Military Review

Aviation as the main striking force of the Russian fleet

190

To be or not to be the fleet Russia? What place does it occupy in the formation of the defense capability of the Federation? Finally, what should our fleet be like?


The problems associated with the protection of our sea borders and shores are not diminishing - and, accordingly, the discussion devoted to this is growing more and more extensively and sharply from year to year.

Past publication caused a positive response from the majority of those who got acquainted. However, during the discussion, many commentators could not come to an agreement.

In which, of course, there is also my author's miscalculation - unfortunately, it is impossible to try to cover such a large-scale topic as naval construction with just one small article. However, we can at least slightly rectify the situation by examining in more detail the most interesting questions that arose during the ongoing dispute.

It is worth warning that I will deliberately avoid any complications of the material in the form of, for example, comparisons and enumerations of the technical and tactical characteristics of a particular type of weapon. So that the text is understandable and accessible to as many readers as possible.

A series of articles devoted to the discussion of Russian naval development:

Does Russia need a strong fleet?
A blow against reality or about the fleet, Tu-160 and the cost of human error
About the fleet that we need
Russian Navy - Execution Cannot Be Pardoned?


The first question


Question # 1: focusing on marine Aviation, isn't the author talking about the liquidation of the surface and submarine fleet?

Of course not - we are talking about strengthening the combat capabilities of the fleet by the available methods and means at the current time. And by no means about its even greater weakening and destruction.

For the effective defense of the sea space, it is vital for us both to maintain the current ship composition and to slowly increase it in accordance with the needs. The problem is that even in this case, our Navy will have extremely limited resources even in matters of protecting their native shores.

A sharp increase in the volume of construction of surface ships does not carry military and economic expediency: following this path, we will lose a lot of funds. But at the same time (more than likely) we will not be able to ensure parity even with the fleets of regional opponents. Moreover, this will in no way affect the "chronic" difficulties faced by national naval development, such as the geographic remoteness of theaters of operations, and the lack of adequate infrastructure for servicing, repairing and basing a large number of ships.

Conclusion: We need a navy, but only naval aviation, with its mobility, firepower and vast capabilities, can provide a proper solution to all current problems.


The multipurpose Su-30SM can serve as an excellent basis for the tactical aviation of the fleet - and they are already being purchased. Photo source: aex.ru

The second question


Question number 2: why planes? Is aviation less complex and technologically advanced? Why not bet on the construction of ships?

Unfortunately, it just so happened that the capabilities of our ship and aviation industries are simply incomparable. Moreover, aircraft construction is receiving a much higher state priority. And, accordingly, it has enough funds, ready-made projects, specialists and industrial capacities.

Suffice it to say that the total area of ​​the plants of the United Aircraft Corporation is 43 million square meters. m. (For example, the total area of ​​Boeing factories is 13 million square meters with the production of about 800 aircraft per year). I think everyone understands the potential lies in these numbers.

Our aviation industry can easily ensure the production of a large series of multipurpose fighter-bombers. At the same time, shipyards can hardly cope with the construction of even such small warships, such as corvettes.

If we talk about "work for the future", then here, too, aviation is one step ahead: in the field of aircraft construction, we have much more projects that are close to the start of serial production and can really strengthen the defense potential of Russia.

Of course, things are not going smoothly in the aviation industry either.

The volume of orders and the number of cars produced per year can be described as extremely modest. For years, the UAC has been “torturing out” transport and passenger aircraft, which are extremely important for the country, constantly postponing the dates for launching production. But, nevertheless, this is a ready-to-go structure that can really fulfill a large defense order without the additional infusion of funds that our shipbuilding industry requires.

Conclusion: military construction is primarily based on the industrial and economic capabilities of the country. In our case, the circumstances are such that the most practical and logical way out is the development of aviation. Russia has excellent potential to create several air divisions within five to seven years.

Third question


Question # 3: Why do we need to develop onshore infrastructure? Why not build one aircraft carrier instead of three or four airfields?

The topic of carrier-based aircraft is, of course, the cornerstone of any discussion concerning our fleet.

Yes, the aircraft carrier is extremely formidable and multifunctional weapon... But at the moment we do not have the infrastructure for the operation of such a ship. There is no adequate battle group (including supply ships). The technical possibilities of creating such a vessel in Russia are also unclear: there are no catapults, there is no carrier-based AWACS aircraft, there are questions regarding the power plant. And, in the end, the manning of the air group.

We also have more prosaic reasons: there is no experience in the operation and combat use of such ships, and, accordingly, the concept according to which it should be built. The place of the aircraft carrier in our national naval strategy is unclear. There are no personnel to staff it.

Is it possible to solve the listed problems?

Of course yes.

The only question is how many decades and money it will take. And also in the extent to which one or two ships of this class (we cannot afford to launch a large series even in our wildest dreams) will ultimately be able to strengthen our defenses.


The best project for a promising aircraft carrier for our country. Photo source: dw.com

Ground airfields, however, fully meet our requirements: they are feasible for the country, both economically and technically. They have greater combat stability (you need to make a lot of efforts and resources to completely disable the airfield, equipped with the latest engineering ideas). Fits into the current realities of our military strategy. And they are a long-term government investment.

In addition, the so-called "sponge effect" (one of the favorite topics in the discussions of American strategists) should never be swept aside - by developing ground infrastructure, we somehow create priority targets for the enemy that he simply cannot ignore when planning an attack.

This predetermines the potential moves of the enemy. He is forced to act in a way that is obvious to us. Losing the offensive impulse and surprise effect. Expending serious resources. And, accordingly, incurring losses. In an attempt to deprive us of a couple of conditional air bases covered by echeloned air defense. (Let's assume that in this scenario the enemy still has the ability to attack us exclusively from the air).

The aircraft carrier, of course, will also become a similar priority target.

But how long will it last?

Moreover, taking into account the current realities, when we do not have a decent escort for him?

This is a big question.

And it (in contrast to the ground runway and related structures) cannot be restored in case of destruction.

I will repeat one of the phrases of the previous article.

"For all its shipbuilding power, China does not hesitate to develop coastal defense."

This is doubly relevant for us.

Unlike the PRC, we have several potential theaters of war. And our industrial and economic opportunities are limited. In such conditions, it is critically important to develop precisely the ground military infrastructure. In particular, on the islands belonging to our country (for example, the Kuril Islands).

Such a strategy contributes to both increasing the capabilities of our naval aviation and the creation of defensive lines extended and removed from the continental coastline. Briefly considering a similar situation with an illustrative example, we can return to the already mentioned Kuril Islands, which de facto make it possible to create an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" next to one of our potential adversaries - Japan.

Of course, a potential aggressor will not be able to ignore such a threat - one way or another, but in the event of a conflict
"For the return of the original Japanese territories", the islands will become his primary military goal.

In addition, Japan will be within the range of our tactical aviation, as well as within the range of destruction of cruise and quasi-ballistic missiles.

Of course, not a single carrier strike group will be able to ensure the formation of a positional area of ​​this kind. Of course, if it exists, the AUG can significantly enhance the capabilities of the first echelon of defense in the form of the above-mentioned islands, but in no way replace them.

And this, however, is absolutely not learned by us experience of strategic planning of the United States, which has 11 aircraft carriers, but is actively developing ground infrastructure. Including a network of air bases, radar stations, interceptor missile bases, etc.

Conclusion: ground infrastructure is of paramount importance even in naval construction. When planning the creation of a powerful ocean-going fleet in the long term, it is necessary in the short and medium term to provide a powerful echeloned defense of the coast, whenever possible trying to place positional areas in dangerous proximity to a potential enemy.

Aviation as the main striking force of the Russian fleet
The Americans are not trying to replace the airbases with aircraft carriers. Why do our experts talk about this so often? Photo source: geopolitica.ru

Fourth question


Question number 4: what types of aircraft do we need? Why did the author mention exclusively tactical aviation?

To be honest, the mention of exclusively tactical aviation was not malicious. Unfortunately, in the last article I got the main message a little wrong. However, we have the opportunity to fix this: it was about construction multipurpose naval aviation.

Of course, a proposal of this kind carries a lot of difficulties: scientific and technical, engineering, economic, industrial, etc. This is due to the lack of a number of types of aircraft vital for the country, some of which have been tested for many years or are under development.

For the needs of naval aviation, in essence, all the same types of machines are required as for the aerospace forces - both produced and promising.

1. Multipurpose fighter-bombers as a universal basis for recruiting strike regiments of naval aviation.

2. Reconnaissance and strike unmanned aerial vehicles of medium and long range for the needs of patrol aircraft, constant reconnaissance and monitoring of the country's maritime borders, target designation, the fight against the "mosquito" fleet and assault operations against a hypothetical enemy landing.

3. AWACS aircraft... (They may not need clarification, but I will give them). In the modern world, it is almost impossible to conduct hostilities without adequate coverage of the air situation. AWACS aircraft make it possible to ensure enemy detection at distant lines, issue target designation and direct an air battle, receiving all the necessary information in real time.

4. Transport aircraft of all types are necessary both in peacetime and in wartime to supply remote bases and garrisons, to quickly transfer personnel and materiel in a threatened period.

5. Medium-haul narrow-body vehicles for the needs of patrol, anti-submarine and special aviation is a sore point not only for military transport, but also for civil aviation. The functionality is clear from the names of aircraft types - surface and air situation lighting, search for submarines and fight against submarines, target designation, electronic warfare, mine laying, etc.

6. Tanker aircraft Is an equally acute issue for our armed forces at the current time. It is also impossible to stutter about some kind of naval construction (even as practical and sparing as we are talking about, and even more so about some large-scale programs for creating an ocean-going fleet) without having a fleet of tanker aircraft. Without these vehicles, the range of our aviation is reduced to a minimum, and all air operations will be limited to an area of ​​400-600 km.

7. Carriers of operational-tactical cruise missiles - this type of aircraft can be postponed for the medium term. If necessary? Probably not. However, at the moment we do not have suitable projects for long-range missile carriers (PAK DA is most likely not suitable for these purposes - most likely, it is an analogue of the Tu-160M: it cannot strike at surface targets and has a high production cost).

Perhaps, in this regard, as an "ersatz" the country could consider the American concept of an "arsenal aircraft" - heavy transport aircraft equipped to carry and launch cruise missiles using external guidance and target designation.

8. Multipurpose helicopters with modular equipment (conceptual analogues of the American SH-60 Seahawk), capable of landing troops, evacuating the wounded, serving as carriers of anti-ship missiles, conducting rescue operations, fighting submarines, etc.

If we are talking about short-term prospects, then already now we could completely cover the needs for tactical aviation. Partially - in medium-range UAVs, transport aircraft, tanker aircraft. With due diligence - in "arsenals" planes, helicopters and AWACS vehicles (at least, launch the A-50 modernization program).

Considering that the country has a fleet of aircraft on storage, such prospects look much more real than the construction of nuclear destroyers and aircraft carriers. Funds for this can be found both in the optimization of the current ship composition, and in the reduction of illiquid naval programs (creation of various kinds of "superweapons" that sailors are trying to give themselves importance in the ranks of the Armed Forces, costly and useless "rocket boats", meaningless R&D dedicated to creation of a bloated surface fleet, inappropriate repairs and upgrades of ships like "Admiral Kuznetsov", which serve exclusively as elements of state prestige).

Conclusion: we can already start building naval aviation, having all the necessary funds and capabilities for this. We cannot (and it is time to admit it) an analogue of the Reagan "Program 600" (an initiative of the US Navy in the early 1980s, which provided for the forced construction of a fleet of six hundred ships), but we are capable of forming, recruiting and supporting several naval air divisions capable of providing a multiple increase in our defensive capabilities.


The Arsenal aircraft C-17A Globemaster III with AGM-158 cruise missiles is a potentially interesting project for Russia as well. Photo source: thedrive.com

Fifth question


Question # 5: Why are we considering a concept that drives us into purely defensive combat?

I think it is worth starting to consider this issue with the fact that at the moment our sea borders are de facto bare - and, I hope, no one will argue with the fact that our current "thin" ship composition is unlikely to be able to oppose something even to regional rivals. The defense capability of our country in this area is not supported by missile cruisers and nuclear destroyers, but by means much more "mundane", such as coastal missile systems and ground-based radar detection stations.

The proposed concept is one of the options for enhancing military power in a short time and with affordable means. It allows us to solve the problem of transferring forces from one theater of potential bases to another (accordingly, strengthening our groupings in threatened directions), to increase the functionality of the naval forces, to remove the excess load from the Aerospace Forces, which are currently forced to cover the Navy.

Moreover, as mentioned above, China and even the United States are engaged in the development of their defensive capabilities - and in fact they have a huge ship composition. Why, then, are we trying to talk about some obscure wars with the Japanese merchant fleet in the Persian Gulf and naval battles, if we obviously do not have the proper protection and control of our native shores?

However, not everything is as simple as it seems.

In confined waters, even such a purely defensive weapon as a DBK can become the most offensive. Naturally, in the presence of target designation.

And what about combat aircraft?

Having a powerful multipurpose naval aviation, you can act aggressively. And to set before the fleet even such daring tasks as blocking the Danish straits, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, to strike directly at the enemy's territory with conventional weapons, as was discussed above with the example of Japan.

Aircraft will be of exceptional value, both in a regional conflict and in a hypothetical large-scale war. (This is at least a reserve in the form of operating airfields, hundreds of vehicles, trained and experienced personnel, stocks of precision weapons, spare parts depots, etc.). And expediency of this kind is one of the main reasons for the disputes over the need for a fleet in modern Russia.

No, naval aviation is not exclusively about defense. And first of all, about practicality, mobility and an adequate response to all potential threats.

Separately, it should be said that the creation of such a structure in the ranks of the Armed Forces will help to reform the fleet, creating an "expeditionary" force to promote Russian foreign policy far from the borders of our country. Naturally, we are talking about operational-tactical tasks adequate to our capabilities, and not about the attack of San Francisco after the battle with a couple of AUGs.

Conclusion


Of course, the approach I have described will not find a response among the adherents of the concept of the classical construction of naval power. However, I think its expediency is understandable for a wide range of readers.

In the short term, only naval aviation can cover all the needs of the fleet, both in defensive and offensive means. Providing serious groundwork for both local and large-scale conflicts.

Moreover, this is an accessible way for us to develop naval capabilities, which is adequately correlated with the economic, technical and industrial potential of the country.
Author:
190 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. iouris
    iouris 25 March 2021 05: 20
    -4
    The ground forces are unable to conduct major operations on land. Aviation is not capable of carrying out major operations in the air. The fleet is not capable of carrying out major operations at sea. But "aviation is the main striking force of the fleet."
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 25 March 2021 06: 10
      +24
      Suffice it to say that the total area of ​​the plants of the United Aircraft Corporation is 43 million square meters. m. (For example, the total area of ​​Boeing factories is 13 million square meters with the production of about 800 aircraft per year). I think everyone understands the potential lies in these numbers.
      The same as in the vast area of ​​our country, in comparison with China, for example? The point is that from the area if there are fewer people and the policy is indistinct, to put it mildly. With production areas (if this is still all production area), the situation is about the same.


      This is not a C-17, this is some kind of mod. B-52, dear author.
      1. Anzhey V.
        25 March 2021 10: 02
        +7
        This is not a C-17, this is some kind of mod. B-52, dear author.


        Thank you, Vladimir!

        I did not pay attention to the fact that I attached the wrong photo. I will try to correct my mistake.
        1. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 25 March 2021 11: 32
          +2
          Quote: Anjay V.
          This is not a C-17, this is some kind of mod. B-52, dear author.


          Thank you, Vladimir!

          I did not pay attention to the fact that I attached the wrong photo. I will try to correct my mistake.

