launch range and control center
    "Zircon".

    I am also a supporter of finally deciding on the surface fleet due to the fact that it is too vulnerable, and it will not work to expect benefits from it in a nuclear war like a goat of milk. Given the current situation with our economic capabilities, it is time to first of all think about our strategic nuclear forces, and everything else according to the leftover principle.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 21: 47
      +2
      Quote: ccsr
      With our economic capabilities, it is time to first of all think about our strategic nuclear forces, and everything else according to the leftover principle.

      right, everything is so, neither add nor subtract
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 17: 17
    +2
    Quote: Bez 310
    We exclude the Inland Sea of ​​Okhotsk, not so much
    Americans (censorship) to launch their submarine there.

    And what will interfere, I wonder?
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 18: 05
      0
      They will first need to seize air supremacy. It will not be easy, to put it mildly, SSBNs will shoot / be sunk there faster by the Virginias than will happen.

      BPA, by the way, did not meddle in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk as far as I know.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 07: 28
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        BPA, by the way, did not meddle in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk as far as I know.

        News from December 20th
        The Russian military took off a Su-30 fighter jet to intercept an air target found over neutral waters of the Sea of ​​Japan and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, the National Defense Control Center said.
        The department clarified that the target was moving towards the Russian state border. It turned out to be a Japanese Air Force OP-3C patrol aircraft.

        earlier, stratobombers flew there, and the Lancer, and the 52nd
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        They will first need to seize air supremacy. It won't be easy to say the least

        But it’s not so difficult either.
  • New Year day
    New Year day 22 March 2021 17: 20
    0
    Quote: Bez 310
    Unfortunately, our TAVKR is simply locked in our
    The Barents Sea, and is a great target
    which we cannot protect and maintain.

    There he was taken away from hopelessness at the KChF - Ukraine was preparing the privatization of the entire KChF. There was just nowhere request
  • Trickster
    Trickster 22 March 2021 13: 14
    +3
    Of course, our only TAVKR will be destroyed as a result of all this, but such an operation of the US Navy will take a lot of time and effort.

    Who and why will destroy the old junk that has as many as 14 su-33s? Which are at best 20+ years old and which are within their deadlines? And as Syria has shown, God forbid at least 12 of them can take off twice?
    It’s not funny. We have no naval fighters for aircraft carriers. There are no cover ships. In the case of a naval war, Kuznetsova is a quick and sad death, because a numerical advantage at sea is not for you a numerical advantage on land, there is nowhere to hide and run stupidly.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 14: 00
      +3
      Quote: Trickster
      Who and why will destroy the old junk that has as many as 14 su-33s?

      And the MiG-29K air regiment
      1. Drugov
        Drugov 22 March 2021 22: 40
        +2
        With a highly controversial combat readiness.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 06: 42
          0
          Quote: Drugov
          With a highly controversial combat readiness.

          The issues of combat readiness can be completely resolved by appropriate training, without which NO weapons will help in any way. The MiG-29K do not have significant structural problems with it, did the Indians have many disasters? And we send a TAVKR with planes that did not pass the State Standard, and even without restoring preparation after repairs, and they are surprised at the loss of two aircraft, after that
          1. Drugov
            Drugov 23 March 2021 08: 07
            +2
            It is clear that they are solvable, only the catch is that they did not really dare even before being put in for repairs, and now the future of the whole bundle is not clear at all. If Kuznetsov's repairs take place, it will take a long time to understand. This state of affairs clearly does not add courage and flight experience to the aviators. How many copies have already been broken in disputes about the need for aircraft carriers in the country, but the main thing is that it is necessary to understand exactly that one old Kuzey cannot fight a lot. Or a full-fledged development of several units with all the attributes of AWACS aircraft, convoy ships and bases (but this is complete fantasy when the inhabitants of the Kremlin are eating in three throats) or a strong-willed decision on a suitcase without a handle.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 16: 05
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    our only TAVKR as a result of all this will be destroyed, but such an operation of the US Navy will take a lot of time

    do you think that 15 minutes is a lot of time? ... and this quarter of an hour costs 5000 lives of mostly young people ... it's too bloodthirsty! Andrey, don't be so cruel, especially with your guys! it is better, according to Kuznetsov's behest, to send them to the infantry (there they will protect their homeland and still possibly survive in the majority) and leave Kuzya standing in the port, it is still totally useless and defenseless .. and 500 km of coastal aviation aircraft will fly in almost the same 15-20 minutes ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 17: 18
      +7
      Quote: vladimir1155
      do you think 15 minutes is a lot of time? ..

      Dear readers of this correspondence, should I comment on this nonsense?
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 22 March 2021 18: 38
        +6
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Dear readers of this correspondence, should I comment on this nonsense?

        Stop it!
        We comment on your obsessions,
        we give you the opportunity to speak, here you are
        be patient. We are all just people ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 06: 31
          -1
          Quote: Bez 310
          Stop it!
          We comment on your obsessions,

          So nobody forces you to do it. You are just wasting my time, asking the same questions ten times, but I put mine quite clearly - it is necessary to explain to someone that the TAVKR in Barents will live substantially more than 15 minutes from the beginning of the conflict?
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 22 March 2021 18: 40
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Dear readers of this correspondence, should I comment on this nonsense?

        Probably not. Previously, in almost all articles, the need for AB, its importance for defense and economics was chewed more than popularly. If the apologists of the theory "we do not need a fleet" are not able to understand simple truths or familiarize themselves with historical examples, then this is their problem. On the other hand, there are many new VO readers who are not familiar with previous disputes and have not yet decided on the camp :)
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 21: 56
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        this nonsense

        aha! .... you have no arguments .... prove that the arrival time of NATO member Norway's missiles is much more than 20 minutes ... before your unfortunate Kuzi tracked in real time near Svalbard ... you died in an unequal fight against by my arguments, you fled the battlefield ... while shouting that you won ... tongue
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 06: 31
          -1
          As you can see, everyone understands everything without comment.
        2. Ryusey
          Ryusey 3 May 2021 12: 34
          -1
          no more than the time it takes for a rocket torpedo to reach your favorite nuclear submarines.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 3 May 2021 20: 59
            0
            Quote: Ryusey
            rocket torpedoes to your favorite nuclear submarines.

            First, find the nuclear submarine in the ocean kilometers deep and thousands of kilometers wide, recently they could not find a Warsaw woman in the Mediterranean Sea ...
  • New Year day
    New Year day 22 March 2021 17: 02
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    without Kuznetsov, the deployment of the Northern Fleet submarine is simply impossible

    What are they doing now?
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 18: 06
      -2
      Now is the time of peace
  • ccsr
    ccsr 22 March 2021 19: 23
    +3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Of course, our only TAVKR will be destroyed as a result of all this, but such an operation will take the US Navy a lot of time and effort, and while it is still operating, the ASW aircraft - the main enemy of the submariner - will be severely constrained in their actions.

    It will be destroyed in thirty minutes, like the vast majority of our surface fleet in the event of a nuclear war with the United States, regardless of where it is located. The aircraft carrier and the accompanying ships will simply be covered in a square-nested manner using a pair of strategic missiles, and most likely still at the base.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I can't find this quote right away, but one of our admirals said that without Kuznetsov, the deployment of the Northern Fleet submarine is simply impossible.

    And how did he ensure the deployment of the Northern Fleet submarine when Kuznetsov was under repair? Bayonet into the ground or what? Maybe the admiral defended his purely personal views, which they did not share in the General Staff?
    And in general, all this fuss around this aircraft carrier and missile cruisers reminds me of the tragic events of the first days of the war, when low-speed long-range TB-3 bombers, withdrawn from bomber aircraft and transferred to transport aircraft, were used against the Germans out of despair. They became easy prey for German fighters, our crews died heroically without completing their missions, and all this had a depressing effect not only on the pilots, but also on the infantry, who saw it. And now our fools at the mouth are proving how much we need aircraft carriers, although any competent professional understands that their fate will be a foregone conclusion in the first thirty minutes, and there is only hope that during this time our submarine missile carriers will be able to release at least part of their ammunition ...
    So stop engaging in manilovism and it's time to learn to think in real categories, and not listen to various verbiage like Timokhin and Klimov about naval battles in the oceans.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 3 May 2021 12: 36
      -1
      Well, so you will die in the same time frame, maybe it will be enough for you to spend the resources of the state?
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 3 May 2021 17: 30
        +1
        Quote: Ryusey
        Well, so you will die in the same time frame, maybe it will be enough for you to spend the resources of the state?