      2. mmaxx
        mmaxx 25 March 2021 19: 17
        +1
        It is pointless to compare areas directly. In our factories, the entire airframe is done and the final assembly and testing is done too. And for Boeing and Airbus a lot of components are made by third-party suppliers. Even, over there, in Russia. You drive into some village in Europe, and there is a small factory for 2 hefty CNC machines, plus several machines for some related operations and a measuring machine. Make panels for which aircraft. But this is not a firm, but a supplier.
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 25 March 2021 21: 26
          +2
          You drive into some village in Europe, and there is a small factory for 2 hefty CNC machines, plus several machines for some related operations and a measuring machine.
          In Germany and Austria, I have long seen something similar at a private contractor ..., to the question to the owner of "this workshop", what is this ... all for !? Answer: ... we do "small things", such as polymer panels, some ... I don't remember everything from a short conversation with him ..., for the cabins of medium-range aircraft versions, for Airbus ... -that fastenings made of carbon composites, only 15 people in the company, including the entire administration, and even the cleaner of the production premises and warehouse of finished products, a small hangar and a one-story office, and all machines with maximum computer equipment, up to a heap of laser cutters for "cutting high-precision "on digital patterns ..., plus a 3D printer and then a module of an oven for high-temperature sintering - additive technologies, on the face!
          1. El Barto
            El Barto 26 March 2021 13: 02
            0
            Bullshit. With the aviation industry regulated by a huge number of safety regulations, not a single small private contactor will receive permission to produce at least something constructively important for an aircraft. Unless there are napkins or some other shells for the cockpit.
            You will also say that private contractors operate aircraft on which they carry hulls of aircraft under construction from Hamburg to Toulouse
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 26 March 2021 18: 39
              0
              They bring their production to the customer's requirements (Airbus or Boeing) and do it. All.
              You just need to understand the general development of those countries. Population density, economic stability, logistics, predictable workload of aviation companies.
              Now do the same with us. Yes, not a single private trader will invest. For example, what is close to me. Parts, for example, from aluminum alloys or titanium, made on CNC machines. Well, who will put a plant with several machines, not knowing what load it will have? Even a madman will not. One small machine with equipment, tools, room - 3 euros. Clean money. And then there are the dirty ones ... And if you also recall 223-FZ, according to which anyone can win a tender for production and disrupt the production of an aircraft, then no plant will get involved with this outsourcing. It's big. I don't even want to describe minor problems. Unfortunately, in general, in terms of the general organization of production, we are not yet where we would like.
              And all sorts of contractors, including small ones, carry components to Hamburg. And there already for the final assembly in Toulouse. There is no problem to carry around Europe, whatever. If the wing is being transported by plane from England, then there are a bunch of components that easily fit into any wagon. They ride all over the world, even from China.
            2. Mikhail Ya2
              Mikhail Ya2 11 June 2021 08: 15
              0
              Not bullshit. Such a plant receives an ISO certificate, I don't remember the number, which confirms that it meets all the standards for the production of components for the aviation industry. And such a certificate must be confirmed every year. In addition, a larger contractor conducts annual inspections in production, otherwise he will not receive a similar ISO certificate.
        2. Barberry25
          Barberry25 26 March 2021 18: 22
          0
          An important point in needs and opportunities ... even if now add 40-50 billion additionally into production in addition to the cost of ships, then shipyards will be able to issue an additional 1-2 MRK / IPC + 1 corvette and 1 frigate ... which in fact will not be be of greater importance, but aircraft manufacturers, on the one hand, can make 12-16 aircraft per year and at the same time have a reserve for the deployment of production ... Well, in general, you need to work on the topic of UAVs
      3. Intruder
        Intruder 25 March 2021 21: 13
        +1
        I agree with you, Vladimir! Leaving our dispute in another topic (about 152 mm, with SBCH), one does not interfere with the other !? drinks
      4. Karl Ivanovich
        Karl Ivanovich 28 March 2021 14: 50
        +1
        The area of ​​factories means more development potential and "knowledge of life".
        Those.
        1 on empty areas, you can build the necessary workshops - there would be a task and funding.
        2 during the Great Patriotic War, it turned out that factories that were densely built on the American model are extremely vulnerable to air strikes: each bomb either destroys an object with a direct hit, or damages several objects at once with a shock wave or shrapnel.
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 25 March 2021 06: 55
      +7
      Quote: iouris
      But "aviation is the main striking force of the fleet."

      which the Danish Straits can "block" ...
      1. Machito
        Machito 25 March 2021 08: 15
        +5
        Quote: Doccor18
        Quote: iouris
        But "aviation is the main striking force of the fleet."

        which the Danish Straits can "block" ...

        The main striking force of the fleet is the SSBN.
        Naval aviation is the air component of the fleet. When coastal, aviation covers the BMZ security from the air. Naval aviation needs its own aircraft, which are not part of the Aerospace Forces, with their own performance characteristics. Naval aviation cannot be built quickly, because now it is practically nonexistent. The military school of naval aviation must be re-created. There is practically no anti-submarine aviation. The author has the wrong message. You cannot create naval aviation quickly and cheaply, and it will not be able to solve the whole range of tasks even for the protection of BMZ. Naval aviation must be developed in an integrated manner together with the surface and submarine fleets.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 25 March 2021 09: 33
          -5
          our "assets" (including the factories of the aligarhs) are located in the XXX regions and they need to be protected - this is from Moscow to Krasnoyarsk. where are the seas?
          - the protection of the southern borders for 2 tons km with a margin - this is the control of the Caucasus and SrAsia (up to friends in India)
          - where is the sea?

          - the perseverance of the military in the confrontation with NATO is understandable. I think that (in vain) -war this will not happen. We will be pulled on trifles from all directions.
          --- in pt how to protect the poison centers (and Krasnoyarsk)?
          ---- cover the transport (empty steppes) from Moscow (or the Baltic and Black Sea) to the Pacific Ocean - how many С400 and -500 should be delivered?
          - Is AB in Krasnoyarsk needed?
          --- protection of Zap Sib oil and Taimyr - need AV? - from the south, nomads will come to Tumen by buggy
          lobbyists work, no names
          1. Ryusey
            Ryusey 26 March 2021 07: 05
            -3
            You are absolutely right, your family does not need protection.
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 26 March 2021 07: 56
              -2
              if they introduce registration with a passport, then we will see real profiles of military and military-industrial complex lobbyists.

              AV-ts will build very quickly - if the oligarchs want - this is no joke - and they will not build for a very long time - until they ask to protect their "assets", and your theory about protecting some kind of family does not work.
              FOR THE 117TH TIME - FIRST (to protect the family) - SOUTH STEPPES AND DESERT. THE HORDE WILL COME FROM THERE, AND IT'S NOT A CLASSICAL ARMY: Air Defense, Aerospace Forces, AND IMPACT AVIATION 5 ++ AND 32 TANKS WITH KAZ, A SET OF FORCES FOR LOW-INTENSITY ACTIONS ON HUGE SPACES - I hope the southern border of Vladivostok from Bryansk and to China that space is its border)
              The goal of the west is to make money on the conditions of the west - to destroy a very armed adversary, the Russian Federation, does not work. And they can impose a compromise for their pleasure
              1. El Barto
                El Barto 26 March 2021 13: 05
                0
                Heh heh heh. The military has long been forbidden to discuss any nonsense in entornets
                1. antivirus
                  antivirus 26 March 2021 13: 40
                  0
                  I'm talking about "near-war" propagandists, journalists and retirees. who blabs what is their problem. or the FSB. but the line is clearly visible - Doctor, give more weapons and equipment, but more, more "
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 25 March 2021 13: 38
          -2
          Quote: Bearded
          The main striking force of the fleet is the SSBN.

          This is unambiguous, which means that they need to be improved first of all, both technically and organizationally.
          Quote: Bearded
          Naval aviation needs its own aircraft, which are not part of the Aerospace Forces, with their own performance characteristics.

          This is a very controversial question, and given that the aircraft of the Aerospace Forces safely fly over the coastal seas and have the ability to suspend missiles with different ranges, then what is the point of creating specialized naval aircraft if it is easier to hang anti-ship missiles on the aerospace aircraft? There is only one problem here - in the operational control of the Aerospace Forces aircraft from the side of the fleet headquarters, but this is not so much a technical issue as an organizational one, and it can be solved.

          Quote: Bearded
          Naval aviation must be developed in an integrated manner together with the surface and submarine fleets.

          Of course, you can't argue with this, only as far as I understand, the naval ones are now in great thought which component of the fleet to develop in the first place, how to build coastal service in different fleets, and what tasks they will be assigned in the future. For example, now the Northern Fleet will become a district and it will be charged with many tasks that were not previously characteristic of them. I think something similar should happen with the Pacific Fleet, which should also turn into a district, with new tasks, including the protection of the land territory in the Far East. But these are just my assumptions, which may not correspond to the real intentions of the naval commanders.
      2. Anzhey V.
        25 March 2021 10: 32
        0
        which the Danish Straits can "block" ...


        Excuse me, why do you think this is impossible?

        Can't the joint actions of the ships of the Baltic Fleet and aviation in theory ensure air superiority, the clearing of the water area from enemy NKs and submarines, and the further blockade of the Danish Straits?

        Of course, airplanes are not a thing in themselves and cannot ensure the fulfillment of such a combat mission solely on their own - but after all, it seems, we haven’t taken away the fleet from the reasoning?
        1. Machito
          Machito 25 March 2021 10: 49
          +1
          Article plus. I hope that your polemic with the VO naval commanders Klimov and Timokhin will encourage them to publish new articles.
          Naval aviation is a very important component of the fleet. But now it practically does not exist, it needs to be restored almost from scratch. And it's not cheap at all, especially considering what is happening in the aircraft industry now. For naval aviation, "sea" aircraft are needed, not land ones.
        2. Doccor18
          Doccor18 25 March 2021 10: 51
          +6
          Quote: Anjay V.
          Can't the joint actions of the ships of the Baltic Fleet and aviation in theory ensure air superiority, the clearing of the water area from enemy NKs and submarines, and the further blockade of the Danish Straits?

          This is unrealistic. Air superiority of the IA Navy over all NATO air forces in Europe?
          And how will we "clean up" the water area from enemy submarines?
          1. Anzhey V.
            25 March 2021 11: 28
            0
            Excuse me, where did the videoconferencing go? Landlords?

            If we consider hostilities outside the framework of the general system, which is the armed forces, then 11 American aircraft carriers can be immediately written off without any battle.

            In the event of the outbreak of hostilities in Europe, most of the NATO aircraft will operate against our ground forces.

            But what we can single out for the war in the Baltic in such a situation is an open question, and I propose an answer to it.

            And how will we "clean up" the water area from enemy submarines?


            We have not yet drunk our diesel engines, and we have PLO aviation in the considered variant.

            Under the Union, no fools were sitting in the headquarters, and the Red Banner Baltic Fleet in case of war was supposed to ensure control of the Danish Straits, coupled with the landing of troops on the enemy's flanks. We need to strive for a similar goal, albeit with different forces and means.

            And without aviation, you will drive at least ten missile cruisers to the Baltic, there will be no sense.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 25 March 2021 12: 21
              +3
              Quote: Anjay V.
              Excuse me, where did the videoconferencing go? Landlords?

              If we consider a big war between NATO and Russia, then the Danish Straits will be of the least interest to our General Staff ...
              ... most of the NATO air force will operate against our ground forces

              It will act against the Air Force / Air Defense and Strategic Missile Forces, and last but not least against the ground forces.
              We have not yet drunk our diesels, and the PLO aviation too.

              "Dieselukh" is catastrophically small, and the fact that there is will be extremely difficult to butt with the newest nuclear submarines with VNEU. And our ASW aviation (which practically does not exist) in the Baltic will be opposed by the same NATO tactical aviation.
              Under the Union ... the Red Banner Baltic Fleet in case of war was supposed to ensure control of the Danish Straits, coupled with the landing of troops on the flanks of the enemy.

              Comparing the power of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet of the USSR and the Baltic Fleet of Russia is hard to digest ...
              Do not forget about the allies of the USSR in Europe (GDR, Poland) ...
              The USSR had a significant advantage over NATO forces in Europe. Russia has no such advantage for a long time.
              So, you can only dream about blocking the straits and domination in the seas ...
              The only thing that inspires hope is the DBK and the air defense missile system.
              1. Anzhey V.
                25 March 2021 14: 08
                +2
                I cannot but agree with you on these issues - the situation in the country and on the foreign policy front, to put it mildly, leaves much to be desired.

                However, I only indicated the hypothetical possibility of such actions - it is clear that any aggressive strategy of waging a war in our case is "counting on the thin", despite the fact that NATO is not going through the best days.
            2. mmaxx
              mmaxx 26 March 2021 12: 35
              0
              It was during the war in the Baltic that it was born: "You can't get away from the plane!" The truth was about travel speed. But it is understandable: if you do not have air cover, with a high degree of probability you are not a tenant.
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 26 March 2021 18: 24
                +1
                taking into account the appearance of missiles with a range of 1+ km, surface ships in the Baltic will be generally sad ..
                1. mmaxx
                  mmaxx 26 March 2021 18: 49
                  0
                  Only if it will be a pity to spend any little things on which these missiles are spent. Boats, RTOs, minesweepers, corvettes ... And if you remember how many mines were there in WWII ...
                  Vopschem, extinguish all aircraft and missiles.
            3. Barberry25
              Barberry25 26 March 2021 18: 23
              0
              and it is customary for us to try to play with one hand instead of looking at real facts that the GS always uses all the components ...
            4. ramzay21
              ramzay21 28 March 2021 04: 07
              0
              Under the Union, no fools were sitting in the headquarters, and the Red Banner Baltic Fleet in case of war was supposed to ensure control of the Danish Straits, coupled with the landing of troops on the enemy's flanks. We need to strive for a similar goal, albeit with different forces and means.

              With all due respect, but at the time of the Union, we owned the Baltic coast in the Baltic, and we controlled the coast of Poland and Germany up to the Danish straits, we had 4 tank armies in the GDR, capable of reaching Brussels at one refueling station and aircraft from the airfields of the GDR, Poland and The USSR, as well as the most powerful Baltic Fleet in the region, controlled the entire water area of ​​the Baltic. It's not real for us now.
        3. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A 25 March 2021 11: 46
          +6
          Quote: Anjay V.
          which the Danish Straits can "block" ...


          Excuse me, why do you think this is impossible?

          Can't the joint actions of the ships of the Baltic Fleet and aviation in theory ensure air superiority, the clearing of the water area from enemy NKs and submarines, and the further blockade of the Danish Straits?


          They can’t.
          Due to the overwhelming advantage of the enemy in:
          1. aviation of all types of application, aerodrome and other supporting infrastructure.
          2. the narrowness of the water area and the enemy's huge coastal strip with a developed road and civil-technical infrastructure.

          For an analogy, you can give an abstract example of "hitmen" in the form of a pair of NATO frigates and submarines in the Kuibyshev reservoir on the Volga - and assume that they will be able to provide "cleanup of the water area from enemy NKs and submarines, and further blockade" ... the lifespan is exactly as long as it will be necessary to wipe away tears from laughter, after realizing that "madness and courage" that has turned out.

          The Baltic is a 100% fleet trap - always!

          Our Baltic is exactly the same "our" as the Arabian Sea for ... Iraq.
          Just an example.
          Here is Iraq, and all the surrounding countries are against it. And Iran, and Kuwait, and the Emirates, and Oman, and Saud, and Qatar and Bahrain. (by the way, this is an analogy between Russia and NATO in the Baltic).