        As long as we have strategic nuclear forces, no one will attack us. That is why everything that relates to them should be developed and financed in priority over all other types and branches of the armed forces. This is what will give us a peaceful sky overhead, and not aircraft carriers, even if we build a dozen of them.
        I personally give resources to the state, I constantly pay taxes to it, like the rest of the citizens of the country.
  • andrew42
    andrew42 31 March 2021 13: 30
    0
    If "without Kuznetsov, the deployment of the submarine" is impossible, then we have been in trouble for a long time. And why is only SF mentioned? - There are at least 3 more potential theaters, plus the Baltic puddle. I am for the fact that Kuzya should be protected, no doubt about it. Because there is nothing else "aircraft carrier" we stupidly do not. But first-priority tasks need to be solved, otherwise it turns out "let's pile the golden cross, and the church will somehow be built on its own."
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 22 March 2021 11: 12
    +6
    Quote: tasha
    Maybe you can enlighten the landlord?

    It is strange that you are asking me. On VO you are, to put it mildly, not a beginner and have read about it many times. Yes, and on the Internet and in books, there is a lot of information on this topic ... Moreover, it is presented by more competent people. Well, if you want my opinion ...
    In fact, the aircraft carrier has a lot of tasks, but, in my opinion, the main one is to provide air defense of the naval theater of operations at hour X. All other tasks are secondary and can be solved by other means. But to provide air defense over the sea surface within a radius of several hundred kilometers. only an aircraft carrier is capable. More precisely, coastal aviation is also capable of this, but this will require twice, if not three times more aircraft, and distance from the coast will play a critical role. The further, the more the coastal aviation will experience difficulties. There is another advantage of a floating airfield over several coastal ones - it is more difficult to destroy. If the enemy knows 100% of the coordinates of the entire ground infrastructure of the VKS, then in order to find and destroy an aircraft carrier, you need to try very hard and divert a lot of forces from your Navy to this event.
    2-3 squadrons of carrier-based fighters will nullify the flights of enemy reconnaissance and anti-submarine aviation, and also, even at distant approaches, are capable of seriously pinching enemy fighter-bombers. And most importantly, even if our aircraft carrier is unable to ensure absolute "air supremacy" in the naval theater of operations, then the enemy will not have it either. And without this domination, the "Westerners" do not know how to fight ...
    As for specific examples, there was no use of Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers in military conflicts. Yes, and set slightly different tasks for these non-aviation carriers. An excellent example of the use of aircraft carriers is the Falklands Conflict. Even with such light (and also) non-aircraft carriers, Britain was able to defend the archipelago. Imagine if the Brita had 1-2 real aircraft carriers with 40-80 fighter-interceptors ... This war could not be called a "war" (sorry for the pun). It can be argued that Russia does not have overseas possessions. But Russia has overseas interests, trade, allies (none), and its own remote regions (Kamchatka, Kuriles). If the Pacific Fleet has at least 1 full-fledged aircraft carrier in an operational state, Japan will never decide on an amphibious assault operation in the Kuril Islands region.
    And the fact that the country does not have funds for the aircraft carrier program ... So they are ... They just go "a little wrong" ... And the fact that our corvettes and frigates are being built for 7-8 years is not due to a lack of opportunities and competencies, and from the lack of desire, strict control and requirements, as well as the inevitable harsh punishment for breaking any clause from the contract ...
    I wrote a lot. Hope your question was answered hi
    1. tasha
      tasha 22 March 2021 11: 57
      +2
      Thank you.
      but, in my opinion, the main one is the provision of air defense of the naval theater of operations at hour X. All other tasks are secondary and can be solved by other means. But to provide air defense over the sea surface within a radius of several hundred kilometers. only an aircraft carrier is capable.
      You and I obviously have different views on the X hour.
      Well done about Japan. I’m trying to get at least one specific situation from the sailors.
      So, suppose that radical groups have become strong in Japan, which demand decisive steps from the government to resolve the Kuril problem. There is no other choice but to land and gain a foothold, like Argentina in the Falklands. That there is an aircraft carrier, that is not - will have to land. Do I understand correctly?
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 22 March 2021 12: 28
        +3
        Quote: tasha
        Whether there is an aircraft carrier or not, you will have to land ..

        Moods and desires are one thing, but the feasibility of a plan is quite another.
        When somewhere there ... 200 miles from the designated zone, the enemy's AUG runs, it will be problematic to land ... It is very problematic.
        Any power will not be hindered by a small victorious war and it is not at all necessary, even a small defeat ...
        1. tasha
          tasha 22 March 2021 12: 39
          0
          Such a landing for Japan is unlikely to be a small victorious war.

          Here came across:
          The main objectives of the AUG in wartime are:
          - striking at objects located on the sea coast and in the interior of the enemy;
          - air cover and support for the landing forces and ground forces operating in the coastal zone;
          - gaining and maintaining air superiority in the area of ​​operation,
          - providing air defense of ships, landing troops, large convoys at the passage by sea,
          - blockade of the enemy’s coast,
          - conducting aviation tactical reconnaissance.
          In peacetime, with the help of the ACS, the United States carries out one of the key strategic tasks of the country's national security - a demonstration of strength in key regions of the world.
          Source: http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/73 © "Modern Army" portal

          None of the listed tasks for our country is a priority or unsolvable at a lower cost.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 22 March 2021 12: 48
            +3
            Such a landing for Japan is unlikely to be a small victorious war.

            Small - it looks like not.
            Victorious - who knows ... It is even inconvenient to compare the Japanese fleet and the Pacific Fleet. And this gap is only widening. Thank God that at least ground infrastructure in the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin has been taken up in recent years. The air defense is being updated. There are some hopes.
            ..conquering and maintaining air superiority in the area of ​​operation ..

            Only in this I see the main and irreplaceable task of an aircraft carrier as part of the Russian Navy. The rest is secondary, as I wrote earlier.
            1. tasha
              tasha 22 March 2021 13: 10
              0
              Only in this I see the main and irreplaceable task of an aircraft carrier as part of the Russian Navy. The rest is secondary, as I wrote earlier.
              Well, okay, let's assume that you explained to me clearly. When we get together on foreign shores to carry out operations, then we will build. Until then ... hi
              1. Doccor18
                Doccor18 22 March 2021 13: 17
                +3
                Quote: tasha
                That's when we get together on foreign shores to carry out operations ...

                It's a pity ... But you still didn't understand me ...
                The Russian aircraft carrier is not a shock instrument of aggression (like that of the United States), but our advanced sea / ocean bastion, which will defend its homeland, perhaps entering the battle first ...
                1. tasha
                  tasha 22 March 2021 13: 28
                  0
                  I did my best...
                  An aircraft carrier is a floating airfield designed to increase the range of aircraft. But since Russia conducts all operations within the range of aircraft taking off from conventional airfields, our country does not need aircraft carriers. Again, expensive to build and maintain.
                  1. New Year day
                    New Year day 22 March 2021 17: 07
                    +2
                    Quote: tasha
                    But since Russia conducts all operations within the range of aircraft taking off from conventional airfields

                    It's for now! But whether it will be differently is a question. The ocean fleet died along with the USSR, although some argue that in the Union only galoshes for the Papuans were made laughing
                  2. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 20: 08
                    0
                    But since Russia conducts all operations within the range of aircraft taking off from conventional airfields, our country does not need aircraft carriers.


                    It's YET.
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 17: 30
                  -1
                  Quote: Doccor18
                  The Russian aircraft carrier is not a shock instrument of aggression (like that of the United States), but our advanced sea / ocean bastion, which will defend its homeland, perhaps entering the battle first ...

                  typical nonsense of the aircraft carrier witness sect .. why do you think that this piece of iron in our hands will magically turn into something else that the United States has? this is definitely not an advanced (nuclear submarines go further), not a bastion (bastions are made of stones on land), and will not defend their homeland because it has negligible combat resistance ... in terms of missile armament, this is a pair of Buyans ... and they have a chance to pretend to be a seiner, disperse, hide in the river, but Kuzi has no chance
      2. New Year day
        New Year day 22 March 2021 17: 05
        -1
        Quote: tasha
        Suppose that radical groups have become strong in Japan, which demand from the government decisive steps to resolve the Kuril problem. There is no other choice but to land and gain a foothold,

        To prevent this, not Kuznetsov is needed, but coastal defense. Until he gets there there will be nothing to cover
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 16: 41
      -3
      Quote: Doccor18
      If the enemy knows 100% of the coordinates of the entire ground infrastructure of the VKS, then in order to find and destroy an aircraft carrier, you need to try very hard and divert a lot of forces from your Navy to this event.

      not at all, it is enough to use a satellite image and put a point with the mouse, the missiles will immediately fly to it, and they will not find it
    3. Drugov
      Drugov 22 March 2021 22: 51
      +3
      This whole wonderful story is good, provided that an absolutely "healthy" cruiser is on alert, its air wing is fully equipped and ready to perform assigned tasks, AWACS planes are circling in the sky replacing each other, and around there is a dense air defense and submarine defense and escort vessels and provision. How feasible is it ?????
  • Time traveller
    Time traveller 25 March 2021 19: 43
    -2
    Quote: tasha
    There are tasks.
    Alexander, in the next branch I'm trying to get from the sailors what tasks our aircraft carrier should perform. Maybe you can enlighten the landlord? It is desirable with specific examples, possible situations. Thank...

    On the campaign to Syria, there was an interesting version that the Americans intended then to destroy our bases there with a massive blow of "Tomahawks". The calculation was based on the fact that Russia simply will not have time to react, and when there are only firebrands left from the bases, there will be nothing to fight for, and the Russians will not dare to retaliate with the unleashing of a nuclear war. But "Kuznetsov" in the Mediterranean, firstly, had the opportunity to earlier detect CDs launched from NATO nuclear submarines, destroyers and aircraft based in Italy and Germany. And, secondly, its interceptors could significantly destroy the attacking CD. This would give the air defenses defending the bases the opportunity to hold out an extra hour and a half, which gave the Russians the opportunity, as Putin promised, to strike the NATO carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic participating in the attack even during the battle.
    That is, "Kuznetsov" is a unique means of enhancing air defense and missile defense, capable of qualitatively improving them.
    Somewhere like that.
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 22 March 2021 06: 25
    +2
    Quote: Doccor18
    There are tasks.
    There is no aircraft carrier ...

    Still, why a certain part of the public suffers from manic grandeur, not bothering to answer the question:
    Quote: tasha
    ... what tasks should our aircraft carrier perform. Maybe you can enlighten the landlord? It is desirable with specific examples, possible situations.

    Even "magic words" say to you: "please" and "thank you"! You get ready, there is plenty of time until 2022 and answer, just do not forget to tell where and for what "shishi" in a combat situation (even in the event of hostilities) this whole colossus will receive its due allowance, starting with fuel and ammunition and ending water and food.
    I draw popularly. All around the war, and this "little" ... (or as part of a warrant?)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 07: 42
      +12
      Quote: ROSS 42
      Still, why does a certain part of the public suffer from manic grandeur, not bothering to answer the question?

      The problem is different. A certain part of the public has already been enumerated the tasks of an aircraft carrier 100500 times, but a certain part of the public suffers from selective sclerosis, and each time requires a listing of these tasks.
      Quote: ROSS 42
      where and for what "shishi" it is in a combat situation (even in the event of hostilities) all this colossus will receive its allotment, starting with fuel and ammunition and ending with water and food.

      Does such a thing as "autonomy" mean anything?
      1. tasha
        tasha 22 March 2021 07: 53
        0
        Does such a thing as "autonomy" mean anything?
        You have been asked a specific question. Where and on what shishi will the aircraft carrier receive everything it needs to get "autonomy"? Clarify please.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 08: 55
          +7
          Quote: tasha
          You have been asked a specific question.

          Mikhail, I was not asked any question.
          Quote: tasha
          Where and for what shishi will the aircraft carrier receive everything it needs to get "autonomy"?

          Directly in the base - before leaving. TAVKR "Kuznetsov" is capable of operating with reserves on board for up to 45 days. American ABs - up to several months. The ability to conduct hostilities at the expense of the stock available on board is autonomy.
          In general, the TAVKR (like any other combat ship) can remain at sea during a period of tension for months, receiving fuel and food for the crew. And after the start of the war, he, most likely, will not have time to use up all the ammunition on board after the start of the war.
          1. tasha
            tasha 22 March 2021 09: 14
            +1
            Mikhail, I was not asked any question.

            Never mind. It was I who accidentally thought that you wrote me in sclerosis hi
            Directly in the base - before leaving.
            As Bashkirkhan wrote below, for such large ships and the infrastructure will require the appropriate, and even more than one. Otherwise it will work out - just left the base, it's time to go home ...
            American ABs - up to several months.
            Just about, gluttonous tummies. How much money have American aircraft carriers eaten in the last 50 years? And what real benefits did they bring?
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 22 March 2021 11: 42
              +4
              Quote: tasha
              Just about, gluttonous tummies. How much money have American aircraft carriers eaten in the last 50 years? And what real benefits did they bring?

              Iraq.
              What ground force were the US and allies concentrating on before the operation? Huge. How many planes? And the infrastructure ...
              How did they do it? You can't carry that much on BTA. Again the fleet. (This is to the question of the need for the fleet). Could Iraq have prevented this? Not. And if Iraq also had a fleet ... So, the level of modern Turkey, at least. Could the United States have done the same? Certainly. For a dozen frigates and a dozen diesel-electric submarines are not an obstacle for the NATO Navy. And if Saddam (somehow magically) got hold of a couple of aircraft carriers (even the level of Kuznetsov). 99% there would not have been any "Desert Storm" at all ... (This is the question of the role of aircraft carriers).
              1. tasha
                tasha 22 March 2021 12: 03
                +1
                Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990 and a multinational force operation began in January 1991. Suppose Iraq has two aircraft carriers. And what should they do as they watch convoys of ships cross the Atlantic from August to December? Drown?
                1. Doccor18
                  Doccor18 22 March 2021 12: 39
                  -2
                  Where is Iraq, and where is the Atlantic ...
                  But to interrupt a naval caravan in the Indian Ocean / Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, two AUGs are quite capable.
                  And the caravan itself would not exist. Every operation is preceded by serious planning. Democrats simply would not have dared to undertake such an operation if Saddam had two AUGs. An aircraft carrier is capable of not only fighting and holding back hotheads from military adventures, just by its presence.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 17: 41
                    +1
                    Quote: Doccor18
                    An aircraft carrier is capable of not only fighting and holding back hotheads from military adventures, just by its presence.

                    Another typical delusion (false stereotype of thinking) of members of the totalitarian sect of aircraft carrier witnesses, so the Christmas ancient guru of this sect thought, he went to meet the Japanese in a marching column and thought that seeing him in the tsushima Japs like cowardly Malays would scatter like hares .. and they drank his entire fleet. This is not for you to play with spillikins! What if your presence ends with the sinking of your Kuzi from an unknown torpedo? this was the case with the Korean corvette, they still did not find who drowned it so far, but if the war starts with the shameful sinking of the largest ship, then ... it is also called "power projection", in general it is not clear why the projection and why strength, for projection you need a rear, and for strength at least combat stability.
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 22 March 2021 18: 41
                      0
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      Christmas ancient guru of this sect
                      Rozhdestvensky is a literary character, the admiral was called a little differently.
      2. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 22 March 2021 08: 48
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Such a thing as "autonomy" - says anything?

        Of course he does. Not everyone is as harsh as the guys from Chelyabinsk. Not a single armature. I have enough of your highlighted "khaki" nickname and the arrogance with which you get involved in the conversation. Do not deign a reference, be so kind.
        I do not know about the tasks of the Kuznetsov TAVKR, and the details of the military doctrine are not spelled out. Only I, perhaps, agree with Roman that even during this repair of the only ship in its class (Russian), someone manages to warm their hands:
        During the repair of the burned-out cruiser, the general director of the plant of the USC state corporation Evgeny Zudin got burned. What he is accused of and what lies ahead, 47news found out. Plus a bonus about the St. Petersburg track.
        According to our publication, the Oktyabrsky District Court of Murmansk by the evening of March 19 arrested for two months the general director of the 10th Order of the Red Banner of Labor shipyard Yevgeny Zudin.
        The investigation imputes to him fraud on an especially large scale - the theft of 45 million from funds allocated by the state for the repair of Russia's only aircraft carrier - the cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov, which is part of the Northern Fleet. The plant is located in the village of Polyarny and is part of the state "United Ship Repair Corporation" (USC). The criminal case was opened on December 29 last year.

        In general, many thanks for your detailed answer. Forgive me for stopping your thought from thinking.
        hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 08: 59
          +2
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Do not deign a reference, be so kind.

          The link will be killed, most likely, therefore, I inform you that you can find out about the autonomy of the TAVKR on the website of the RF Ministry of Defense
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 22 March 2021 09: 11
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            what about the autonomy of the TAVKR you can find out on the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

            What are you talking about autonomy to me? If anything, this autonomy implies a proud solo voyage or?
            ==========
            I'm interested in the tasks of this whopper, which will contribute to the fulfillment of Russia's obligations to (CSTO, BRICS, ABVGD?) partners, and is it not expensive to drive such a colossus from Murmansk to conduct a counter-terrorist operation?
            I do not see any strategic objectives for the ship, which is predicted to have a "new stall" five years after the reconstruction.
            1. mvg
              mvg 22 March 2021 12: 21
              +4
              I'm interested in the tasks of this whopper

              Usbagoytes, Yuri Vasilievich. From this "feeding trough" with the name TAVKR Kuznetsov, so many people feed, starting with ordinary workers and ending with general managers, that they simply won't let the cruiser die. They will drive on a solo voyage, and proudly carry the flag in Africa ... He will live without a pier, on a bank, but GORDO.
              No combat missions are provided for him, he simply is not able to fulfill them.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2021 17: 24
              +1
              Quote: ROSS 42
              What are you talking about autonomy to me?

              Well, since you don't know the basics - you have to explain it to you as if you were a little one.
              Quote: ROSS 42
              If anything, this autonomy implies a proud solo voyage or?