          Your task is to bring the Iraqi fleet to operational space in the Arabian Sea and blockade the Strait of Hormuz.
          Chances?
          Equal to zero.
          All this is seen and understood by looking at the map.
          So why don't you understand when looking at the map of the Baltic Sea?
          1. Anzhey V.
            25 March 2021 12: 17
            +1
            Sorry, of course, but you ascribe to me the words that I did not say, and successfully refute them.
            1. Monster_Fat
              Monster_Fat 25 March 2021 18: 54
              +1
              Mines are an underrated resource. Modern technologies make it possible to create mines endowed with many functions that were previously inaccessible to them and at a new qualitative level. Unfortunately, this promising and relatively cheap type of naval weapons is generally ignored in Russia.
              1. Intruder
                Intruder 26 March 2021 19: 04
                0
                Mines are an underrated resource. Modern technologies make it possible to create mines endowed with many functions that were previously inaccessible to them and at a new quality level.
                by the way, the fight against this resource also in the field of modern technologies is increasing ..., like:
                it is the NPA, like this one, that is needed to clean up all sorts of straits and canals, besides having good autonomy, it does not make much sense for the carrier to enter the straits and canals!
                Unfortunately, this promising and relatively cheap type of naval weapons is generally ignored in Russia.
                Perhaps so, but we still cannot know for sure,
  2. Thrifty
    Thrifty 25 March 2021 05: 24
    +6
    I put the author + ha zeal, I'm greedy for her, but the question of questions - how long will those wishing to write an article on the site continue to pour from empty to empty? Ask the Indians, Yankees, French, Chinese, British - why do they need aircraft carriers? I am sure you will be mistaken for a feeble-minded person, this is not only money and jobs, this is a projection of power, this is an argument in a particular region where you need to have the presence of our fleet and ground forces. Our trouble is that the fleet is running, that there is no destroyer-type warships for a normal escort, that there are no aircraft of all types for aircraft carriers, that the authorities simply do not deal with this. The Yankees, for the information of the author, having a dozen aircraft carriers, easily "put things in order" in their direction, and the opposing side is forced to reckon with the fact of their presence, and adjust their actions accordingly. Aircraft carriers are needed by Russia, not by the authors of such articles.
    1. ammunition
      ammunition 25 March 2021 06: 37
      +4
      Quote: Thrifty
      How long will those wishing to write an article on the site continue to pour from empty to empty?

      Until the empty and empty is not filled ... or new ships (including aircraft carriers), or a new doctrine of the fleet. And then there is one more saying - "to patch Trishkin's caftan."
      Quote: Thrifty
      Russia needs aircraft carriers,

      A lot of things are needed! .. "a new trough" is needed, and a "new hut" is also needed .. and so on. We must learn to live with what we have.
      1. Ryusey
        Ryusey 26 March 2021 07: 22
        0
        If you try to live "with what is," then very soon, in a place with your family, you will be burned by your neighbors, who have declared you a heretic.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 26 March 2021 18: 25
          0
          the problem of "living with what is" as opposed to "living with what one wants" is different in terms of deployment ...
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 25 March 2021 07: 13
      +7
      Quote: Thrifty
      Ask the Indians, Yankees, French, Chinese, British - why do they need aircraft carriers? I am sure you will be mistaken for a feeble-minded ... Our trouble is that the fleet is running, that there is no normal escort ... Russia needs aircraft carriers, not the authors of such articles.

      I absolutely agree.

      The place of the aircraft carrier in our national naval strategy is unclear.

      What is there unclear? The question is, what is the strategy?
      There are no personnel to staff it.

      And the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov carried out service without a crew?
      ... dedicated to the goals of creating a bloated surface fleet, inappropriate repairs and upgrades of ships like "Admiral Kuznetsov", which serve exclusively as elements of state prestige).

      "Bloated Surface" is our that ..?
      TAKR Kuznetsov was created not for prestige, but for battle. How many countries in the world are independently capable of building this type of ships? The fingers of one hand will be enough ... It is easy to lose competence, to restore it is very difficult, to catch up is inconceivably difficult, and sometimes even impossible ...
      1. Anzhey V.
        25 March 2021 09: 09
        +8
        Good afternoon, Doccor!

        I would be glad to agree with you about Kuznetsov, but over the decades (!) That have passed since the collapse of the USSR, the fleet has not been able to bring it to combat readiness. The ship was simply killed.

        Do you really think that the people who have served on it all these years are competent?
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 25 March 2021 09: 27
          +3
          good afternoon hi
          Quote: Anjay V.
          ... only now, over the decades (!) that have passed since the collapse of the USSR, the fleet has not been able to bring it to combat readiness.

          Is this the Navy's fault?

          Quote: Anjay V.
          Do you really think that the people who have served on it all these years are competent?

          When I served, our brigade included a ship that was undergoing repair 12! years ... And the crew was on this ship. The ship is standing. Cars have been replacing him all these years. The ship is at the pier, and the sailors are flying on the deck ... Right before my dismissal, this handsome man was handed over. And ... the ship went on a campaign. The crew is there.
          How much time and effort does it take to recruit a new one?
          Yes, Kuznetsov's service is not at all as bright as we would like, but the crew is there and competent (due to the possibilities and the situation). And the most important thing is that the carrier-based aircraft is alive and will live.
        2. prior
          prior 25 March 2021 09: 30
          0
          We profiled our aircraft carriers, as we profiled the Soviet Union.
          And enough about that.
          "Well, I didn’t, I didn’t do it ...." - said the Russian economy.
          Amen.
          1. Ryusey
            Ryusey 25 March 2021 11: 39
            -1
            And she got an "ax" to her house and to the school where her children studied (of course, by chance, although ...)
          2. Barberry25
            Barberry25 26 March 2021 18: 26
            0
            well, if we define the cost of a new aircraft carrier in "up to 1 trillion rubles", then in fact we do not need it yet
    3. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 25 March 2021 07: 29
      -8
      Having already read today's headlines, I realized that the authors "saddled the skate" and rushed off to "milk" the "gold mine".
      So I think we'll be looking at the "to be or not to be" variations for a few more weeks.
  3. svp67
    svp67 25 March 2021 05: 42
    +7
    Part of the question in this article could be removed, go to the Su-34F series
    1. FRoman1984
      FRoman1984 25 March 2021 06: 02
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      Part of the question in this article could be removed, go to the Su-34F series

      And what does the Su-30SM not like? The same combat load, the same radar, the empty weight is less, the engines are the same, the SM2 will be powered by the AL-41F-1S from the Su-35. The range of weapons used is identical. In my opinion, the Su-30SM is no worse, but with new engines and the Irbis it will be much more promising.
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 25 March 2021 06: 33
        +6
        The Su-30 SM has a payload, judging by open data, less than that of the Su-34. "Platan" is suspended, while the Su-34 has it built-in. Sighting weapons for surface work are different. The electronic warfare of the Su-34 is more broadly functional. The Su-30 SM does not have an APU, the requirements for the surface and condition of the runway for the Su-30 SM are higher. The radius of action is shorter. However, take a look at the rest.
        1. bayard
          bayard 25 March 2021 14: 01
          +5
          The Su-30SM was chosen as a multifunctional fighter for the Navy, and rightly so, in the CM2 version it will be an even more advanced device, but this is exactly as a multifunctional fighter and MRA aircraft cannot be replaced by them. Its PK armament is the Kh-35 and Kh-31, good missiles, but for a range of up to 200 km. , with such missiles you will not go to AUG, the attack will drown on distant approaches. Tu-22M3 is small and will become smaller every year. Upgrading from the entire fleet to M3M will be carried out at most 30 pcs. and will serve after that for another 15 years. All .
          We need to replace the Tu-22M3 as an MRA aircraft.
          Such a missile carrier for the air version of the Zircon can be an aircraft based on the Su-34 airframe, but with new, more powerful engines, longer range and greater payload for the maximum flight radius.
          If we take as a basis (as an example) the modernization of the F-111 by the Americans to the FB-111 version with an increase (lengthening) of the airframe and wing area, which led to an increase in the range and an increase in the payload, then taking the Su-34 glider as a basis, lengthening it and by increasing the wing area, we will get a significant increase in internal volumes for fuel, and the installation of new engines from the Su-57 of the second stage (Product-30) will give even an enlarged glider an improvement in speed and dynamic characteristics, as well as a combat radius with a nominal load of up to 2000 - 2500 km. It would be a good Tu-22M3 receiver for service in the MRA, capable of carrying 2 to 3 airborne Zircons + explosive missiles for self-defense.
          On such an aircraft, you can use elements of avionics from the Su-57, including the Belka radar with an all-round overview, which would be a very good option for an aircraft of this type.
          As a result, the new MRA aircraft would have surpassed its predecessor in terms of combat capabilities - both in shock (range of destruction of surface targets) and in self-defense equipment.
          R&D should not be too complicated and protracted, because in fact it is proposed to use an already well-developed airframe with some modification and lengthening, the same with the wing. For the convenience of adapting the engines, it is possible to immediately integrate the air intakes from the Su-57. The avionics will also be serial from the existing aircraft.
          As a result, we will save a lot of time, avoid mistakes in the selection and development of avionics elements and can get a similar aircraft by the end of this decade in series.
          FOR MRA, it will be necessary to form at least five regiments with such missile carriers:
          - two regiments in the Pacific Fleet,
          - one regiment in the Northern Fleet,
          _ one regiment in the Black Sea Fleet,
          - and one more regiment of mobile reserve to strengthen any of the possible directions and for action in overseas territories (Syria, Venezuela, etc.)
          If the regiments are built in a two-squadron composition, then in total it will be necessary to build at least 120 such aircraft.
          At the same time, I think that such a strike missile carrier will not be superfluous in the Aerospace Forces, in the amount of several more regiments. In total, the required number of them can be 200 - 240 pcs. minimum. And this is already the amount that can be taken up by the industry, a park that can be properly maintained and provided with spare parts and repairs.
          As a result, by the time the Tu-22M3 \ M3M is decommissioned, we will already have a new efficient MPA aircraft to replace them. And this will be exactly the type of aircraft that will ensure the combat stability of our Fleet in coastal battles and provide the possibility of strikes against the enemy's AUG and KUG at a distance of up to 3000 km. from our bases.
          Without the revival of the MPA, there can be no talk of any revival of the Russian Navy and its strike capabilities.
          1. svp67
            svp67 25 March 2021 15: 47
            0
            Quote: bayard
            FOR MRA, it will be necessary to form at least five regiments with such missile carriers:
            - two regiments in the Pacific Fleet,
            - one regiment in the Northern Fleet,
            _ one regiment in the Black Sea Fleet,
            - and one more regiment of mobile reserve to strengthen any of the possible directions and for action in overseas territories (Syria, Venezuela, etc.)

            Then SIX.
            For the Northern Fleet - two regiments, which would also cover the Baltic direction or one brigade
            1. bayard
              bayard 25 March 2021 16: 05
              +2
              I suggested the most extreme minimum for two-squadron regiments.
              In fact, you need at least SIX regiments - except for 4 in the fleets, one as a mobile reserve to strengthen the most dangerous sea areas, and one more for overseas operations and basing on the naval base (Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Cam Ranh in Vietnam, in the south Iran if asked after joining the EAEU and the CSTO).
              And in the Baltic, such aircraft are not needed - they will be too crowded there with their radius and armament. Su-30SM \ SM2 will be enough there. And DBK from Kaliningrad.
              But as a "Euro-strategic bomber" such an aircraft will do. As a medium-range bomber as part of the DA VKS. Moreover, in any direction.
              It's just that the training of MRA pilots and VKS long-range pilots differs somewhat, and now they (from the VKS) will work very well in the Baltic, in Scandinavia, in French ports, and in the British Isles.
        2. Anzhey V.
          26 March 2021 09: 05
          +3
          Good day to you, avia!

          I thought about our previous conversation for a long time and came to the conclusion that you are right - the Su-34 are necessary and much better suited for the role of strike aircraft for naval aviation.

          Radius and payload do seem like impressive arguments.

          We, perhaps, do not have machines more suitable for the role of a missile carrier.
          1. FRoman1984
            FRoman1984 27 March 2021 02: 50
            0
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Good day to you, avia!

            I thought about our previous conversation for a long time and came to the conclusion that you are right - the Su-34 are necessary and much better suited for the role of strike aircraft for naval aviation.

            Radius and payload do seem like impressive arguments.

            We, perhaps, do not have machines more suitable for the role of a missile carrier.

            Please provide the figures for the radius and combat load of the Su-34, which makes it more preferable.
            1. avia12005
              avia12005 27 March 2021 03: 39
              0


              Here are the data, but this is not the last episode.
          2. avia12005
            avia12005 27 March 2021 03: 33
            +1
            Good afternoon, thanks for your understanding drinks All my familiar bomber pilots are sincerely convinced of this)) In principle, it is necessary to have both the Su-43 and the Su-30SM in the MRA. After all, the task of covering our ships and bases from the air will not be canceled. But the destruction of carriers of the CD, strikes against enemy landings, etc. this is only the Su-34.
            1. Anzhey V.
              27 March 2021 09: 19
              +3
              I completely agree - the necessary separate fighter and missile squadrons)
              1. avia12005
                avia12005 27 March 2021 09: 28
                0
                In general, an interesting topic is who relies on multipurpose attack aircraft. Either relatively poor countries, or those hoping to fight a weaker adversary. It is so?
                1. Anzhey V.
                  27 March 2021 10: 18
                  +3
                  To be honest, at the moment it is difficult to draw any conclusions on this topic.

                  In the West, the transition to "universal soldiers" began in the era of the "Phantom", and the USSR cannot be called a weak adversary.

                  In fact, the concept of a tactical / front-line bomber was preserved only among us and the Chinese, who "raised" the aircraft industry at the expense of our "Sushki".

                  However, universal aircraft have now become extremely expensive (UAVs have received such a development for a reason - it is not a pity to lose them in comparison with the conventional F-16), and they are still not suitable for active work on the "ground".

                  The Su-34 in this respect is an extremely underestimated machine (I'm talking about export, if anything) - a tactical bomber with the maneuverability of a fighter. However, I think they will have their say ...
                  1. avia12005
                    avia12005 27 March 2021 10: 22
                    0
                    By the way, the concept of a pure attack aircraft remained only in the Russian Federation and the United States.
                    1. Anzhey V.
                      28 March 2021 11: 47
                      +2
                      What do you think of the French Aircraft School?

                      They once had an aircraft conceptually similar to the Su-34 - Mirage F1EQ-5. In essence, the scheme is similar: a maneuverable fighter with an aiming system oriented to work on ground and surface targets.

                      Well established itself as a missile carrier during the Iran-Iraqi.
                      1. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 28 March 2021 12: 34
                        -1
                        Nobody needs specialized fighters now. Developed countries have been making multifunctional fighters for a long time.
                        Su-34 is an erroneous branch, with zero export potential. Nobody needs an airplane at the price of buying and operating like a fighter, but without its capabilities. Strike missions are usually performed by aircraft of the previous generation. In the future, attack jet UAVs.
                        The French aircraft school is wonderful. Transmitting avionics, engines, construction. The Su-30 has such a success only thanks to French avionics.
                        Rafali are the best air superiority fighters. The best or some of the best radars, electronic warfare, missile armament, non-afterburner supersonic up to 1,4 M with 6 V-V missiles or PTBs for 1250 liters and 4 V-V, excellent maneuverability. Only the EPR is slightly more than the 5th generation.
                      2. Anzhey V.
                        28 March 2021 12: 39
                        +2
                        Nobody needs specialized fighters now


                        I partly agree with you, and partly not: in my opinion, combat aviation is now experiencing the same problem that the evolution of tanks faced - in its development, it increasingly rests on the fight against self-similar ones, which, however, occurs less and less often. be.

                        Strike missions have not gone anywhere and are in great demand, and aircraft based on serial fighters, but oriented to work "on the ground", can get a new life.
                      3. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 28 March 2021 13: 05
                        -1
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        aircraft based on serial fighters, but oriented to work "on the ground" can get a new life.

                        They will not receive it. There will be 6th generation multifunctional air superiority fighters such as NGAD, Tempest, F-3, 5th generation multifunctional strike fighters F-35, TF-X, KF-X.