              You have just offended that I am "talking" to you for autonomy, but even NOW you did not bother to figure out what it is. What does a solo voyage have to do with it? Do you know ANYTHING about the navy at all?
              Quote: ROSS 42
              I'm interested in the tasks of this whopper

              Not interesting. If they were interesting, they would have known long ago. Briefly - see the comment immediately Andrey from Chelyabinsk (Andrey) Today, 07:39
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 17: 46
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The link will be killed, most likely, so I inform you

            I kill a reference, there is very short autonomy, 45 days in peacetime, clearly not enough to go far and for a long time from the base to the war, why ... because the ammunition will run out in one day, it will be necessary to apply plasters and measures for survivability ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2021 06: 27
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              why .. because the ammunition will run out in one day

              good Yes, yes, with a stock of the same jet fuel of 2500 tons, of course, in one day everyone flies :))))))) You're lying, Vladimir, without blushing
      3. Engineer
        Engineer 22 March 2021 08: 49
        +4
        Perhaps I am "a certain part". Perhaps I just did not read the articles explaining the essence of the case like "an aircraft carrier for dummies in 20 minutes"
        I don't understand a lot of things.
        1. The aircraft carrier covers the deployment.
        How many submarines are deployed by an aircraft carrier? For going out in general or at the same time.
        Will it not work out so that it, on the contrary, signals "I am here, which means you are looking for a submarine"?
        What is the effectiveness of the cover? At least qualitatively. With reference to real geography, of course.
        Why multipurpose, and not just strategic missile carriers? Is it not bold to build avik (s) in the interests of every little thing?
        2. Point one is closely related to the analysis of conflict scenarios
        Nuclear-non-nuclear. Avalanche, speed-increasing stepwise.
        At the moment, conflict scenarios have not been worked out at all. The militarized Mr. Timokhin and his opinion that the Americans will strike with cruise missiles at the Far East without warning (this really assumes) or "that the Americans will come to the Northern Sea Route and will turn our cargo ships around" does not seem convincing to me
        If we turn to DB through the tension phase, how can an aircraft carrier interfere with tracking submarines in conditions when there is still no war? A potential enemy will monitor the space flying in the immediate vicinity of AB. It is impossible to shoot them down yet. Shall we feign attacks and play on the nerves ?. Is it effective?
        3. Then you have to sit down and count.
        How many submarines are operated by aircraft carriers? How many aircraft carriers will you need? Wouldn't it be better to focus on other types of the Armed Forces or other components of the nuclear triad (if we are talking about covering strategic submarines)?
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 22 March 2021 09: 29
          -2
          sages believe that the destruction of Arkhangelsk and Murmansk from the Barents Sea
          - losing the war. and from the west coast of Denmark, you can destroy Moscow? and decide the outcome of the war?
          AV WERE NEEDED 127% IN THE USSR - FOR THE PROTECTION OF DONBASS AND THE SOUTH OF THE REGION (including mc Yuzhmash) + Bulgaria and Romania FROM Sredmorskaya ESCADRA - FLEET (# 6?). bases in Italy -Malta and access to Greece - start-up KR = 1500km. That industrial base can no longer be protected - the problem of Akhmetov-Ze-Kolomoisky. they found a way out.
          Since the time of the temporary detention facility, an industrial base has been created from Moscow to the east to Krasnoyarsk - and it must be covered.
          Kuzya will enter the Yenisei and anchor at Lesosibirsk. and there will win in the adversary's TRMV. boilers therefore do not change - for burning coal and fuel oil.
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 17: 54
          +2
          Quote: Engineer
          What is the effectiveness of the cover? At least qualitatively. With reference to real geography, of course.

          the efficiency is scanty and is not even worth the fuel oil that he eats in railway cars per day. 12 su33 (actually the last 20 years saw three of them, which correlates with the number of pilots who are able to take off and land on them). It has been determined that all 12 will not take off, no more than 6 planes can take off at once, others are a supply in the hangar in case of the loss of the first. It is not known how many of them, according to open data, over the past 30 years, they are no longer left, they are not making new ones, but there are probably a couple ... and granite rockets, as strong as two BUYANA M (mrk), it is not known in what condition and whether they exist at all , granites have not been made for 20 years ... so where do not tie it makes no sense
        3. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 17: 58
          0
          Quote: Engineer
          How many submarines are operated by aircraft carriers?

          not at all, the submarine is secretive and quiet loves silence, it needs underwater tracking systems near the base, preferably coastal aviation and corvettes, ASW frigates, minesweepers for the king of the water area within a radius of 1000 km from the base, and partial control within a radius of up to 3000 km. (shoulder of coastal aviation)
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 22 March 2021 09: 18
      +3
      Kuznetsov - like the Baltic Fleet in a blockade up to 44g - will stand until an armistice in the factory. Small war - it's a pity to lose. big - no use to drown.
    3. Doccor18
      Doccor18 22 March 2021 11: 27
      +1
      Quote: ROSS 42

      I draw popularly. All around the war, and this "little" ... (or as part of a warrant?)

      War is not a brick at a construction site, it will not suddenly fall on your head ...
      And therefore, this is NOT small should be in the designated square a little bit BEFORE it starts ...
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 18: 03
        0
        Quote: Doccor18
        NOT small should be in the designated square a little BEFORE it starts

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ue8f-kaIM с 6 минуты
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 22 March 2021 09: 37
    -4
    And there is time, it seems to me that it is rapidly running away ...
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 15: 57
    +1
    Quote: Doccor18
    There are tasks.

    please list
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 22 March 2021 05: 03
    0
    Like a symbol. Yes, it looks silly, especially in the eyes of the Americans, who have 11 of these aircraft carriers and 2 more are under construction.
    It is somewhat illogical, if one AB is stupid, then how much more stupid is eleven? Obviously the same order of magnitude. laughing
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 22 March 2021 06: 40
      -1
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      It is somewhat illogical, if one AB is stupid, then how much more stupid is eleven?

      You can pick a bit about logic. A car (an ordinary passenger car) has four car wheels + a "spare" ... In the garages, in case of evacuation of cars, a standby tractor is provided ... The cyclist has either a bicycle first aid kit or a spare camera in his bag ...
      So, tell me what is more stupid: to have one copy, which, if necessary, there will simply be nothing to replace, or 11?
      The novel once again raises a complex, but necessary for a solution, the question of the effectiveness of the available funds and the problems of their operation and maintenance ...
      It is logical!
      hi
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 22 March 2021 06: 49
        +2
        Quote: ROSS 42
        You can pick a bit about logic. A car (ordinary passenger) has four car wheels + "spare wheel"

        It is possible, especially of such a simple logic: you have an old penny car, but there is no money for a new one, is this not a reason to throw it to hell? Especially if he is on the move.
        And I didn’t just put the smiley. hi
        1. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx 22 March 2021 07: 00
          -1
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          You have an old penny car, but there is no money for a new one, is this not a reason to throw it to hell?

          But this is not a reason to ride it, putting yourself in danger every minute. I don't have a car. The first bicycle was made in China. At the end of the first and last
          (for me) the summer season, I "threw" it to my neighbor to the garage and drive to the cellar. In 2011 I bought "GT Avalanche 3.0". Opening season ten on it soon. During this time, more than two costs were spent on its prevention and the purchase of spare parts. We drove off about 23 km. BUT!!! No matter how dear it is to me, I will not ride a faulty one. And if there is no money, I will walk ... Or I will take it in the nightstand. wassat
      2. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 22 March 2021 07: 22
        +8
        Gentlemen - comrades!
        Please don't sport! After all, the article itself is a pack of yeast in the outhouse.
        Well, the American hack sprinkled his thoughts about our "Kuznetsov". I will emphasize - American... They have these aircraft carriers - a proven scheme. Both tactics and technique.
        And Skomorokhov quickly put in his "five kopecks". He brought both Brazil and France, transferring reasoning to a different plane and evoking different emotions.
        Yesterday, it seems, in NI some American general was concerned about the presence of ONE 5th generation fighter in our country. And how they all rose together. Aha! Fears! Today the scribbler farted about aircraft carriers and everything was seething.
        No need to read NI in the morning, especially when accompanied by commentators from VO ....
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 22 March 2021 13: 42
          +3
          Quote: Leader of the Redskins
          No need to read NI in the morning, especially when accompanied by commentators from VO ....

          Ha, you can't argue. hi
        2. New Year day
          New Year day 22 March 2021 17: 25
          -2
          Quote: Leader of the Redskins
          the American general was concerned about the presence of ONE 5th generation fighter in our country.

          It's just a banter request
      3. Ryusey
        Ryusey 22 March 2021 09: 39
        +6
        It is a pity that the articles are ordered and he does not understand anything about them)
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 22 March 2021 05: 30
    +8
    Funny.
    The author agreed 3 times that there are no tasks for him, nor the ability to perform them, if any.
    The only reasonable argument is crew training.
    But even here the question is, the ship has been under repair for a year and is not even suitable for this.
    But, as already written here, it is perfect for cutting huge flows of money.

    Py.sy. I don't know why an aircraft carrier is in Brazil, but in Thailand, for example, tourists are taken there on excursions. And 10 years ago, he also saved (evacuated) them from flooding on the islands.
    1. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 22 March 2021 08: 23
      0
      Yes, it's funny, but why do we need American aircraft carriers? name one real task that they have been performing in the last couple of decades and which could not be performed by ground aircraft at a much lower cost? Aircraft carriers have one goal: siphoning money from the budget and plundering them, and the Kuznetsov is not the most expensive ship.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 22 March 2021 08: 28
        +2
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        name one real task that they have been performing in the last couple of decades and which could not be performed by ground aircraft at a much lower cost?

        No, I will not name it.
        With so many bases anywhere on Earth that the United States has, they don't need aircraft carriers.
        1. New Year day
          New Year day 22 March 2021 17: 26
          -3
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          With so many bases anywhere on Earth that the United States has, they don't need aircraft carriers.

          Therefore, they are trying to withdraw some of them into the reserve, the Americans also count money
  • rocket757
    rocket757 22 March 2021 06: 11
    -3
    "Admiral Kuznetsov". Why does Moscow need this "junk"?

    Why, why, but for fun to walk on it !!! These are our FUNNY!
    1. Terenin
      Terenin 22 March 2021 09: 04
      +7
      Quote: rocket757
      "Admiral Kuznetsov". Why does Moscow need this "junk"?

      Why, why, but for fun to walk on it !!! These are our FUNNY!

      Also for the reason (at least political) that most of the world trade is tied to shipping. And the "smoke of the fatherland" over "Kuznetsov" will also play a positive role for Russia.
      By the way, most of the trade routes and large economic centers (except for Moscow) are within the effective range of carrier-based aircraft.
      hi
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 22 March 2021 09: 29
        +1
        Explain the obvious to whom? But for fun, this is so that the critics will have nothing to answer.
        Those who are FOR and those who are AGAINST, their opinion will not change ...
        And those who hesitate will have to wait until we start building something new ... when we start soldier
        1. Ryusey
          Ryusey 22 March 2021 09: 42
          +2
          If we have time to start, although I would agree with the author, but with one caveat: that the crew of one of his beloved "Buyans" be fully staffed with members of his family ...
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 22 March 2021 09: 50
            -1
            And what is the threat to the Buyans in inland waters?
            They are not intended for long trips.
            Oh yeah, but where we WILL NOT SUCCEED there?
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 22 March 2021 06: 36
    -2
    Well, to the heap, did the Indian and Chinese aircraft carriers provide aliens or the Soviet Union had a hand? So, Roman is right this time, we will somehow figure out without the striped ones whether we need "Kuznetsov" or not.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 22 March 2021 06: 38
    +7
    Roma, Sao Paulo 18 March 2021 sold for scrap. Follow the news!
    1. Jack sklo
      Jack sklo 22 March 2021 09: 00
      +5
      Well, if the author De Gaulle, who came into operation in 2001, has the newest, what can we talk about.
  • kig
    kig 22 March 2021 07: 08
    +6
    Why does Moscow need this "junk"?

    In another article by Caleb Larson, with the even more interesting title Russia's Only Aircraft Carrier Is a Floating Coffin (But Armed To the Teeth), he himself provides the answer. It turns out that Kuznetsov has not only powerful defensive weapons, but also quite a formidable offensive in the form of Granites. True, Larson at the end of the article asks whether all the Granites are still in place or have already been removed, to increase the volume, useful for other purposes.
    It is strange that Mr. Skomorokhov missed such an interesting article, especially since it came out even earlier than the one he refers to.
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 22 March 2021 13: 48
      +1
      Quote: kig
      It is strange that Mr. Skomorokhov missed such an interesting article, especially since it came out even earlier than the one he refers to.

      Nothing strange. It's just that this contradicts the meaning of his article, as well as his worldview ...
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 22 March 2021 07: 52
    +3
    any such analysis needs to start not with an American journalist (well, why take it from poor writers to order), but with the goals and tasks that this class of ships performs ... and here there are an infinite number of copies broken into VO and for and against ... the truth is the dispute was not born and the insults were enough))))
    the need for an aircraft carrier for the Russian fleet is still not obvious ...
    as for Kuznetsov (if you do not take all the incidents with him), then he has just a lot of shortcomings ... starting with equipping with weapons and electronics ... and so on ... ending with the fact that he has 6 boilers and all the main resources of which are consumed even by walls ... "bricks" for boilers are produced by only one plant ... under refueling it costs for days, etc.
  • Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 22 March 2021 08: 10
    +3
    Quote: ramzay21
    And our Kuza was just unlucky with the owners, who have not been able to bring him to mind for 30 years, then the plane will be drowned due to sloppiness of some, then the PD 50 will be drowned due to the carelessness of others, then a fire was staged due to non-observance of safety precautions, then boilers cannot be changed on time.

    Most of these problems stem from a lack of infrastructure. The heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" constantly stands at the 35th shipyard, because it has nowhere else to stand, it needs a berth for it, it needs a separate boiler room and a separate substation, a turbo-compressor shop, a large high crane on the berth, an entrance for at least large-sized wheeled vehicles, and even for the railway. None of this was built in the USSR. In addition, the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser does not have a dry dock, because the Communists have not built a dry dock in the North for large ships in 70 years. After the rotted Swedish floating dock PD-2018 drowned during a dock operation in 50 and turned into a reef, it suddenly became clear that the heavy cruiser had nowhere to dock. A small note: the duration of the repair of a dock type PD-50 by the self-docking method is over 400 days, which is very unprofitable for the ship repair enterprise, since for this entire period the work on the restoration and modernization of ships and ships is completely suspended. The execution of works on disconnecting the pontoons from the towers of the floating dock, docking and then connecting them (implementation of accurate alignment, docking and high-quality welding with ensuring the tightness of welded seams) requires the use of highly qualified specialists. All work on alignment and docking should be carried out only in low seas, and preferably in calm weather. In Russia, as a rule, they do not bother with self-sucking because they are unprofitable, and they use a floating dock until it is covered with a female reproductive organ. Therefore, the PD-50 was doomed. At the moment, due to the need to dock the "Admiral Kuznetsov" in Murmansk at 35 shipyards, reconstruction and technical re-equipment of a 2-chamber dry dock is being carried out into a single-chamber version with new dimensions of the dry dock chamber 332,5 x 70 (60) x 17,55 m ... 
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 22 March 2021 13: 53
      +3
      ... because the communists have not built a dry dock in the North for large ships in 70 years ..

      Yes, and the capitalists did not have time for 30 years ... But where there are so many problems, then the Maybach with the yacht are outdated, then there is nowhere to host the Olympics ...
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 22 March 2021 08: 20
    0
    I have a question: why the heck do the Americans have aircraft carriers if they haven't played any role in any conflict lately? Why have bases all over the world if there are aircraft carriers and vice versa? Well, Kuznetsov is alone and he is not as ruinous as a heap of American ballast floating here and there. The time of aircraft carriers is running out, as was the time of battleships.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 22 March 2021 09: 45
      +1
      When you are gone, the carrier strike forces will still dominate the sea, and so.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 18: 08
        +1
        Quote: Ryusey
        will rule the sea, and so.

        a typical statement of a member of the sect of aircraft carriers, this is a matter of conviction, not logic, you need to abandon blind faith in an idol (all the more rusty) and come to the truth of faith in God Jehovah, and then you will be calmer
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 22 March 2021 10: 37
      +3
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      I have a question: why the heck do the Americans have aircraft carriers if they haven't played any role in any conflict lately?
      Recently, no one has a fleet comparable to the American one, no one butts them, therefore, their roles in conflicts are rather modest. China will rebuild its fleet, start returning Taiwan, then look.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 18: 10
        +1
        Quote: bk0010
        China will rebuild its fleet, start returning Taiwan, then look.

        they have a concrete strip in Okinawa, why would they substitute AB for Chinese missiles for slaughter? AB only against the Papuans, everyone knows this, and the Americans too.
  • BAI
    BAI 22 March 2021 08: 21
    +1
    1.
    There is something in nautical folklore called an unlucky ship, and Kuznetsov is undoubtedly an unlucky ship.

    This is indeed the case. No sooner had we entered it than one of the colonels' cap was blown overboard.
    2.
    Plans to lift the PD-50 appear to be under development, although this remains to be seen.

    It makes no difference. If the dock is raised, it is only for disposal.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 12: 18
      +3
      It makes no difference. If the dock is raised, it is only for disposal.


      This is very even with a difference because it is necessary to establish the causes of flooding.
      Survivors' interrogation records at the dock show a strong shock from below just prior to sinking.

      It's like an excuse to dig what's wrong with the dock.