                        Massive strike missions will be on jet UAVs, everyone does them. Defender from General Atomics, various American, Australian, British Loyal Wingman, Turkish MIUS and Goksungur, Chinese and Iranian jet drones, etc., etc.
                      4. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 28 March 2021 13: 33
                        -1
                        It was about developed countries. In the perspective of the 30s.
                        Those who cannot afford it will buy fighters such as Gripen, T-50, JF-17, M-346.
                        In this decade, the potential of the teenage series F, rafals, typhoons, the Su-27 line will end.
                    2. avia12005
                      avia12005 28 March 2021 16: 20
                      0
                      The value of a combat aircraft is determined not by its export potential, but by its ability to perform tasks in accordance with the tactics of combat use of domestic aerospace forces.
                    3. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik 28 March 2021 17: 46
                      -1
                      Only here is this tactic of the 70-80s of the last century. Cast iron to throw 500 kg and work with NARs from 1,5-2 km. Ideal tactics for working in an air defense zone negative
                      By the way, in the United States a long time ago they abandoned the tactics of "pure attack aircraft". A-10C platform for high-precision weapons and even NARs there are converted into guided missiles.
                    4. avia12005
                      avia12005 28 March 2021 20: 26
                      0
                      Cast iron when using the Su-34 sighting systems: it is close in accuracy to high-precision weapons. In terms of cost, compare UR or UAB with cast iron, it will be very interesting. The Tiger was also in many ways better than the T-34, but how much more expensive. The economy of war also dictates. Terms
                    5. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik 28 March 2021 20: 46
                      -2
                      Quote: avia12005
                      using sighting systems Su-34: accuracy is close to high-precision weapons

                      Therefore, we use bombs with a caliber of 500 kg. Oh well. The same complexes have been on Western aircraft since the 70s, they do not provide the same capabilities as high-precision weapons.
                      Quote: avia12005
                      In terms of cost, compare UR or UAB with cast iron, it will be very interesting.

                      Compared and compared to me more than once. UR is at least 2-3 times cheaper than cast iron. They know how to count money, we do not. Therefore, they are rich. For the same task of guided missiles and bombs, you need 5-10 times less in caliber and quantity than cast-iron colleagues.
                      From the moment bombs and missiles are produced, the costs are just beginning. Storage, logistics, maintenance, etc. are direct costs. Losses of equipment, failure to complete the task, attendant losses, consumption of motor resources for delivery, etc., are indirect costs.
                      And if all this is counted by the number of "smart" and "cast-iron" bombs and missiles required to complete the tasks, it turns out that the difference in the final price differs significantly in favor of guided munitions.
                    6. avia12005
                      avia12005 29 March 2021 05: 30
                      0
                      1 Su-34 carries as many bombs as 24 Il-2. Estimate the efficiency of your work. URami work on ships, protected control points. It is pointless to hit them on the already landed amphibious assault, the accumulation of equipment.
          3. avia12005
            avia12005 28 March 2021 16: 17
            0
            Greetings! Russia has its own school of combat use of aviation. Aircraft are created according to the tasks that the military give to designers and industry. That is, the French gave their mission to this plane. When did they have to fight an equal enemy?

            And ours, although it was a long time ago, has a war in Korea, Vietnam, Georgia. And SYRIA made me remember about the front-line bomber to replace the Su-24 M.

            Neither Iran nor Iraq had such air defenses and fighters that could withstand the Mirage F1EQ-5, "Tornado", etc. on equal terms.

            Our military ordered the Su-34. If he needs to fight, he will have to break through the powerful air defense AUG, act against the saturated air defense of the ground forces and fight off fighters such as F-15E, Rafal, F-16, not to mention the F-35 or F-22.

            Therefore, he has such electronic warfare equipment, he can suspend so many air-to-air missiles, armor and, God forbid, there is already a radar station in the rear hemisphere. I think that here it is quite possible to compare, for example, a full-fledged jeep and an urban-class crossover, which has only a leading front axle. In the taiga, through the mud, the first one must be able to plant. The second one is better in the city, but in the taiga it will sit right away. Of course, the crossover is more versatile, but ... So it is with bombers. but the Su-34 is a "jeep" for the taiga)) That is, for the battlefield in conditions of saturated air defense. Something like this laughing
  4. squid
    squid 29 March 2021 20: 33
    0
    Quote: Anjay V.
    the necessary separate fighter and missile squadrons


    Nothing like this!
    Nobody in the world has been dealing with specialized "missile carriers" for a long time, if we are not talking about "strategists". Since the 70s, everyone has been smoothly switching to multi-role fighters, especially above the sea.
    su-30cm2, su-35, su-57 - these are universal machines. But not a specialized su-34 land bomber.
  • squid
    squid 29 March 2021 20: 30
    0
    Quote: Anjay V.
    Su-34s are necessary and much better suited for the role of strike aircraft for naval aviation.
    Radius and payload do seem like impressive arguments.
    We, perhaps, do not have machines more suitable for the role of a missile carrier.


    The opposite is true. Su-34 is a specialized front-line bomber, with the rudiments of a fighter. A highly specialized land-based bombing machine. At sea, there will be no use either from his bomb sights, or from some kind of reservation - for launching an anti-ship missile system, all this is dead weight. Su-30cm2 is already on its way to the troops - there is much higher lth.
    At the same time, the su-30 is a multipurpose fighter, and the su-34 is a bomber with the functions of a fighter, in air combat there is maximum self-defense. Those. Su-30 will be able, if necessary, to fight both NK and enemy aircraft (for example, to defend the Kuriles from the Japanese invasion), which is not available for the 34th.
    In addition, a much more suitable aircraft will appear in the coming years - the Su-57 with stage 2 engines. There is dominant superiority in all respects - range, combat load, cruising speed, stealth, etc. etc. So they are best suited for the role of a coastal multipurpose fighter. And in general for any role.
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 27 March 2021 02: 46
    0
    Quote: avia12005
    The Su-30 SM has a payload, judging by open data, less than that of the Su-34. "Platan" is suspended, while the Su-34 has it built-in. Sighting weapons for surface work are different. The electronic warfare of the Su-34 is more broadly functional. The Su-30 SM does not have an APU, the requirements for the surface and condition of the runway for the Su-30 SM are higher. The radius of action is shorter. However, take a look at the rest.

    8000 kg for both,
    Yes, avionics are different, but not so much that it would give an advantage to some of them. The characteristics are the same plus or minus. I mean that (in my opinion) it makes no difference that the Su-30cm or the Su-34 is in service with the MA.
    Another thing is that the Su-30SM2 will be upgraded to the capabilities of the Su-35.
    1. avia12005
      avia12005 27 March 2021 03: 50
      +2
      I would not say about 8000 for both. Here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ngaIo1Zng_cwmdWAY3fexKSjrKZdqJsP/view says about 12500 for the Su-34, and in some sources I read about 14000 in the reload version. In addition, the Su-34 provides for the installation of the "Sea Serpent" and other equipment to perform tasks in the interests of the Navy.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 25 March 2021 11: 40
    +2
    less armor, although for those who like to swim in sharks in the sea, this is probably not so important.
  • DMi
    DMi 25 March 2021 12: 10
    +1
    3t. One suspension instead of 1,5 tons. The radar is different, it is optimized for surface operation. Built-in target designation system. More powerful electronic warfare.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 25 March 2021 15: 40
    +2
    SU-34FN no modernizirovaniy s Oniks i Cirkon, eto da. Plokho a eto sovsem s CU.
    Neto aviacii DRLO.
    Tozhe neto aviatankerov.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 25 March 2021 05: 55
    +3
    Why does this not find a response among the adherents of the concept of the classical construction of naval power? Naval aviation is the main striking force of the fleet. Coastal naval aviation for our country makes it possible to transfer between theaters of operations. So for any supporter of the classical theory of naval power, coastal naval aviation for our country at the present stage is the first necessary element of the naval power of our fleet.
    The dispute is on other issues. In particular, is coastal-based naval aviation capable of replacing large surface ships?
    1. Anzhey V.
      25 March 2021 09: 02
      +5
      Good afternoon, SVD! Aircraft will certainly not replace large surface ships and the ocean-going fleet.

      But at the current moment in time we are faced with more prosaic tasks - speaking primitively, before building a house, you need to dig and fill the foundation, and only after that do the roofing ...
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 25 March 2021 09: 35
        -3
        Quote: Anjay V.
        before building a house, you need to dig and fill the foundation, and only after that do the roof ...

        A powerful metaphor. It reminds me of a bearded anecdote about two dudes, one of whom dug holes, and the other immediately buried. To the question "What the ....?" they answered - "We are planting trees. It's just that the third one didn't come." So here you have the third one who is supposed to erect the walls, it seems, did not appear at the construction site.
        1. Anzhey V.
          25 March 2021 09: 39
          +5
          You are right, I have worded incorrectly)
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 25 March 2021 10: 05
      -2
      Quote: SVD68
      Coastal naval aviation for our country makes it possible to transfer between theaters of operations.

      And why the hell "sea" is needed if you only need to throw the MTCH and LS on the theater of operations? This is the task of the military transport aviation, why did you drag the naval aviation here?
      Quote: SVD68
      coastal naval aviation for our country at the present stage is the first necessary element of the naval power of our fleet.

      The first essential element of any fleet is the naval concept.
      Quote: SVD68
      In particular, is coastal-based naval aviation capable of replacing large surface ships?

      Well, judging by your maxim about
      Quote: SVD68
      first required element

      for you this question is not worth it at all, is it?
      1. Anzhey V.
        25 March 2021 10: 39
        +4
        And why the hell "sea" is needed if you only need to throw the MTCH and LS on the theater of operations? This is the task of the military transport aviation, why did you drag the naval aviation here?


        In the world, it is quite normal practice to have transport aircraft as part of naval aviation.

        I think you yourself understand how much bureaucratic difficulties the request of people and equipment from another structure entails.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 March 2021 10: 59
      +4
      Quote: SVD68
      Coastal naval aviation for our country makes it possible to transfer between theaters of operations.

      Under one small condition - if there are airfields for this aviation. And not in general "on the theater of operations", but in specific areas. Otherwise, it turns out that, on average, the airfield network hoo, and specifically to the Kuriles, coastal aviation from Sakhalin arrives already for a nodding analysis: because the enemy was detected and classified at a distance of 400 km, and our reserve could also fly 400 km (on the duty link you can do not count - the enemy's air clearance group is still larger).
      1. Anzhey V.
        25 March 2021 14: 03
        +3
        Good afternoon, Alexey!

        Under one small condition - if there are airfields for this aviation


        This is what I am writing about in the second article. Any development of the armed forces must be combined with the development of military infrastructure, which I have repeatedly emphasized.
  • Runway
    Runway 25 March 2021 06: 06
    0
    An obvious idea is presented rather succinctly. There are private moments (about the notorious Kuril Islands), but they are not critical.
    However, the principle of "stepsons" has not been canceled, in connection with which the air component for "work at sea" should be in the Aerospace Forces and only operatively under the command of military officers. In addition to steamer-based boards (to support the pants of the Marines, incl.)
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 26 March 2021 07: 39
      -1
      Any military infrastructure without forces capable of covering and supporting it is useless.
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 25 March 2021 06: 13
    +1
    We will not have an aircraft carrier, at least during our generation, it is pointless to procrastinate on the same topic. Many times have already chewed "why".
    Airfield-based naval aviation is like corvettes. Exclusively work in the economic zone, with the inability to move away from the base.
    It is not aviation that needs to be developed and poor corvettes 20380/20385/20386 massively laid, and other small missile ships a la "Buyan" (galley fleet),
    and to build frigates 22350 (as the main ship of the Fleet), upgrade the Orlans (no matter how much it costs, return Lazarev) and start working on the destroyer 23560 Leader.
    1. novel66
      novel66 25 March 2021 07: 21
      +8
      start work on the destroyer 23560 "Leader"

      17 thousand tons - a destroyer? fuck he like that, rework it under two 8
      1. bayard
        bayard 25 March 2021 14: 11
        +2
        Quote: novel xnumx
        fuck he like that, rework it under two 8

        And if we take into account that it has a nuclear reactor with a corresponding price tag, then for the same price all FOUR destroyers will be obtained - pr. 22350M.
    2. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 25 March 2021 08: 35
      +4
      Quote: FRoman1984
      It is not aviation that needs to be developed and poor corvettes 20380/20385/20386 massively laid, and other small missile ships a la "Buyan" (galley fleet),
      and frigates 22350 to build (as the main ship of the Fleet), to upgrade the "Eagles" (no matter how much it costs, return

      About frigates instead of corvettes and, especially Buyanov, one can agree. And about the Eagles, the Leader and the aviation, you are in vain.
      Without aviation, any fleet today is just targets in the shooting range.
      1. FRoman1984
        FRoman1984 27 March 2021 02: 57
        0
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        Quote: FRoman1984
        It is not aviation that needs to be developed and poor corvettes 20380/20385/20386 massively laid, and other small missile ships a la "Buyan" (galley fleet),
        and frigates 22350 to build (as the main ship of the Fleet), to upgrade the "Eagles" (no matter how much it costs, return

        About frigates instead of corvettes and, especially Buyanov, one can agree. And about the Eagles, the Leader and the aviation, you are in vain.
        Without aviation, any fleet today is just targets in the shooting range.

        Yes, I'm not against aircraft carriers, there is simply nowhere to build them, and there is no escort (destroyers, cruisers)
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 25 March 2021 06: 32
    +4
    It seems that everything is logical, but ... the author does not fundamentally consider the NSNF? But this is one of the main points of the existence of the fleet, it is at least naive to assert that the exit of SSBNs from the base and BS in the positional area can only be ensured by aviation, minesweepers, corvettes, multipurpose nuclear and non-nuclear submarines are needed.
    Further, in the DMZ, do we not go beyond the combat radius of the Su-30SM? Syrian Express canceled? But there was a situation almost a century ago - the USSR had interests in Spain, a fleet was needed to advance them, from October 13, 1936 to September 1, 1937, the Francoists detained 96 Soviet TRs on the high seas, of which 3 were drowned. On land, neighboring countries closed their borders and Republican support had to be scaled back.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 25 March 2021 08: 30
      +3
      Quote: strannik1985
      but ... the author does not consider NSNF in principle?

      The author writes that it is stupid to cover the coast with nothing. The same NSNF come and take it with bare hands right in the bases. And then everything is just about it. What a distant zone there.
      And he offers an option on how to solve this particular problem, and not sometime later, but right tomorrow.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 25 March 2021 11: 30
        -2
        The author writes that it is stupid to cover the coast with nothing.

        At the same time, we have a bunch of corvettes, starting with the MPK 1124 (20 pieces and 2 1124M), 7 Project 1131M, etc., the aviation component of the Navy - 8 modernized Il-38 and 12 Tu-142. It is somewhat strange to ignore one in favor of the other.
        And offers an option

        The nuance is that the country's interests do not wait until we resolve issues in the near zone, they must be resolved here and now. "The Syrian Express" is not a whim, this locomotive is cheaper to crush while it is a kettle.
    2. Anzhey V.
      25 March 2021 09: 25
      +2
      Greetings, Wanderer!

      And what is the problem of deploying SSBNs?

      By the way, they leave their bases during the threatened period, when the hostilities are not yet being waged.

      Given the factors of ASW aviation, mine action teams, stationary hydroacoustic systems, radio and radar monitoring of the coast and the deployment of our MAPLs and diesel-electric submarines, they will quite calmly do this, leaving for patrol areas - this does not require ten aircraft carriers and one hundred URO cruisers.

      Further, in the DMZ, do we not go beyond the combat radius of the Su-30SM? Syrian Express canceled?


      The example you mentioned with the "Syrian Express" can sooner be ticked off by those who oppose the construction and development of the fleet as such)

      The fleet showed itself absolutely disgusting - and this despite the fact that we did not conduct combat operations at sea.

      The entire burden of hostilities fell on the aviation, which, incidentally, provided all the operational deliveries of cargo.

      I don't even want to say anything about the Kuznetsov's crew, which has not reached combat readiness for more than 25 years.

      In general, I pointed out for a reason that we need "expeditionary formations" - they can be formed from the current ship composition, and they will be more than effective within the framework of your scenario.
      1. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 25 March 2021 12: 41
        +1
        Quote: Anjay V.
        ... And what is the problem of deploying SSBNs?