      Especially taking into account the rumors around the High Command that Kuzya will not come out of this repair.
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 22 March 2021 14: 20
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Survivors' interrogation records at the dock show a strong shock from below just prior to sinking.

        hi Can you link to the site where these protocols are published or their content is described? So far, I have only seen the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Murmansk in case No. 2-745 / 2019.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 14: 29
          -1
          Well yes, the solution, I was wrong. Unfortunately, I didn’t save the link at the time, I don’t even remember where.
          1. Bashkirkhan
            Bashkirkhan 22 March 2021 14: 57
            0
            As far as I read various sources, PD-50 sank during a dock operation due to metal corrosion, operation in the North did its job. The duration of the repair of a dock type PD-50 by the self-docking method is over 400 days, which is very unprofitable for a ship repair enterprise, since for this entire period, work on the restoration and modernization of ships and ships is completely suspended. 
            The casing of one of the PD-50 towers could not withstand the water pressure + there was a power outage, while the pumps were already threshing, constantly pumping water out of the rotten floating dock. Damage typical of many steel floating docks includes excessive corrosion, down to through-hole, structural elements in the upper part of the pontoons. PD-50 towers, which, according to operating conditions for a long period of time, were above the ballast level, corroded in seawater vapor. Corrosion of elements located below the ballast level and in contact with it proceeded much more slowly. Due to deterioration during immersion during the dock operation, the skin of the PD-50 tower was deformed, the gushing stream of water increased the roll and the dock sank. For 38 years without repair, PD-50 still served + he had a birth injury, which is associated with the operation of pumps. Due to their incorrect operation, at one of the moments of PD-50 testing in Sweden, a water hammer occurred on the hull and PD-50 "floated up with dents." It was noted that the steel sheets of the PD were literally pressed inward, as a result of which they had to be "digested" in an emergency manner. This was a few days before the transfer to Soviet sailors. The PD-50 was also damaged during transportation to the USSR, when it got into a severe storm. This also required restoration. A similar situation was with the Ukrainians on the German captured floating dock with a carrying capacity of 60 thousand tons (for the battleship Tirpitz), which in the USSR had the number 4M. The Krupp steel held out for the time being, and after more than 65 years of operation, it finally cracked. The dock, as high as a 9-storey building, sank, sank to the bottom and turned into a reef. 
  • Tiksi-3
    Tiksi-3 22 March 2021 08: 30
    +12
    To say that we do not have money for construction and maintenance is stupid, since we are the richest country in the world in terms of natural resources, we just need to learn how to spend them correctly ... although in the current conditions one can say where to get money, for example - The governor of the Penza region found about 500 million rubles in cash and such mayors, governors, deputies, the head of the guvd and his deputies, the ministry of emergency situations, ... and the rest of the riffraff milks the people and organizations without letting them breathe !!, and this system is built on the purchase of posts and theft - it must be destroyed and there will be the very necessary money for everything ...
  • Darkness
    Darkness 22 March 2021 08: 31
    +2
    "for him there are no goals and objectives, as well as the ability to perform these tasks" --- is that how ??
  • prior
    prior 22 March 2021 08: 41
    0
    By and large, Russia does not have an ocean-going fleet, but we stubbornly cling to a long-obsolete aircraft carrier. What for?!
    We have easily profited a great country, but we are shaking over its rusting heritage.
    Well, we will repair Kuzya, to whom and what will we prove by this?
    Only that we have not forgotten how to throw money down the drain.
  • Angry Alt-Right
    Angry Alt-Right 22 March 2021 08: 56
    +6
    The country will have to wrap up all the troubles associated with Kuznetsov, alas, for some time. There will be no Kuznetsov, there will be no prospects for carrier-based aircraft.
    Then 2 planes crashed in Syria will seem like flowers, compared to the ability to work out at least something, at least on some aircraft carrier, and not stand on level ground for another ten or two years.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 22 March 2021 09: 16
      0
      It is unknown what to work out. This is really a perspective.
      1. Angry Alt-Right
        Angry Alt-Right 22 March 2021 11: 09
        +3
        Quote: EvilLion
        It is unknown what to work out. This is really a perspective.

        So you can talk about any teachings, for that matter! laughing
        And if it's no joke, then it's more about the availability of qualified personnel and the ability to reclaim it, or even due to this business, to scale the staff "not from scratch", because just a little, this "zero at the start" will be very expensive.
        Like the Chinese, we must not forget about the training component.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 22 March 2021 12: 53
          -1
          Exercises work out something specific, with "Kuzi" you can only work out flights from the deck. By itself, this skill matters only if there is at least some applicability of the aircraft carrier in general.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 22 March 2021 09: 15
    0
    Why Brazil's aircraft carrier? Thailand? Italy? Such, you know, highly conditional aircraft carriers, with eight aircraft on board.


    So that the admirals have positions.

    The only use for "Kuzi" is to take it to the raid, pour kerosene, load bombs, and inflict an air strike on it, and God forbid, if it happens, like the Japanese near Midway, when the last pilots from the group that entered the target, finally succeeded, already saw the blazing ships below.

    We will not lose absolutely nothing, but we will save trillions for sure, which can be spent on normal ships and aircraft.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 22 March 2021 09: 46
      +1
      You are wonderful).
  • APASUS
    APASUS 22 March 2021 09: 31
    +4
    A normal political order, they form an opinion about the Navy and Russia as a whole and separately. I would say that this is an order to denigrate our military-industrial complex, they say, they cannot even repair an aircraft carrier, and what kind of weapons can you buy then ........
  • Niko
    Niko 22 March 2021 09: 50
    +2
    Quote: tasha
    There are tasks.
    Alexander, in the next branch I'm trying to get from the sailors what tasks our aircraft carrier should perform. Maybe you can enlighten the landlord? It is desirable with specific examples, possible situations. Thank...

    Last week there was an excellent article, read a little more voluminous texts than comments and there will be a chance to understand
    1. tasha
      tasha 22 March 2021 10: 09
      +1
      Last week wink there were many different articles. What are we talking about?
      1. Niko
        Niko 22 March 2021 12: 19
        +3
        Andrey from Chelyabinsk "about the fleet that we need" I do not claim that this is TRUE, but the position is clear, logical, consistent and reasoned well
        1. tasha
          tasha 22 March 2021 12: 22
          +1
          "Alexander, in the next branch I am trying to get from the sailors what tasks our aircraft carrier should perform." When I write "the next branch" - I am just an article by Andrey hi
          1. Niko
            Niko 22 March 2021 13: 28
            +2
            I understand. But Andrey's logic seems to me quite reasonable. In addition, there is one more aspect: we need our "semi, or not yet, aircraft carrier" to at least try to keep the aircraft carrier as a class and, first of all, pilots and a school. and then, but you cannot give birth to specialists of all levels, from designers to pilots in one day, which is clearly seen in the example of the Japanese at the end of the war
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Niko
    Niko 22 March 2021 10: 22
    +3
    Another passage of Roman on this topic. This time, at the suggestion and for the sake of "this uncle," The courtier, who is not the smartest "uncle," mocks (and without going into particular analysis), and now the answer is ready: "break, break, obey, thank you for the hint "
  • Sergey Obraztsov
    Sergey Obraztsov 22 March 2021 10: 39
    +4
    Why does Moscow need this "junk"?

    So that the country does not completely lose its competence in this area until a replacement is built.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 22 March 2021 10: 53
    +1
    A, National Interest Pushkov.
    Found yourself an expert
  • Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 22 March 2021 11: 35
    +1
    Brazilian "Sao Paulo", by the way, is in a state that can compete with the state of "Admiral Kuznetsov". That is, not quite in combat.

    Roma did not bother to find out that "Sao Paulo" was decommissioned back in 2018.
  • Denis Rumyanny
    Denis Rumyanny 22 March 2021 11: 35
    -1
    Kuznetsov to us for science for the future. What happens when the Bear is dressed with flippers and a mask and allowed into the sea against sharks.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 22 March 2021 12: 12
    +3
    Perhaps it is needed as a "teaching aid"! If, nevertheless, aircraft carriers will be built in Russia in the "near" future, then during the construction of these it is possible to train the crews ... at least at the level of the "initial training course"! winked Again ... training of personnel, engineers for repair services of the fleet for "future" aircraft carriers ... "training" of shipbuilders for that very "future"!
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 22 March 2021 12: 48
    0
    Kak po mne Kuznecov ochen nuzhen no iskl. dla uderznania navikov i boeprigodnoy palubnoy aviacii i letchikov. Punktum.
  • iouris
    iouris 22 March 2021 12: 50
    0
    Duc, there is no other ...
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 15: 51
    -2
    everything was correctly written by the respected Roman Skomorokhov, all these aircraft carrier show-offs are stupid, it is better to sell it to India or China, where it will come in handy, they have billions of people and tasks and enough escort ships for an aircraft carrier ... -you need
    1. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 22 March 2021 22: 05
      -2


      everything was correctly written by the respected Roman Skomorokhov, all these aircraft carrier show-offs are stupid, it is better to sell it to India or China, where it will come in handy, they have billions of people and tasks and enough escort ships for an aircraft carrier ... -you need



      They wrote nonsense.