        By the way, they leave their bases during the threatened period, when the hostilities are not yet being waged.


        1. There may not be a threatened period. There is such a concept - a sudden disarming strike.
        2. At the exit from the base, they can be watched and watched by the enemy's multipurpose submarines, which will either strike first in the case of item 1 or attack if the SSBNs are ready to launch missiles.

        Quote: Anjay V.
        Given the factors of ASW aviation, mine action teams, stationary hydroacoustic systems, radio and radar monitoring of the coast and the deployment of our MAPLs and diesel-electric submarines, they will quite calmly do this, leaving for patrol areas - this does not require ten aircraft carriers and one hundred URO cruisers.


        Yes, but to ensure the safety of SSBNs, we also need multipurpose submarines / diesel submarines / submarines and anti-submarine corvettes, the same 20380 with a helicopter.

        An article on the same topic was sent for publication yesterday, but from my point of view.
        1. Anzhey V.
          25 March 2021 14: 01
          0
          1. There may not be a threatened period. There is such a concept - a sudden disarming strike.


          In this case, surface ships will be more useless than a network of hydroacoustic tracking and radar stations, patrol aircraft and AWACS aircraft.

          2. At the exit from the base, they can be watched and watched by the enemy's multipurpose submarines, which will either strike first in the case of item 1 or attack if the SSBNs are ready to launch missiles.


          All my material is devoted primarily to the defense of our coastal infrastructure and the coast as a whole. It is precisely about preventing the enemy's MAPL that we are talking about, in fact, we are talking about.

          PS: I will be glad to read your material!
      2. strannik1985
        strannik1985 25 March 2021 13: 17
        +1
        And what is the problem of SSBN deployment?

        The nuance is that with regard to modern PLO 8 Il-38 and 12 Tu-142 aircraft for 4 fleets, 4 new minesweepers (one more completed, but not accepted) out of 26, and then Project 12700 has problems with the secondary battery, it has an unmanned boat does not fit, IPC 26, the youngest entered service in the 90s, they started talking about their modernization only last year.
        1. Anzhey V.
          25 March 2021 13: 54
          +1
          Well, we are talking about a hypothetical future - and in reality you are right, here at least climb into a noose ...
      3. Ryusey
        Ryusey 26 March 2021 07: 40
        -2
        A threatened period, a threatened period, but you do not think that it is already underway, it has just been slightly prolonged or smeared out in time.
    3. Niko
      Niko 25 March 2021 09: 51
      -1
      Quote: strannik1985
      It seems that everything is logical, but ... the author does not fundamentally consider the NSNF? But this is one of the main points of the existence of the fleet, it is at least naive to assert that the exit of SSBNs from the base and BS in the positional area can only be ensured by aviation, minesweepers, corvettes, multipurpose nuclear and non-nuclear submarines are needed.
      Further, in the DMZ, do we not go beyond the combat radius of the Su-30SM? Syrian Express canceled? But there was a situation almost a century ago - the USSR had interests in Spain, a fleet was needed to advance them, from October 13, 1936 to September 1, 1937, the Francoists detained 96 Soviet TRs on the high seas, of which 3 were drowned. On land, neighboring countries closed their borders and Republican support had to be scaled back.

      The author ignores the problems of SSBN deployment from article to article, and it is absolutely clear why: the submarine fleet does not fit into the chosen concept at all: so much the worse for the submarine fleet
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 March 2021 11: 01
      +2
      Quote: strannik1985
      at least it is naive to assert that the exit of SSBNs from the base and BS in the positional area can only be ensured by aviation, minesweepers, corvettes, multipurpose nuclear and non-nuclear submarines are needed.

      Chihix ... I immediately remembered:
      The High Command sees no prospect in the creation of ships previously designated as the OVR Corvette. One of the main tasks of the OVR is to ensure the protection and defense of the naval forces in the areas of naval bases and adjacent territories. This task is now performed by coastal surveillance equipment, stationary sonar stations and coastal missile and artillery troops armed with anti-ship missiles of various ranges, as well as anti-submarine and strike aircraft..
      © Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Chirkov
  • bar
    bar 25 March 2021 07: 36
    +4
    to increase the functionality of the naval forces, to remove the excess load from the aerospace forces, which are currently being forced to cover the navy.

    It would certainly be great. That's just why our admirals do not get accustomed to aviation. Maybe the food is bad? recourse
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 25 March 2021 09: 16
      +4
      Quote: bar
      our admirals do not get accustomed to aviation.

      The former Commander of Naval Aviation BF Sokerin said very well:
      “During my service, both in the Northern and in the Baltic fleets, I, unfortunately, could not teach the admirals two elementary things: first, do not give me commands to take off for a strike, set a task for the target, place and time of the strike, and I I will calculate the flight time and decide on the take-off time of the regiments. And second - if the shelves have taken off, then do not tolerate the strike time, that is, for aviation after takeoff, this is, firstly, strictly prohibited, and secondly, it is unfeasible, since departures are planned, as a rule, for the full radius, "for a shot" , and after landing and without your input on the transfer of the strike time, in the planes, as the pilots joke, "two buckets of kerosene."
    2. lucul
      lucul 25 March 2021 09: 45
      +2
      It would certainly be great. That's just why our admirals do not get accustomed to aviation. Maybe the food is bad? recourse

      Because the fleet needs naval aviation, specially designed for it, taking into account all the wishes. And not somehow adapted overland.
      The situation repeats itself in the same way as with the LAGG-3 - an overweight structure by almost 1 ton !!! , due to the use of cheap fuselage materials (delta-wood, they were going to stamp tens of thousands). And the Japanese A6M Zero, super lightweight, already created using the lightest (and expensive magnesium) alloys.
      And now, our planes have the largest dry weight among classmates, all other things being equal. And to take off from an aircraft carrier, a light aircraft is required, with a high dry weight-to-payload ratio.
      We look at the F-16 - dry weight is 9 tons, and it takes a payload of 9 tons.
      Su-30 SM - dry weight - 18 tons, payload - 8 tons.
      For an airplane, its mass is extremely critical, extremely critical. Here, saving on construction materials is like death.
      1. bar
        bar 25 March 2021 09: 47
        0
        Quote: lucul
        Yes, because the fleet needs naval aviation, specially designed for it, taking into account all the wishes

        Do the naval officers have adequate wishes for aviation? They will not sort it out with wishes for their ships. negative
        1. lucul
          lucul 25 March 2021 09: 58
          +1
          Do the naval officers have adequate wishes for aviation? They will not sort it out with wishes for their ships.

          In general, everything is simple - the longer the range, the better, the greater the mass of the payload, the better. The ability to take off from an aircraft carrier.
          Here are 2 main criteria.
          1. bar
            bar 25 March 2021 10: 00
            -2
            Quote: lucul
            In general, everything is simple - the longer the range, the better, the greater the mass of the payload, the better.
            Here are 2 main criteria.

            And all that? Really simple. It is strange that none of the aircraft manufacturers have thought of this before. request
            But seriously - are you serious?
            1. lucul
              lucul 25 March 2021 10: 06
              0
              And all that? Really simple. It is strange that none of the aircraft manufacturers have thought of this before. request
              But seriously - are you serious?

              And what is wrong with you, explain? )))
              1. bar
                bar 25 March 2021 10: 19
                -1
                I'm a land rat, I won't be able to laughing
                1. lucul
                  lucul 25 March 2021 10: 24
                  -4
                  I'm a land rat, I won't be able to

                  There are no national peculiarities in aircraft construction, there is only practical expediency - it's like a bicycle.
                  Requirements for naval aviation were formed during the Second World War. Both the Yapps and the Americans came to them in different ways - after all, only they were able to formulate and develop the best naval aviation of those years.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 March 2021 11: 17
        +3
        Quote: lucul
        The situation repeats itself in the same way as with the LAGG-3 - an overweight structure by almost 1 ton !!! , due to the use of cheap fuselage materials (delta-wood, they were going to stamp tens of thousands). And the Japanese A6M Zero, super lightweight, already created using the lightest (and expensive magnesium) alloys.

        Nevertheless, the Japanese army team liked the LaGG-3.
        As for the "Zero", the reverse side of its wunder-performance characteristics was the extreme exactingness to the training of pilots. More precisely, not even so - its wundertTX could only be obtained by experienced pilots. In the hands of all others, it was a "below average" fighter.
        Quote: lucul
        And to take off from an aircraft carrier, a light aircraft is required, with a high dry weight-to-payload ratio.
        We look at the F-16 - dry weight is 9 tons, and it takes a payload of 9 tons.
        Su-30 SM - dry weight - 18 tons, payload - 8 tons.

        F-16 flying from an aircraft carrier?
        F-16 and Su-30SM - classmates? And then let's compare the F-16 with the Su-34 - the difference will be even greater.
        1. lucul
          lucul 25 March 2021 11: 22
          0
          F-16 flying from an aircraft carrier?
          F-16 and Su-30SM - classmates? And then let's compare the F-16 with the Su-34 - the difference will be even greater.

          The MiG-29K can further reduce dry weight through the use of composites and lighter alloys - an increase in the combat radius or payload of your choice. The only negative is the increased price.
      3. Shopping Mall
        Shopping Mall 25 March 2021 12: 48
        0
        Quote: lucul
        It would certainly be great. That's just why our admirals do not get accustomed to aviation. Maybe the food is bad? recourse

        Because the fleet needs naval aviation, specially designed for it, taking into account all the wishes. And not somehow adapted overland.


        In our time, interaction between the Air Force and the Navy cannot be avoided. The same USA, in my opinion, because of the strengthening of the PRC Navy (not because of us?), Is arming the LRASM anti-ship missiles B-1B ground bombers, and no one is going to transfer them from the Navy to the Navy. Now it is largely a matter of compatibility of data exchange protocols between military equipment. Well, and the compatibility of understanding of the tasks in the heads of the command of different structures.

        What are the global obstacles to using the Tu-160 as an anti-ship missile carrier? If the modernized version does not add the ability to work on surface targets, or at least the ability to add such an opportunity, then this is a crime.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 March 2021 13: 12
      0
      Quote: bar
      It would certainly be great. That's just why our admirals do not get accustomed to aviation.

      It seems to me that for the same reason why steam engines did not take root well at the beginning of the last century. smile
      The authorities look at the car as an extra thing on the ship, and, moreover, a rough thing, made of iron, cast iron.
      © A. A. Bykov, junior mechanic of the "Oslyabya" EBR
  • Eug
    Eug 25 March 2021 07: 59
    +2
    Naval aviation is the only means of inter-theater maneuver between maritime theaters, and it is much more efficient than "traditional" naval assets. As for me, we can only talk about the types of aircraft in naval aviation and their number, but not about the correctness of this approach ...
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 25 March 2021 08: 48
    +1
    Naval aviation is essential. The whole range of aircraft listed by the author + anti-mine helicopters.
    For a meaningful and harmonious development of naval aviation, naval personnel and the corresponding infrastructure, organizational measures are required to improve the structure of the fleet with the inclusion of naval aviation. The ground infrastructure should be joint with the aerospace communication system. This is evidenced by the experience of real combat operations, incl. our main "partners". The problem must not be allowed to drown in yet another tug of war between the Navy and the Aerospace Forces.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 25 March 2021 09: 12
    0
    In principle, many questions have already been answered by A. Timokhin in his article:
    https://vz.ru/society/2020/7/17/1050247.html
  • Per se.
    Per se. 25 March 2021 09: 20
    +1
    Conclusion: we need a fleet, but only naval aviation with its mobility, firepower and vast capabilities can provide a proper solution to all current problems.
    This was the conclusion to the first question of the author, to the subsequent questions the conclusions are only variations from the first. To paraphrase, we get -
    I have a desire to buy a house, but I do not have the opportunity. I have the opportunity to buy a goat, but ... I have no desire. So let's drink so that our desires always coincide with our capabilities!


    Dear author, there was such an Italian general and military theorist, Giulio Douai. His concept in the conduct of war, he outlined in the book "Air Supremacy. Probable Forms of Future War".
    The essence of his concept was that only aviation would become a fundamental branch of the country's armed forces, the rest would become auxiliary, secondary.

    So, according to Douai's vision, the naval forces will have to defend only the coast of their country, and all land forces, only their state border. Douai's ideas turned out to be untenable, however, the "well-wishers" of the new capitalist Russia in this are close to the concept of the Italian, especially regarding the purely littoral fleet, with the "land" of Russia.

    I will repeat by many that it is easy to lose technology, to be able to build ships is not to learn quickly. There can be no strong country without the navy, unless, of course, we are satisfied with being a "gas station", a raw material colony of the West.
    Therefore, all topics from the category "who needs this Vaska (the aircraft carrier and the fleet itself)", I consider demagoguery, and even ideological sabotage. Aviation alone cannot solve all problems, but naval aviation can and should be an integral part of a full-fledged fleet capable of solving all tasks at sea.
    1. Anzhey V.
      25 March 2021 16: 40
      +2
      Sorry, but, unfortunately, you did not read the article carefully.

      I have not said anywhere that we do not need a fleet, or that the fleet should be coastal.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 26 March 2021 07: 14
        0
        Quote: Anjay V.
        I have not said anywhere that we do not need a fleet, or that the fleet should be coastal.
        Yes, you did not say that the fleet is not needed, but you focused on ground-based aviation.
        Conclusion: we need a fleet, but only naval aviation with its mobility, firepower and vast capabilities can provide a proper solution to all current problems.
        Under naval aviation, the theme of land-based airfields developed, where nothing is said about carrier-based aviation at all. Your words
        Yes, an aircraft carrier is an extremely formidable and versatile weapon. But at the current moment in time we do not have the infrastructure for the operation of such a ship. There is no adequate battle group (including supply ships). The technical possibilities of creating such a vessel in Russia are also unclear: there are no catapults, there is no carrier-based AWACS aircraft, there are questions regarding the power plant. And, in the end, the manning of the air group.
        This is where the topic of the prospects of carrier-based aircraft is exhausted. The entire article develops the topic of ground-based aviation, and all tasks at sea are considered in the priority of using such aircraft. No need, Andrei, speculation, I read your article, and your conclusions suggested an analogy with the Douai doctrine. You can not say that "the fleet is not needed", that it "must be coastal", but this will be a consequence of the dominant statements, your conclusions. These are your words.
        Funds for this can be found both in the optimization of the current ship composition, and in the reduction of illiquid naval programs (creation of various kinds of "superweapons" that sailors are trying to give themselves importance in the ranks of the Armed Forces, costly and useless "rocket boats", meaningless R&D dedicated to creation of a bloated surface fleet, inappropriate repairs and upgrades of ships like "Admiral Kuznetsov", which serve exclusively as elements of state prestige).

        Unfortunately, rather, it was you who did not read my comment carefully, or you are dissembling, but in any case, thanks for your attention.
        1. Anzhey V.
          26 March 2021 08: 28
          +1
          Yes, you did not say that the fleet is not needed, but you focused on ground-based aviation.


          Um, it seems that although I am brief (the format of the article does not allow doing this in more detail), I have substantiated my inventions. I do not like to theorize, talking about impossible situations - and large-scale construction of the fleet is one of those.

          I repeat once again, my thesis is extremely simple: before you climb to conquer the oceans, you need to "conquer" at least your own coast, which is now an absolutely inaccessible task for our Navy.

          At the current moment in time, at best, the same thing awaits us that happened to the Soviet fleets in World War II. Although the truth, however, will be sadder.

          This is where the topic of the prospects of carrier-based aviation is exhausted.


          Reasoning about carrier-based aircraft at a given time is as realistic as reasoning about magic cavalry on pink unicorns.

          To have an aircraft carrier, you need to provide it with a base infrastructure and a battle group. Indeed, the ideas of A. Vorontsov and R. Skoromokhov about dozens of naval Tu-160Ms look even more sensible than the controversy about carrier-based aircraft in Russia.