      Russia needs aircraft carriers to multiply the power of our naval groupings. An aircraft carrier and its carrier-based aircraft provide much more opportunities than just a KUG.

      And TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" is the first aircraft carrier of Russia from which we can use heavy Su-33 fighters, and everything that came before it could only be used by VTOL Yak-38.

      At the same time, there are also disadvantages of our TAVKR, which we eliminated in the following aircraft carriers, based on the experience of its use.

      With the help of aircraft carriers, for example, you can more effectively deploy your strategic submarine forces, more effectively search for enemy submarines, and more effectively defend and attack. Not everywhere will Russia have a ground airfield like in Syria.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 22: 10
        +1
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        the power of our ship groupings.

        where did you see them? don't you know that they are not there?
        1. Ratmir_Ryazan
          Ratmir_Ryazan 23 March 2021 10: 43
          -1
          where did you see them? don't you know that they are not there?


          What I know is that Russia has now launched into series frigates of project 22350, which are designed to work in the far sea zone, all the most modern weapons systems have been worked on them, and this year I expect the laying of the first destroyer of project 22350M, which will essentially be have the same weapons systems as the frigate, only with a large supply of damage.
          In a year or two, Russia will receive a prototype of Project 23560 in the face of the modernized cruiser Project 1144M "Admiral Nakhimov", its operation will give experience in the use of cruisers with URO and finally correct the image of future cruisers of Project 23560.
          UDC and BDK have already been laid and are under construction.
          A series of new multipurpose submarines pr.885M "Yasen-M" has also been put into production, I expect 2 nuclear submarines in service this year.
          So, for long-distance sea voyages, everything is being built here, and the aircraft carrier is the ship that is being built last, but for now the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVK will serve Russia and give additional experience in the operation of the aircraft carrier and carrier-based aircraft.
          For the defense of our coast, we build missile ships pr. 22800 "Karakurt" corvettes pr. 20380/20385, trawlers and diesel-electric submarines.
          And there will always be accidents, the same USA regularly crashes sometimes several planes per month and nothing, they do not refuse aviation or aircraft carriers.

          I see and know that Russia is developing its fleet, moreover, competently and thoughtfully, without strain, solving a bunch of problems. And Russia will also have aircraft carriers. 5 pieces are the very thing, two each for the Northern and Pacific Fleets + 1 reserve, to replace the one that was retired for repair.

          Russia is building a powerful shield on the sea and this makes me happy.

          But the West is annoying and seemingly skins, that's why they pour slop on our fleet in articles and comments.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 23 March 2021 14: 50
            0
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            What I know is that Russia has now launched into series frigates of project 22350
            at the moment, there are two of them, a couple is almost ready and 4 more have been started, based on the cyclical production of the Severnaya Verf, one ship per year can be expected, in total in 6 years there will be 8 of them, these are frigates of PLO, oceanic zone. The Russian Federation has 4 ports on the oceans requiring defense, that is, a couple of frigates per port, not a lot, even taking into account the corvettes ... despite the fact that by 2030, all 1155 8 copies will be scrapped, three 1164, a pair of 1135, one 956 and in general the entire Soviet fleet, that is, there will be only coastal defense frigates, corvettes and mrk, no more than there are now, there is no one to accompany your unnecessary aircraft carrier except the lonely Nakhimov by 2035, who has probably exhausted its entire resource, there are no new aircraft carriers and battleship destroyers money, there are not even plans and there is no point ...
            1. Ratmir_Ryazan
              Ratmir_Ryazan 23 March 2021 15: 08
              +1
              The frigate of project 22350 is a versatile ship that possesses both anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft defense and missile weapons of the Caliber / Onyx / Tsirkovo type.

              It is not necessary to take the construction of the lead and the first serial ship for the interval of possible construction times for ships of this series.

              Project 22350 is put on stream and the speed of their construction will naturally increase.

              Russia has reserves of 600 billion dollars, one frigate is worth 0,5 billion. So we can build as many of these frigates as needed.

              Corvettes are being built to defend their shores, and they are also very successful. And the frigate is a ship of the far sea zone. The outer frigates will have 32 cells for Caliber.

              This year, the first Russian destroyer, project 22350M, will be laid, there will be no such delays on it, since all systems are processed on frigates. And the series of these ships will also continue and the speed of construction will increase.

              And subsequently Russia enters the cruisers of Project 23560 and aircraft carriers.

              In the submarine fleet, too, everyone lined up in the correct structure - diesel-electric submarines for the defense of their shores, and for actions in the distance multipurpose pr.885M and strategists.

              And they also build large landing craft and UDC and minesweepers and support vessels. There is enough money and hands for everything. Problems arise and are solved.

              The Russian fleet builds and develops, and without prejudice to the economy and the well-being of the country's population.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 23 March 2021 15: 16
                0
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                In the submarine fleet, too, everyone lined up in the correct structure - diesel-electric submarines for the defense of their shores, and for actions in the distance multipurpose pr.885M and strategists.

                And they also build large landing craft and UDC and minesweepers and support vessels. There is enough money and hands for everything. Problems arise and are solved

                in the submarine fleet there is clearly not enough pace, submarines are piece by one or two per year and in this situation spending money on unnecessary destroyers and udk is a crime, a series of minesweepers for a couple a year did not come out, and they need up to a hundred so that you can just go out to sea ... I see that by 2030 the fleet will become better in its condition, in terms of the percentage of new ships, but ... it will become smaller and significantly two times, the time has come for the mass decommissioning of old ships, morally obsolete and technically, will probably have to be written off and that's it. that has not been floating for a long time ... even the large landing ships have already rained down massively, although it seemed to them that there would be no demolition
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 22: 11
        +1
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        heavy fighters Su-33

        yeah ... as many as three fighters ... cool!
        1. Ratmir_Ryazan
          Ratmir_Ryazan 23 March 2021 10: 52
          -1
          yeah ... as many as three fighters ... cool!


          It's cool that the TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" can carry up to 40 aircraft and helicopters. The same number as Britain's newest aircraft carriers such as Queen Elizabeth.

          In addition to the Su-33, the TAVKR also carries the MiG-29K.

          The TAVKRA air wing will be updated, most likely it will receive a naval version of the MiG-35.

          You just don't have to put the cart in front of the horse, everything goes on as usual. The aircraft carrier is being repaired, the MiG-35 is already in service, a new helicopter for the Navy is being done, and all this is in parallel with heaps of other projects of no less importance, from space to small arms.

          So, that is less whining.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 23 March 2021 14: 51
            0
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" can carry up to 40

            theory is, reality is different
            1. Ratmir_Ryazan
              Ratmir_Ryazan 23 March 2021 15: 12
              0
              In reality, there are no 40 fighters on the British aircraft carriers, so what?

              What are you talking about now about the ship or the planes?

              The TAVKR is being modernized and will be operational in 2022, by that time the deck version of the MiG-35 will be made or will begin to be made.

              The construction of an aircraft carrier and new aircraft does not burn, we are not in a hurry here, but we are not postponing either. And the pilots on the MiG-29K will also train on the Su-30/33.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 23 March 2021 15: 19
                +1
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                What are you talking about now about the ship or the planes?

                What's the point in this ship without planes? you are a happy person, a principled optimist, probably young, I’m just for you, but not all of the above will be
                1. Ratmir_Ryazan
                  Ratmir_Ryazan 24 March 2021 12: 21
                  0
                  Everything is already there and will be even better.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 16: 57
    +1
    Quote: Doccor18
    When somewhere there ... 200 miles from the designated zone, the enemy's AUG runs, it will be problematic to land ... It is very problematic.
    there is 22 km to Korsakov, isn't it easier to hit them all from the shore? than to "run forever" in the area of ​​200 miles
  • Alexey Koshkarov
    Alexey Koshkarov 22 March 2021 18: 25
    -1
    Since NATO is so concerned about the activities of our Kuzi, it means that he is like a bone in their throat to them. Let the sky smoke for evil to enemies
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 22 March 2021 22: 07
      +1
      Quote: Alexey Koshkarov
      NATO is so worried

      Why do you think so? where did you get this? I think they have been laughing at him for a long time and do not even hide
  • Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 22 March 2021 19: 51
    -1
    > But Russia does not have such tasks to be solved with the help of an aircraft carrier.
    Although I consider an aircraft carrier to be a weapon of imperialism, at least one is absolutely necessary. You never know what, to deploy as a mobile airfield off the coast of a friendly, but distant country. As a tangible reinforcement to any foreign base of the Russian Federation. As not only a status ship, but also a demonstrator of determination of intentions. As a convenient platform for a mass of promising, multi-tasking UAVs. And its operation is not so expensive in comparison with capital airfields.
    1. Viktor Afanasev
      Viktor Afanasev 23 March 2021 02: 19
      -1
      You forget that an aircraft carrier is a powerful means of fighting enemy submarines and ships at a short distance, for example, in the Norwegian Sea, where our fighters cannot fly, and reconnaissance and search aircraft cannot cruise for a long time, because they "scratch" a thousand or more kilometers to the airfield ... And there are no refueling stations at sea (except for the aircraft carrier)
      And how long can they stay there in search of submarines?
      Namely, in the Norwegian Sea, Mediterranean and other seas that are not so remote, but hard-to-reach for the permanent operation of our aviation, there are convenient positions of unfriendly submarines for firing at us with tomahawks and ballistic ...
      And how to use modern missiles with a range of 300-600 km if the frigate's radar sees only 100-150 km? Shoot into the void?
      And 2-3 modern fighters will sink any NATO destroyer / cruiser / frigate.

  • Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 22 March 2021 21: 53
    -1
    TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" is a very lucky ship !!! And this is what infuriates Americans.

    He managed to escape from the clutches of Bandera in the early 90s;

    Survive the 90s and prove that he is capable of accepting and operating even heavy Su-33 fighters;

    TAVKR went on campaigns and took part in a military operation in Syria, where its capabilities were tested and weaknesses were identified.

    As a result of this operation, the command of the fleet and the leadership of Russia decided to modernize and repair the TAVKR.

    As for the use of an aircraft carrier, everything is simple and logical, it is needed where Russia will not have the opportunity to use a ground airfield like in Syria. Not everywhere we will be invited to visit and provide the infrastructure for our aircraft.

    And the planes are also falling on American aircraft carriers, not so long ago their UDC burned to the ground during repairs.

    The experience of using the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR will give Russia experience and an idea of ​​which version of the new aircraft carrier will be optimal.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 22: 51
      +1
      Interesting point of view, by the way laughing

      In the course of a future war, Kuzya will be beaten and beaten, but they will not be finished.
    2. Overlock
      Overlock 23 March 2021 00: 51
      +20
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      The experience of using the TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" will give Russia experience and an idea of ​​...

      ... how not to operate ships of this class and that a miser pays twice
      1. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan 23 March 2021 10: 58
        -1
        ... how not to operate ships of this class and that a miser pays twice


        Can you tell us how it should be ?! Otherwise, they don't know what to do with an aircraft carrier without your opinion and cannot decide on the final cloud of future Russian aircraft carriers.

        But seriously, don't talk nonsense!

        The TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" is in no way inferior to the modern aircraft carriers of Britain of the "Queen Elizabeth" type.

        After the repair, he will receive a new wing, but for now the pilots are training on what is and on what is fighting !!!

        So don't whine.
  • clerk
    clerk 22 March 2021 22: 51
    0
    The first article by Skomorokhov, with which I agree in principle.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 22 March 2021 23: 24
      -1
      How lovely. laughing
  • Motorist
    Motorist 22 March 2021 23: 24
    0
    Although the fire was not serious, it caused huge damage in the amount of $ 1-1,5 billion.

    Are the numbers from the same secret source of Kommersant?

    https://topwar.ru/165912-v-kommersante-zajavili-ob-uscherbe-ot-pozhara-na-admirale-kuznecove-v-95-mlrd-rublej.html
  • SiberianGun
    SiberianGun 22 March 2021 23: 34
    0
    Something from the category "Why Russia is not America." The ship is not needed, it eats a lot of money, but let it be. Or maybe Russia has its own vision of Kuznetsov's future?
    The author writes that the ground air group has shown itself to be more effective. The problem is that the range of the ground constellation is very limited. And suddenly there will be a conflict somewhere off the coast of Africa. Kuznetsov's premise will obviously be justified. Better at least such cut-off air support than none.
    In addition, retention of competencies is an important aspect. The practice of using is a great thing! It can be very helpful when designing a new aircraft carrier. Certain skills of the personnel are also preserved, methods of use are being developed.
    Therefore, it is very unlikely that everything is so aimless and bad with Kuznetsov. After all, they are not fools at the headquarters of the fleet ...
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 22 March 2021 23: 38
    +1
    Never in my life will I believe that everything that happened over the past few years with Kuzya is a banal coincidence. I am sure that this is all sabotage. It's like lightning striking at one point, a point called TARKR Admiral Kuznetsov.
  • Diverter
    Diverter 23 March 2021 00: 09
    +1
    To withdraw the marines from the Navy. Equalize it in status and unite with the Airborne Forces. By thus creating a FORWARDING FORCE. Submit to them all the large landing ships, as well as Kuzya with his air regiment.
    Tasks:
    In peacetime, this is participation in the MC.
    All sorts of Syria on the planet.
    Demonstration of the flag.
    In the military by profession.
    1. Overlock
      Overlock 23 March 2021 00: 52
      +23
      Quote: Saboteur
      By thus creating a FORWARDING FORCE.

      Where will we send the expedition? To the Bahamas or Seychelles?
      1. Diverter
        Diverter 24 March 2021 21: 37
        0
        for "tankers", we personally repeat: Syria, Venezuela, Libya are what they are now. In the near future, it is possible: Nicaragua, Cuba, Algeria, Egypt.
  • Viktor Afanasev
    Viktor Afanasev 23 March 2021 02: 04
    -1
    There are no absolutely perfect ships and never will be.
    And Kuzya is our only aircraft carrier!
    Let with the problems. We need to study them, try to get rid of them with repairs, technical solutions ... Which is being done, however, with difficulty ... Either finance, then Doc ...
    But without it, the aircraft carrier component in the complex will be lost, this is not just a ship ...
    Hold on to TAVKR !!! good
  • stels_07
    stels_07 23 March 2021 11: 29
    0
    For whom the junk, and for whom the flagship.
  • Basarev
    Basarev 23 March 2021 12: 21
    +1
    The aircraft carrier is needed at least as a simulator. It is impossible to train a pilot with a single thread, you need a ship to learn all the subtleties of naval aviation.
  • TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 23 March 2021 14: 37
    +1
    All spending on Kuzya must be accompanied by overseers from the FSB, the Tax Office and the president himself. Otherwise, it is not an aircraft-carrying cruiser, but a black hole cut.
  • Starshina
    Starshina 23 March 2021 19: 41
    +1
    Yes, Kuznetsov could have entered the ranks a long time ago if it were not for the corruption appetites of our officials and admirals, as well as if it were not for the terrible organization of labor at repair shipyards and factories and the lack of weakness and handshake of the leadership !!! For such crimes in Stalin's times they were simply shot at the gates of the plant !!! But they were lucky - this time is Putin's time when all crimes are forgiven to the authorities and they use it very well !!! Therefore, this mess will continue because it is beneficial to today's leadership !!!
  • Rlptrt
    Rlptrt 23 March 2021 20: 40
    +1
    I read to the end and at the last phrase I understood * the competence of the author:
    "Today, fortunately, there are no missions in the oceans for which our country would have required the presence of an aircraft carrier. And in general, this is even wonderful."
    There is nothing to talk about.
  • malyvalv
    malyvalv 25 March 2021 15: 33
    -1
    Well, for example, there is a task in the event of a large-scale conflict to prevent the transfer of American forces from the United States to Europe. It is impossible to do this now. But with Kuzya and the modernized Petya and Nakhimov it is quite.
  • Time traveller
    Time traveller 25 March 2021 19: 53
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    In fact, this aircraft carrier was conceived not to combat enemy submarines, but as the first echelon of the country's air defense ...
    I will even say more - in the future, too, such tasks are not foreseen ...

    In Syria, he went to strengthen air defense, or rather, missile defense. It was then that attacks by American CDs from nuclear submarines, destroyers and aircraft from bases in Italy and Germany became more frequent. And it was then that Putin said that if the CD hit Russian bases, the Russians would respond to the carriers.
  • Starshina
    Starshina 25 March 2021 21: 37
    +1
    Excuses by the author of the type itself are not counted !!! Admiral Kuznetsov --- this is really a shame of the Russian Navy --- but not the ship itself, but its bosses and officials and admirals who have lit up impressive incompetence and illiteracy around the ship, as well as corruption and theft for which no one is in any way responsible !!! It's not only about the stolen money, but about the terrible and disregarding attitude to the repair of the ship --- which can not be called anything but sabotage !!!
  • andrew42
    andrew42 31 March 2021 14: 09
    0
    Five hundred copies were broken around poor Kuzi. The fact that NEW aircraft carrier ships (TAVKR or a full-fledged Avik) are needed AFTER everything else is as clear as daylight. It is necessary to consistently "go" to the far ocean zone from the near zone, and not vice versa - to swoop into the nettles with a bare bottom. And frank nonsense about the use of aircraft carriers "to protect the coast and bases" is time to bury it under the concrete. But! as Abdullah said, "A dagger is good for someone who has it. And bad for someone who does not have it at the right time." Therefore, Kuzya must be protected as long as he can walk. Otherwise, as a voiceover in a famous movie said, "you will be left without a car." If we return socialism to Russia, there will be an economy and 2-3 avics. We will not return, - Kuzya will have to be held until his last breath.