          The ship repair capacity in the country is scanty, Perseus. We will naturally rot any large warship, as we have already rotted two nuclear missile cruisers and an aircraft carrier (which we have, but for three decades has not reached combat readiness, has stoked its own boilers in the parking lot, and for which the Navy has not figured out a single adequate task!) ...

          this will be a consequence of the dominant statements, your conclusions


          The consequence of my conclusions is completely different: after fortifying the coast with the help of coastal defense and aviation, and ensuring radar, hydroacoustic and radio-technical control of the near sea zone, the current ship composition should be reduced to combat expeditionary groups so that it can perform real combat missions, and not walk exceptionally beautifully during parades.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 26 March 2021 10: 42
            0
            Quote: Anjay V.
            The consequence of my conclusions is completely different: after fortifying the coast with the help of coastal defense and aviation, and ensuring radar, hydroacoustic and radio-technical control of the near sea zone, the current ship composition should be reduced to combat expeditionary groups so that it can perform real combat missions, and not walk exceptionally beautifully during parades.
            With such conclusions and at parades, there will be nothing to walk beautifully, by the time of the "fortified coast". You would have started by training pilots. During the time of Serdyukov, they made us "optimization" in this. By the way, a pilot of naval aviation requires special training. Among the schools destroyed then was the oldest educational institution of naval aviation, the Yeisk Higher Military Aviation School of the Order of Lenin, the Pilot School named after twice Hero of the Soviet Union, USSR cosmonaut V.M.Komarov.

            List of military aviation schools destroyed at that time:

            1. Air Force Orders of the Red Banner and Kutuzov I degree Red Banner Academy named after Yu.A. Gagarin (2008);
            2. Air Force Engineering Orders of Lenin and the October Revolution Red Banner Academy. professors N.E. Zhukovsky (2008);
            3. Military Red Banner Academy of Air Defense named after Marshal of the Soviet Union G. Zhukov (2010);

            Military schools:

            1. Achinsk Military Aviation Technical College. 60th anniversary of the Komsomol (2000);
            2. Armavir Higher Military Aviation Red Banner School for Pilots named after Chief Marshal of Aviation P.S. Kutakhova (2001);
            3. Balashov Higher Military Aviation School for Pilots named after Chief Marshal of Aviation A.A. Novikova (2001);
            4. Barnaul Higher Military Aviation School for Pilots named after the Chief Marshal of Aviation K.A. Vershinin (1999);
            5. Borisoglebsk Higher Military Aviation Order of Lenin Red Banner Pilot School named after V.P. Chkalova (1997);
            6. Irkutsk Higher Military Aviation Engineering Order of the Red Star School (2009);
            7. The Yeisk Higher Military Aviation Order of Lenin, the school of pilots named after twice Hero of the Soviet Union, cosmonaut V.M. Komarova (2011);
            8. Kaliningrad Military Aviation Technical School (1994);
            9. Kachinsky Higher Military Aviation Order of Lenin Red Banner School named after AF Myasnikov (1997);
            10. Kirov Military Aviation Technical School (2007);
            11. Kurgan Higher Military-Political Aviation School (1994);
            12. Kurgan Military Aviation Technical School (1995);
            13. Lomonosov Military Aviation Technical School (1994);
            14. Orenburg Higher Military Aviation Red Banner School of Pilots named after I.S. Polbina (1993);
            15. Perm military aviation technical school. Lenin Komsomol (1999);
            16. Saratov Higher Military Aviation School of Pilots (1991);
            17. The Stavropol Higher Military Aviation School for air defense pilots and navigators named after Marshal of Aviation Sudets (2010);
            18. Tambov Higher Military Aviation School named after M.M. Raskovoi (1995);
            19. Tambov Higher Military Aviation Engineering Order of Lenin Red Banner College named after Dzerzhinsky (2009);
            20. Ufa Higher Military Aviation School for Pilots (1999);
            21. Chelyabinsk Higher Military Aviation Red Banner Navigators School named after 50th anniversary of the Komsomol (2011);
            22. Shadrinsk Military Aviation School of Navigators (199?);


            The ship-repairing capacity in the country is scanty, you say, now a lot of things are scanty, and we are making single-piece aircraft. If the desires are only according to their capabilities, nothing will move, billions will flow out of the country, while no savings will solve the problem, and, instead of the army and the navy for Russia, two new allies of the Russian oligarchs will establish themselves - oil and gas.

            Of course, everyone has their own opinion.
  • slm976
    slm976 25 March 2021 09: 49
    +2
    From my point of view, the author's reasoning contains a number of logical omissions. It is difficult to disagree with the fact that aviation is the main striking force. But we can and should argue with the fact that it is necessary to completely abandon the construction of aircraft carriers and rely only on the coastal infrastructure (by the way, at one time, about 2-3 years ago, I probably would have agreed with the author pontiously, but ..):
    1. For some reason, the author believes that the creation of new coastal air bases, with the entire base infrastructure, supply infrastructure, coastal defense infrastructure, with a garrison and echeloned air defense will be much cheaper than the creation of an aircraft carrier and its escort.
    But this statement is very disputable, and without accurate calculations of the cost, it is absolutely unsubstantiated.
    2. Further, stationary airfields located at the very front line of defense (for example, as the author suggests on the Kuril Islands) become an easy target for tactical missiles, aviation and even MLRS of the enemy, and no air defense will save here, these airfields will be destroyed, or simply withdrawn from building with the first strike, together with all aviation based on it, directly from the enemy's territory, even without the participation of the enemy fleet.
    3. Let's go further, the main advantage of an aircraft carrier is its mobility, unlike any ground infrastructure, an aircraft carrier can move into the required area of ​​the world's oceans and, in the same way, in case of a real danger, go back, with ground infrastructure, this will not work, the enemy, knowing its location, will always be able find options to bypass, destroy or simply render harmless our coastal airfields.

    Conclusion: naval aviation should be developed and built, it should be based both on stationary (coastal) airfields and on mobile airfields - aircraft carriers, but we will never have a lot of these aircraft carriers, but we most likely will not be able to build a normal defense system without them ...
    1. Anzhey V.
      25 March 2021 16: 39
      +1
      It is difficult to disagree with the fact that aviation is the main striking force. But with the fact that it is necessary to completely abandon the construction of aircraft carriers and rely only on the coastal infrastructure - it is possible and necessary to argue


      And here I agree with you, and moreover - I did not deny this, mentioning this moment in the article.

      We need aircraft carriers and other elements of the ocean-going fleet, but not in the near future (5-15 years). First, we need to deal with pressing problems, because we will kill any ship of the first rank at the moment, as we killed the Kirov and Kuznetsov.

      Until there is a strong coastal defense and repair facilities, the fleet can be forgotten.
      1. slm976
        slm976 26 March 2021 08: 40
        +1
        Hello Andrey.
        We need aircraft carriers and other elements of the ocean-going fleet, but not in the near future (5-15 years). First, we need to deal with pressing problems, because we will kill any ship of the first rank at the moment, as we killed the Kirov and Kuznetsov.


        Believe me, to my deep regret, in the next 5-15 years, aircraft carriers do not shine for us in any case, we should start building frigates, corvettes and minesweepers at a normal pace to compensate for the withdrawal of obsolete ships from the fleet.

        Until there is a strong coastal defense and repair facilities, the fleet can be forgotten.

        So maybe it's worth investing in this? In the infrastructure for basing ships, shipbuilding and ship repair facilities?))
        And in parallel to design and begin to prepare for the construction of aircraft carrier ships and aircraft that will be based on them.

        Look Andrei, I don't know if you wanted this, but your article draws a direct parallel - let's give up the aircraft carrier fleet and invest in coastal aviation and basing infrastructure. But the point is that this is a dead-end path ....

        Forward coastal airfields are very vulnerable to a preemptive enemy strike, and from remote airfields, conventional front-line aviation will not be able to reach the theater of operations.
        Further, as quite rightly noted below Alexey RA, in order to replace one aircraft carrier, it is necessary to build several forward-based coastal airfields with all the infrastructure, this will result in finances much more significant than the aircraft carrier fleet construction program.

        You can, of course, go the Soviet way and build a special type of aircraft (a new reincarnation of the long-range bomber-missile carrier TU-22M), which could be based on mainland airfields and would have a large radius of action and powerful missile weapons, but this route will also be more expensive and much less versatile than the construction of aircraft carrier ships, because for quite a lot of money we only get the opportunity to launch missile strikes on the enemy's NK, but we in no way solve the problem of the air defense of our surface ships and cannot protect our own missile carriers from enemy aircraft.

        Therefore, we have no other way, except for the construction of a certain number of aircraft carrier ships for our fleet.
        1. Anzhey V.
          26 March 2021 09: 01
          +1
          Have a nice day!

          in order to replace one aircraft carrier, it is necessary to build several forward-based coastal airfields with all the infrastructure, this will result in finances much more significant than the construction program of the aircraft carrier fleet.


          I assure you, this is a delusion.

          Of course, the expenses will be colossal, but they will not even come close to the cost of building at least one AUG with an adequate base infrastructure. Moreover, for us the problems will begin even at the construction stage - a ship of this class needs to be laid down somewhere.

          I am silent about the years of R&D, which everyone forgets, the development of a new aircraft (no one, I hope, will offer to shove the poor MiG-29K), the modernization (or even construction) of ship repair facilities, the construction of escort ships (the Orlans will probably come out of the composition of the fleet by the time an aircraft carrier appears in our country, even if its development is hit right today), the construction of a basing infrastructure (such a ship needs its own substation, for example) and many more such "buts".

          You can, of course, go the Soviet way and build a special type of aircraft.


          During the Soviet era, aircraft had completely different performance characteristics. Today the Su-34 has a range of 4000 km. Yes, of course, this is without a combat load, but with a fleet of tanker aircraft, this can be a lethal help.

          So maybe it's worth investing in this? In the infrastructure for basing ships, shipbuilding and ship repair facilities?))


          Great idea, but it needs a business case. Unfortunately, a full-scale modernization and expansion of the ship's infrastructure cannot be done just like that - we live under capitalism.
          1. slm976
            slm976 26 March 2021 10: 06
            0
            Of course, the expenses will be colossal, but they will not even come close to the cost of building at least one AUG with an adequate base infrastructure. Moreover, for us the problems will begin even at the construction stage - a ship of this class needs to be laid down somewhere.


            Unfortunately, it is impossible to reasonably argue without real data to compare the cost)). But I disagree with you here, and here's why.
            The aircraft carrier is essentially a mobile airfield, plus it is that it can be at the right time in the right place, and after completing the task, move to another point where it is needed, then it cannot be replaced with one ground airfield, but you have to build an airfield network. I think so, there is no need to prove, it goes without saying?
            Further, the cost of construction, maintenance, maintenance, security of several stationary airfields, on which 50-60 aircraft can be based - count ... very much I doubt that this cost will be lower than the cost of building and maintaining one aircraft carrier.
            By the way, if we are talking about advanced airfields located in remote territories or islands, the question of the cost of supply arises in full growth!
            I'm not even talking about security issues, then that it is much easier to disable a stationary airfield with previously known coordinates than an aircraft carrier moving somewhere in the sea, probably it is also not necessary to prove it?
            As for the problems of construction and basing, then forgive me, we still can't get away from the need to build warships higher than a frigate, these ships will have to be built somewhere, and accordingly, we will have to build new shipbuilding enterprises, and the structure of basing and ship repair of surface ships will have to build and modernize, because it is required not only for aircraft carriers.

            I am silent about the years of R&D, which everyone forgets, the development of a new aircraft (no one, I hope, will offer to shove the poor MiG-29K), the modernization (or even construction) of ship repair facilities, the construction of escort ships (the Orlans will probably come out of the composition of the fleet by the time an aircraft carrier appears in our country, even if its development is hit right today), the construction of a basing infrastructure (such a ship needs its own substation, for example) and many more such "buts".


            Look, we in the Aerospace Forces are now bringing a completely new SU-57 aircraft to series, what prevents it from being spoiled and adapted to be based on a new aircraft carrier? After all, we will not build again "Admiral Kuznetsov" with all its shortcomings?
            All the same applies to naval helicopters, anti-submarine aircraft, AWACS aircraft, we still need to design and build anew the entire line of this technology, regardless of whether we are building aircraft carriers or not, so what's the difference?)
            As for the escort ships, the situation is the same as with the planes .. the ships still need to be built, the Eagles have absolutely nothing to do with it, promising frigates of project 22350M suggest themselves, which will still be built on the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet, outside depending on whether we build aircraft carriers or not.)

            During the Soviet era, aircraft had completely different performance characteristics. Today the Su-34 has a range of 4000 km. Yes, of course, this is without a combat load, but with a fleet of tanker aircraft, this can be a lethal help.


            Where does this figure come from for the SU-34? Or do you give the ferry range? So you have to look at the combat radius, but here, as far as I remember, no more than 1100 km. with outboard tanks, I could be wrong, of course. As for the refueling plane, in combat conditions it still needs to survive (((, before refueling someone.

            Great idea, but it needs a business case. Unfortunately, a full-scale modernization and expansion of the ship's infrastructure cannot be done just like that - we live under capitalism.


            And life will force us, we will not go anywhere, as long as it is not too late.

            P.S. I once adhered to the same point of view as you do now, even tried to argue with Andrey from Chelyabinsk on this topic, gave almost the same arguments as you do now), then calmly comprehend and digest all the arguments of the opponent, read the materials of other authors. In general, I try to read everything that I see on the maritime theme, and I realized that in that dispute I was wrong and we can't get away from the construction of aircraft carriers.)
            1. Anzhey V.
              26 March 2021 11: 27
              +2
              The aircraft carrier is essentially a mobile airfield, plus it can be at the right time in the right place, and after completing the task, move to another point where it is needed, then it cannot be replaced by one ground airfield


              The problem is that by building aircraft carriers, we cannot avoid the need to create a network of airfields, incl. forward-based.

              The big problem for all supporters of carrier-based aviation in our country is that they do not understand the truism: no one has ever considered an aircraft carrier as a fundamental means of naval warfare. This is a means of strengthening forward positions in threatened directions - this is how the Chinese and the Americans view them. Yes, this is a floating air base with a whole division of aircraft, but it is unable to replace a stationary defense - only to strengthen it. And what will we need to strengthen if the coast after the collapse of the USSR is de facto bare, like all the available island bases?

              Deck aircraft will never be able to provide the same number of sorties as land-based aircraft. Americans are far from being; They did not just distribute their AUG in different directions - this was done relying on the structure of ground bases, and in some cases they plan to use AB as a means of delivering aircraft to ground runways, from where they, in turn, will have to conduct hostilities.

              All the same applies to naval helicopters, anti-submarine aircraft, AWACS aircraft, we still need to design and build anew the entire line of this technology, regardless of whether we are building aircraft carriers or not, so what's the difference?)


              All naval aircraft we need can be made on the basis of existing transport and civil aircraft.

              Needless to say, deck-based aviation will have completely different requirements - they will have to be built from scratch.

              than an aircraft carrier moving somewhere in the sea, you probably don't need to prove it either?


              Sorry, this is an absolutely ridiculous argument. We are not in 1943 in the yard, but tracking aircraft carrier groups was practiced back in the 60s.

              Where are you going to "move somewhere" a whole battle group in our closed waters, I do not know.

              Further, the cost of construction, maintenance, maintenance, security of several stationary airfields, on which 50-60 aircraft can be based - count ... very much I doubt that this cost will be lower than the cost of building and maintaining one aircraft carrier.


              One aircraft carrier will not make the weather, if we talk about at least some increase in the combat power of the fleet, then at least three of them will be required.

              Next:

              1. Do you need to guard an aircraft carrier?
              2. Does the ground infrastructure need to be maintained for its basing?
              3. Does the aircraft carrier need cover?
              4. Do the ship groups (especially in the north and east) need supplies?
              1. slm976
                slm976 26 March 2021 12: 29
                0
                The problem is that by building aircraft carriers, we cannot avoid the need to create a network of airfields, incl. forward-based.


                And here you are twisting)), none of the supporters of the aircraft carrier fleet has ever said that the presence of an aircraft carrier fleet will eliminate the need to build ground airfields, it will simply allow not to build unnecessary air bases where they will be vulnerable.
                On the contrary, these are the opponents of aircraft carriers claim that there is no need to build aircraft carriers, it is enough to set up stationary airfields.)))

                The big problem for all supporters of carrier-based aviation in our country is that they do not understand the common truth: no one has ever considered an aircraft carrier as a fundamental means of naval warfare.


                From this point of view, in more detail, what is considered by our faithful opponents as the main means of naval warfare? And what do you mean by naval warfare?

                Deck aircraft will never be able to provide the same number of sorties as land-based aircraft.


                So what? What conclusions do you draw from these common truths?))
                Aircraft carriers are used where there are no stationary airfields, respectively, and aviation from them cannot fly at all))). Do you propose, following the example of the Chinese, to fill the islands in the ocean?))) And most importantly, the aircraft carrier can be thrown to any point from where there is danger, and a stationary airfield with its own number of sorties will always remain in place.

                All naval aircraft we need can be made on the basis of existing transport and civil aircraft.

                Needless to say, deck-based aviation will have completely different requirements - they will have to be built from scratch.


                What are these conclusions drawn from?))) Both the first and the second? They are both controversial))). If everything can be done so simply on the basis of civil aircraft, then what hasn’t been done so far? And if this is not so simple, then why not immediately make aircraft with the possibility of deck-based aircraft? And why can't deck-based aircraft be made on the basis of existing aircraft projects? Can you base it somehow? )))

                Sorry, this is an absolutely ridiculous argument. We are not in 1943 in the yard, but tracking aircraft carrier groups was practiced back in the 60s.


                And what is absurd about it?))) Do you disagree that a moving AUG is a more difficult target than a stationary airfield?) Do you need to prove this?

                One aircraft carrier will not make the weather, if we talk about at least some increase in the combat power of the fleet, then at least three of them will be required.


                Better 4, 2 for each ocean fleet ... but for the edge and 3 is enough.

                1. Do you need to guard an aircraft carrier?
                2. Does the ground infrastructure need to be maintained for its basing?
                3. Does the aircraft carrier need cover?
                4. Do the ship groups (especially in the north and east) need supplies?


                1. Is the aircraft carrier's dock located somewhere separate from the naval base of the main forces of the fleet, that it needs separate security and support, a separate air defense, a separate coastal defense?
                2. Of course it is necessary, but will it be more expensive than maintaining the infrastructure of several ground aerodromes that will replace it?
                3. Escort do you mean? And that the refusal to build aircraft carriers saves us from building frigates?))) Moreover, escort ships will be built before the aircraft carriers. So no one will specially build ships to escort aircraft carriers.
                4. Of course it is necessary, the AUG includes supply ships, they are in the order. But I'm afraid that supplying an avibase for 50-60 vehicles in remote areas, and even in combat conditions, already need serious convoys, one ship will not get off with a supply ship. For example, consider the supply of Khmeimim, and there the number of aircraft will be smaller.
                1. Anzhey V.
                  26 March 2021 17: 12
                  +2
                  Excuse me, of course, but the whole point of the conversation begins to boil down to a dispute for the sake of a dispute.

                  First, you constantly appeal to some kind of "remote bases", although most of the military infrastructure we need is required in logistically accessible locations.

                  Even the Kuril Islands are, in essence, quite accessible territory, where the units deployed there are regularly supplied.

                  Actually, this is all okay - what is really strange and incomprehensible is the appeal to logical conclusions like "we cannot supply a continental airfield, but we will master the construction and supply of AUG, for which we have nothing." Simply gorgeous. I don't even know what to add.

                  If everything can be done so simply on the basis of civil aircraft, then what hasn’t been done so far?

                  I did not talk about "everything on the basis of civilian aircraft." Be careful, please.

                  AWACS, tankers, transport workers - all of this is being built on the basis of the Il-76MD-90A. We have serial strikers and fighters. With PLO and patrol officers, everything is more complicated, but if the UAC finally pulls out the current projects, then there are prospects.

                  For the deck, we have nothing at all.

                  And let's be realistic - if, plus or minus, "live" projects with the Soviet backlog cannot be mastered for decades, then how much and what years will development from scratch take?

                  Suppose we even make a hypothetical version of the Su-57 for the deck, and where do we get everything else? The point is to build a catapult aircraft carrier without having an AWACS aircraft for it?

                  And that the rejection of the construction of aircraft carriers relieves us of the construction of frigates


                  How long have frigates been able to close all target niches in an aircraft carrier group? Okay, let's spit on the ASW battalion, suppose that the frigates will cope, and who will be part of the air defense battalion (and make no mistake, it is necessary - the presence of an aircraft carrier here does not affect anything)? Where to get integrated supply vessels? How long have we had an analogue of "Aegis" for such splendor?

                  Do you disagree that a moving AUG is a more difficult target than a stationary airfield?)


                  An aircraft carrier is a difficult target for us, because enemy AUGs have free access to the operational space, many years of practice, a mass of supply bases and airfields, and dozens of allies. And our "aircraft carrier in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk" will be as difficult a target as a duck in a puddle - and primarily because you are going to entrust it with the tasks of a stationary airfield. Yes, the enemy may have to sweat, but they will definitely destroy him. Especially as part of a formidable battle group of frigates.

                  Summing up, I can say this: I propose to ensure control over our coastal waters with available forces and resources. You propose to leave these water areas bare, driving Moscow's floating budget directly under the enemy's sight, which, moreover, we cannot build, which has nowhere to base, nothing to cover, and which in our country they do not know how to use.
                  1. slm976
                    slm976 29 March 2021 09: 09
                    0
                    Excuse me, of course, but the whole point of the conversation begins to boil down to a dispute for the sake of a dispute.

                    So stop, don't argue further.)))

                    First, you constantly appeal to some kind of "remote bases", although most of the military infrastructure we need is required in logistically accessible locations.


                    How do you say it!))) We talked about coastal airbases that can replace aircraft carriers. I ask you to list the logistically available places for the deployment of such bases, completely covering the deployment areas of our SSBNs?

                    Even the Kuril Islands are, in essence, quite accessible territory, where the units deployed there are regularly supplied.


                    Look at the map and you will see that the Kuril Islands are much closer to the territory of Japan than to the mainland of Russia. So you can properly supply someone there only in peacetime, and by the way, there is no need to compare the troops deployed there with an airbase of 50-60 aircraft required to replace an aircraft.

                    Actually, this is all okay - what is really strange and incomprehensible is the appeal to logical conclusions like "we cannot supply a continental airfield, but we will master the construction and supply of AUG, for which we have nothing." Simply gorgeous. I don't even know what to add.


                    You are twitching again !! A continental airfield to replace an aircraft carrier also needs to be built, and more than one, as you have already written about several times, and not only by me.


                    How long have frigates been able to close all target niches in an aircraft carrier group? Okay, let's spit on the ASW battalion, suppose that the frigates will cope, and who will be part of the air defense battalion (and make no mistake, it is necessary - the presence of an aircraft carrier here does not affect anything)? Where to get integrated supply vessels? How long have we had an analogue of "Aegis" for such splendor?


                    Dear, look at the characteristics of the promising project 22350M and name how this frigate differs greatly from the destroyer of our potential opponents? Frigates with Poliment-Redoubt, Response and Packet will provide air defense and anti-aircraft defense orders, a multi-purpose nuclear submarine will also help them in anti-aircraft defense, aircraft from an aircraft carrier is also involved in providing anti-aircraft defense and anti-aircraft defense, that's all. As for the supplies, then again they still do, regardless of the presence or absence of aircraft carriers, there is no getting away from this, but for now they will manage with what they have.
                    As for Aegis, why did he surrender to us? We are talking about the organization of the air defense of a separate AUG, and not about the global missile defense system ...

                    An aircraft carrier is a difficult target for us, because enemy AUGs have free access to the operational space, many years of practice, a mass of supply bases and airfields, and dozens of allies. And our "aircraft carrier in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk" will be as difficult a target as a duck in a puddle - and primarily because you are going to entrust it with the tasks of a stationary airfield.


                    The aircraft carrier is a difficult target because it moves and is covered by a warrant and an air wing from attacks from the air and from under the water, regardless of where it is. It must be taken out by aircraft or submarines, which is quite problematic, it cannot be destroyed or damaged by tactical missiles (Tomahawks, Caliber) from several thousand km. distances, like any land airfield. And to land a landing on it, after which it will also be problematic to simply destroy all based aircraft. As for the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, not everything that seems small on the map really is ...

                    By the way, what tasks am I assigning a stationary airfield to an aircraft carrier? Can I see a quote?

                    Especially as part of a formidable battle group of frigates.


                    Here I don't know what to say at all, before writing about something, try reading about it first ...

                    Summing up, I can say this: I propose to ensure control over our coastal waters with available forces and resources. You propose to leave these water areas bare, driving Moscow's floating budget directly under the enemy's sight, which, moreover, we cannot build, which has nowhere to base, nothing to cover, and which in our country they do not know how to use.


                    Try to read our previous dialogue again and slowly ... write a second time the rationale for what you are wrong, I will not!
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 26 March 2021 13: 33
                +1
                Quote: Anjay V.
                All naval aircraft we need can be made on the basis of existing transport and civil aircraft.

                And on the basis of which domestic aircraft can the IL-38 be replaced? In general, what domestic Are civil passenger and transport aircraft manufactured in Russia?
                Speaking domestic, I mean aircraft assembled at least 90% from domestic components. And then again it will turn out as with a wing for the MS-21 or with Ukrainian-made aircraft engines.
                Quote: Anjay V.
                Deck aircraft will never be able to provide the same number of sorties as land-based aircraft.

                And how many sorties will ground-based aviation be able to make across Vilyuchinsk? At a distance of under 2000 km? wink
                Quote: Anjay V.
                3. Does the aircraft carrier need cover?

                The cover of the aircraft carrier is the very frigates that we still have to build. Moreover, in the presence of AV, these FRs will be able to move further 350-400 km from the nearest air base.
                Quote: Anjay V.
                4. Do the ship groups (especially in the north and east) need supplies?

                And coastal airfields, built instead of AB in multiples of a larger number, do not need supplies?
                Moreover, these airfields will have to be built on the basis of tactical considerations (effective radius, reaction time) at any fifth point in the world. What tactically advantageous airfield It is well described in the military memoirs of Pavel Tsupko from 13 IAP: the maximum coverage area, the complete absence of roads and a small shallow harbor through which all supplies go (which still needs to be raised up to the plateau). Plus - a disgusting meteo.
  • Niko
    Niko 25 March 2021 10: 03
    0
    The article turned out better than a joint creation with Roman, thanks. But despite the positive moments, the author continues to ignore the most obvious things, for example: 1problems of the submarine fleet as a whole and the deployment and maintenance of the combat stability of submarines as part of a nuclear shield and countering NATO missile carriers. And 2 experience of numerous wars past and present. The Arab-Israeli wars perfectly demonstrate the erroneousness of betting on ONE type of troops (Air Force). If the Air Force played a decisive role in the six-day war, in the next one they almost caused defeat when faced with a dramatically increased air defense capabilities. If in one war almost 100 percent of guided missiles hit the target, in the next ZERO percent (the rab stepped forward). How did classical aviation work over Karabakh? - there is no chance of surviving over the battlefield (the costs are exorbitant). TOMORROW? The AUTHOR is sure that everything will remain at the level of the Second World War, when aviation was indeed the ONLY striking force at times and the air defense means were inadequately weak.
    1. Anzhey V.
      25 March 2021 16: 44
      +3
      1problems of the submarine fleet as a whole and deployment and maintenance of the combat stability of submarines


      Hello Niko!

      You are certainly right in focusing on such important issues, but the format of the article does not allow you to fit everything into it at once.
      1. Niko
        Niko 26 March 2021 11: 44
        0
        Quote: Anjay V.
        1problems of the submarine fleet as a whole and deployment and maintenance of the combat stability of submarines


        Hello Niko!

        You are certainly right in focusing on such important issues, but the format of the article does not allow you to fit everything into it at once.

        Thanks for the article and the reply to my comment. Working alone is better for you. I understand your idea about the format of the article, but I mean a little different, with the chosen concept it is not possible to do something serious in other problem areas (for example, catastrophic lag on many points in the submarine) But thanks again for your style, it is much more pleasant to communicate with a person who calmly expresses his thoughts and does not call opponents idiots just because opinions do not coincide.
        1. Anzhey V.
          26 March 2021 12: 24
          +2
          Excuse me, you are confusing me with A. Vorontsov)

          I am quite recently on the "Military Review" and write exclusively alone)
          1. Niko
            Niko 26 March 2021 12: 34
            0
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Excuse me, you are confusing me with A. Vorontsov)

            I am quite recently on the "Military Review" and write exclusively alone)

            Exactly. Sorry. I mostly read on the go lately. laughing
        2. Anzhey V.
          26 March 2021 12: 30
          +2
          for example, a catastrophic lag on many points in the submarine fleet


          Unfortunately, I am not well acquainted with the subject of submarine warfare, and therefore I do not go into it.

          And my vision of the submarine fleet is somewhat specific, and I do not dare to voice it yet)

          PS: thank you, it's nice to talk to you too
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 25 March 2021 10: 11
    -3
    I propose to set up Hyde Park next to the Kuzi parking lot. And even better at his takeoff. So that bored conceptualists could speak, perching on a stool, on the topics "What kind of fleet does Russia need and does it need at all?", "Does Russia need aircraft carriers?", "Airship is the future of naval aviation", etc.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 March 2021 11: 22
      +2
      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      I propose to set up Hyde Park next to the Kuzi parking lot. And even better at his takeoff. So that bored conceptualists could speak, perching on a stool, on the topics "What kind of fleet does Russia need and does it need at all?", "Does Russia need aircraft carriers?", "Airship is the future of naval aviation", etc.

      Alas, a rare conceptualist will reach mid-Dnieper 35th shipyard.
      Although, a conceptualist broadcasting something on takeoff - on a polar night, at minus 15, with a wind of 25 m / s ... there is something in this. smile
  • Undecim
    Undecim 25 March 2021 10: 12
    +4
    The authors found a fertile topic for the extraction of clickbait and the publications went in a continuous stream, already several times a day. The number of naval theorists is growing exponentially, the site "mahans" are racing to give theories and programs of war at sea and the building of naval power to the mountain. The tension rises, the tempest in a glass of water gathers strength.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 25 March 2021 10: 16
    -1
    You can certainly speculate about what is not. And it won't be fast. But why?
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 25 March 2021 15: 31
      0
      Quote: Max1995
      You can certainly speculate about what is not. And it won't be fast. But why?

      Then it's better not to talk about anything at all
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 25 March 2021 10: 51
    +4
    Ground airfields, however, fully meet our requirements: they are feasible for the country, both economically and technically.

    There is only one problem - these airfields will have to be built many times more than AB. Because coastal aviation can solve the same problem of covering ground or naval forces only at a distance of 350-400 km. Further, the reserve from the nearest airfield simply will not have time to come to the aid of the duty forces (unless the line of AWACS patrolling in front of the targets, in the direction of a possible strike, is also dangerous).
    Moreover, more than one airfield in the region will be needed - for 2-3 AUGs may appear "on fire". Will we be able to build and maintain three bushes from three airfields in the Kuriles, Kamchatka and Sakhalin?
    The aircraft carrier is valuable in that it is a mobile airfield, dragging the runway, hangar, TEC and so on with you. Moreover, several such airfields can be concentrated in the area of ​​the future operation.
    They have greater combat stability (you need to make a lot of effort and resources to completely disable the airfield, equipped with the latest engineering ideas).

    As practice shows, this is a problem only for those who save on high-precision weapons. And so ... the runways, taxiways and hangars are quietly incapacitated by the UAB. Even if the airfield is rebuilt, it will be too late.
    1. Liam
      Liam 25 March 2021 11: 07
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      As practice shows, this is a problem only for those who save on high-precision weapons. And so ... runways, taxiways and hangars are quietly disabled UAB

      Owners of high-precision weapons do not fire them on taxiways and runways. They take out control rooms, radars, fuel and lubricants and ammunition depots, airfield equipment garages (refuellers, tractors, fire trucks, etc.), communication towers, transformer substations, aircraft hangars and other similar infrastructure. such a runway and taxiing will quietly overgrow with weeds due to uselessness)
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 March 2021 11: 33
        0
        Quote: Liam
        Owners of high-precision weapons do not fire them on taxiways and runways.

        Palyat - at the intersections of taxiways and along the runway with the MRD. 8-10 UAB, and as a result - neither taxi nor take off.
        Quote: Liam
        They take out control rooms, radars, warehouses of fuels and lubricants and ammunition, garages for aerodrome equipment (refuellers, tractors, fire trucks, etc.), communication towers, transformer substations, aircraft hangars and other similar infrastructure. After such a runway and taxiing, they will quietly overgrow with weeds due to uselessness)

        All this is good, but it does not guarantee that the last flight will not be made from the airfield.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 25 March 2021 11: 11
    -2
    The first question in the construction of a fleet is always this: can we use the available means to ensure the survivability of the ship against the means of attack of the enemy? Because it is pointless to build ships if several missiles or torpedoes are enough to defeat them. This is the same situation as with tanks: until the survivability of the tank ensures its life on the battlefield for more than half an hour, then building tanks is useless. Therefore, when designing a fleet, there must be a reasonable concept. For example, we are building KUGs around the ship, ensuring the inaccessibility and safety of the entire group. Such a center of inaccessibility and the core of the KUG is the Orlan-M 1144.2M project with underwater robots. That's how many such ships we will have, as many KUGs and we can create. All other ships are the saturation of the KUG with additional means and capabilities, and their performance characteristics are of secondary importance. Therefore, the main issue in the construction of a surface fleet is the modernization of the existing Eagles. Everything else is baby talk.
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 25 March 2021 15: 29
      0
      Eagles and their counterparts of the future are needed. But this does not mean that naval aviation is not needed. Naval aviation is even more important than the Eagles, which are now in fact not in the fleet (but there is a fleet at the same time).
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 25 March 2021 11: 33
    +6
    An interesting article, but you are dissembling the author, oh how cunning .. There is such a saying: "Nothing is new under the moon", much of what you propose has already been done in due time, tested and analyzed and the conclusions are not comforting. In the 40s, the states, with the passive behavior of the "United Fleet", easily dismantled the entire defensive perimeter of Japan, you are aware of the tactics of "Frog Jump" and the same thing awaits the Chinese artificial islands.
    Without a strong grouping of the Navy, these bases are doomed to destruction, their personnel to death, for example, now the US TF is able to assemble AUS from 5-6 multipurpose AV + 4-5 UDC capable of carrying an F35 with appropriate escort, which can be opposed by a remote base, an airfield and how long will it last? In general, any remote base is designed primarily to support offensive actions, otherwise it is not needed.
    And you are wrong asserting that a land base is better than an aircraft carrier, AB can get out of the attack, move and take battle, possibly dying, ground airfields can only take the first blow and die (again, we are talking about coastal airfields and forward bases brought forward ) and does not even smell of any increased combat resistance.
    Further, for some reason, you did not highlight the price and duration of training, let's say a complex of qualities necessary for pilots of naval aviation, perhaps you think that you can take the first guy from the street and turn him into a naval pilot in a couple of months? Well, this is nonsense.
    How long will the strike air regiments last without fighter cover, and how much will the patrol, PLO aviation, etc.?
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 25 March 2021 15: 24
      0
      You can argue with the author on certain issues.
      For example, that land based air bases are more resilient than aircraft carriers. Of course this is nonsense.
      But on the whole, the author is right that naval aviation must be strengthened many times over.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 March 2021 13: 44
      0
      Quote: Ryusey
      In the 40s, the states, with the passive behavior of the "United Fleet", easily dismantled the entire defensive perimeter of Japan, you are aware of the tactics of "Frog Jump" and the same thing awaits the Chinese artificial islands.

      EMNIP, now the Marines are being reformed just for the capture and retention of such groups of islands by their own forces - taking away heavy BTTs, reducing cannon artillery, but at the same time strengthening the "long arm" of the Corps - MLRS (with the possibility of launching a CD), SCRC, DD attack UAVs.
      The Americans are preparing to build their own Perimeter - but not for a defensive defense near their shores, but on enemy territory to support active USN operations.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 25 March 2021 11: 40
    +3
    A strong navy is a tool to support strong foreign policy and trade. Our foreign policy or trade can hardly be called strong after the collapse of the USSR, both in terms of effectiveness (we are systematically losing allies, the blocs behind which our country stands are degrading or stand still in development), and in terms of coverage. Foreign trade is shrinking in terms of the range of goods, we are losing markets for space launches, weapons, OPEC holds us by the balls and our gas initiatives are under the scrutiny of our "friends". Sanctions have cut off our access to modern technologies, and due to a weak economy and situational populist planning, we cannot adequately develop even half of what we need ourselves.
    I mean, on the one hand, we do not have the current prerequisites for creating a strong fleet in terms of economics - we are growing very slowly, if this is not a game of numbers at all. And we have no motivation to actively promote our array of products abroad, including widely using water communications. On the other hand, our economy, IN CURRENT FORM, does not allow us to deploy large-scale construction of the fleet, and we will not have the money for this without expanding outside. The fleet is always an instrument of either an active foreign policy or an active foreign economy. We do not have, and most likely until 2024 at least a revision of the effectiveness of either one or the other is not expected - therefore, everything will remain_ as_ is in matters of the fleet. Deep thinkers and theorists of a spherical strong fleet in a vacuum do not answer two main questions - WHERE will the state take money for a strong fleet, without prejudice to the general defense capability and a multiple increase in the tax burden? Where can we find a sufficient number of highly qualified rotational contract servicemen for such a fleet, if we have a rather sluggish dem. Potential, which is already "torn" between the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Russian Guard and the needs of the same economy, which hints that young -Yes-strong are needed everywhere. Given that under the current conditions we still have a strong outflow abroad - and most importantly, WHAT are we going to pay them with and lure them into this "enticement"? Red kumach flag and the next portion of the infusion bag on your ears? Maybe fast-built change houses? This question (like demography) is insoluble without economic development.
    So these are all highly hypothetical dreams. Litter for "many letters".
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 25 March 2021 15: 27
      0
      If things are not going very well in the economy and demography, this does not mean that we must fold our hands and abandon a strong fleet. Your position can be understood as follows - Russia is sick, and it is useless to treat it.
      And the fleet will be strong including strong naval aviation. If Russia (and including the fleet) is sick, then it must be treated.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 25 March 2021 16: 39
        +1
        Expensive and large toys cost a pretty penny. The specialists who will serve all this need to be trained for some kind of shishi, they need to be motivated to do exactly this, which means they need to pay good money, provide some kind of benefits to them and their families. The workers who will build these ships must receive good money, otherwise they will be dumped in other sectors, and people of less skill will come in their place and the percentage of rejects will increase. The same problem is at the design / creation stage of such a fleet and aircraft for it. A pilot is a rather highly paid profession, a military pilot, a naval pilot is a damn expensive staff, both in terms of the cost of training, and in terms of salaries, benefits, and security. You must understand that since the times of the USSR, when the choice of people was limited and the same was their opportunity to realize their dreams abroad, in the best conditions for this (if there were any), much has changed - and now we HAVE to take into account all of the above factors, if we want so that this fleet had someone to build, someone to serve on it, and someone to fly on these planes. And this means that someone has to pay enough taxes so that we can build and maintain all this without distortions. Where are we going to get taxes on this, given that our economy is growing at less than 1% per year? Are we going to rip off teachers / doctors / pensioners / small and medium businesses again? Let's tighten the screws again - and people potentially valuable for the defense industry and the economy will tumble over the hill with their knowledge and startups, and will pay taxes there, maintain the US fleet, for example. I am a supporter of a simple idea - at the moment, for economic reasons, we cannot afford a strong fleet, we need to first create an economic basis for it.
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 26 March 2021 15: 10
          0
          One does not interfere with the other, but, on the contrary, helps. If the victim state was defeated by the enemy due to military weakness, then this victim will not be able to raise the economy. Moreover, not only will the economy die after a military defeat, but it is possible that the defeated society itself will disappear.

          Conversely, the economy can be raised in conditions of external security guaranteed by a powerful army.

          Or do you not know the story? Can I tell you 100500 stories of the defeat of states and the cessation of their existence in their entire economy, or the stories of the victories of states and their subsequent economic prosperity on the basis of military victory?

          Or maybe you imagine that just now everything has changed !?
          That all people are brothers, and that we need to disarm, and the Amers can and should put us on the kukan, because this is correct, because it is democratic?
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 26 March 2021 16: 05
            -1
            On the contrary, our history regularly showed me that a strong army does not protect the state from collapse in any way - Tsarist Russia riveted so many weapons and shells that they fought the entire civil war, and the "legacy of damned imperialism" in the form of battleships survived calmly until the end of the Second World War. The fact that the Armed Forces of Ingushetia had a huge army did not prevent them from emerging as a house of cards under the weight of economic and political problems.
            The end of the Brezhnev era - the beginning of the Gorbachev era is again the peak of our military power, a huge army, thousands of nuclear weapons, the largest fleet in the history of the country - but the economy stagnated and the political system degraded, and as a result, we greeted a bunch of everything without a single shot.
            At the time when we were laying nuclear ships for the Third World War, Soviet citizens stood in line for unwashed potatoes and toilet paper, which does not seem to me to be good signs!

            You are talking about large and strong Armed Forces as a support for allies - I will remind you that at the beginning of the Second World War we had the largest aircraft fleet in Europe, the largest fleet of tanks in Europe, the largest army in Europe - and despite the fact that with all this we were on the defensive and had a strong demographic advantage, the enemy was stopped only literally at the gates of the capital.
            So from this I draw 2 conclusions - 1 - strong armed forces are not a guarantee of either the success or the survival of the state. We lost the RI and lost the USSR being at the peak of the power of these very Armed Forces, by the way.
            2- a sharp increase in the number of the Armed Forces or any of their segments does not guarantee real efficiency "if something happens." Since the beginning of the Second World War, we have quietly lost most of the monstrous fleet of military equipment that was in the western districts, and if the USSR did not have a strong industry, we would have rested in the Bose. Nowadays, and within the framework of a non-planned economy, a strong industry is synonymous with a strong economy. In the event of a war in the 21st century, it will no longer work to put women or children on the machine, but the ability to create machines and electronics themselves will, on the contrary, be a cementing factor for a healthy rear. All this rests on the development of the economy.
            1. Aleksandr1971
              Aleksandr1971 26 March 2021 16: 33
              -1
              1. Tsarist Russia riveted so many shells, rifles and cartridges that after half a year WW1 began to lack them, and they had to place orders abroad.

              2. The USSR overstrained with military spending. Everything is needed in moderation.
              I have never written to you here that you need to rip your navel in preparation for war. It is quite possible to recreate naval aviation using only 5 Abramovich's yachts. It's a joke, of course. But this is an indicator that the country's funds are being spent on thoughtless consumption, and not on real needs. Or do you think that Abramovich (and oligarchs like him) did not steal funds from the country, but honestly earned money and created surplus value in the country?

              Russia has money for the army and navy, you just need to use it wisely, and not waste it on elite consumption.

              3. Yes. Before WW2, the USSR created mountains of weapons, apparently focusing on the deplorable experience of the tsarist army. But I just couldn't prepare the army. And this means that in addition to weapons, comprehensive training of the army and the reserve is needed. And instead of training, there were continuous political studies, the destruction of officers and a disregard for tactics, rifle and physical training of personnel, for logistic support.

              4. How would you assess the military defeat of the Commonwealth before the 2nd and 3rd sections? The Polish army was weak due to the demands of the gentry for cost savings. Your proposals to save money on the Russian army are akin to the same demands of the Polish lords to limit the army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

              5. Another example. China in the middle and second half of the 2th century. Empress Cixi, instead of developing the fleet, spent the money allocated for the fleet on the construction of another palace. And then came the boxing uprising and Western intervention. Do you think China was able to oppose something to the West then?

              6. There are even tougher examples. If Poland and China, Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, revived, although not by their own efforts, then Byzantium, Assyria, Avar Kaganate, Liao, Western Liao, Sassanids, Bactria, Babylon, and hundreds, if not thousands of other countries and peoples remained only in history textbooks. It's even boring to list them.

              You think that now are different times, and that no one will genocide Russia. That they say, now is not the time of Assyria and the Avar Kaganate. Democracy is now. But remember the recent attack on our country by the democratically elected Hitler.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 25 March 2021 12: 25
    0
    Regarding the Kurils, I have the opinion that the Yapas themselves will not climb, because without suppressing the continental airfields and other logistics for the delivery of our troops and weapons, they will not shine at all. BUT there are options. 1- wait 10-15 years until the demography in the territory of the Russian Federation makes the mobility resource extremely low, 2-enlist the support of the ground troops of another state for a massive and rapid cut off of the coastal region from the continent, at the moment only the Chinese can pull it off. At the same time, Yao does not matter, because we look at the direction of our elite and where they have money (and for this they will deprive the moment of all the loot), secondly, the inadequacy of Yao's strike on the regional spinning of the territories, which were in fact almost empty by that time (ATP party). In my formation, there are also weaknesses (the cities of the opponents will get it pretty well in any case), but the presence of a compactly driven population to our cities and so small in number and it greatly facilitates their task.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 25 March 2021 13: 13
    +1
    Naval aviation is needed. The author swung into eight types, the ninth was suggested in the comments. But there is a double perception. Like an American proverb: if something flies like a duck, if something nests like a duck, if something looks like a duck, then probably this something is a duck! If everything listed in the article (from the blockade of the straits to the supply of remote bases) is transferred to naval aviation, then why is the Aerospace Forces? Northern Fleet! equated to a combined-arms district with the ensuing consequences for the formations of the Aerospace Forces and Air Defense ??? ... Why not repeat the experiment with the Pacific Fleet! in the Eastern Military District ??? ... In the next article, the author does not say a word about the interaction between the Navy and the Aerospace Forces. Or it may be just a seaside formation of the Aerospace Forces to cut the tasks that the author provides for naval aviation, in addition to the specific ones to combat submarines and trawling fairways. In the presence of airfields (with dispersal and jump airfields in the Aerospace Forces, too, not everything is in openwork), the Aerospace Forces can maneuver divisions no worse than naval aviation, and it will provide comprehensive protection against air strikes better than naval formations (or it will also be necessary to form air defense of naval aviation with its own RTV, ZRV , IA and REB). In short, there are more questions than answers and they are not correctly formulated, therefore there can be no unambiguous answers.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 25 March 2021 15: 21
    0
    Excellent and well-reasoned article.
    I especially liked the author's understanding of the realities of our geopolitical position, the situation in the defense industry, and the fact that the author does not deny the need to develop the fleet itself.
    For the fleet, although inferior, is. But with naval aviation it is completely sad.
    1. Anzhey V.
      25 March 2021 16: 31
      +3
      Thank you for the praise, Alexander!
  • Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 25 March 2021 16: 08
    0
    In principle, any aircraft can be involved in naval aviation. Remember the war, which just did not fly.
    Now candidates for naval aviation are the SU-34, Tu-204, and almost all fighters. A torpedo with a parachute will fit into the Tu-160 and you can take it. From naval aviation you can make a reserve for the Commander-in-Chief. Naval aviation can fly and destroy targets everywhere, the air force there is no army at sea.
    To restore naval aviation, it is necessary or necessary (I do not know how to call it correctly) a separate
    branch of the armed forces subordinate to the General Staff, for example. The fleet and naval aviation cannot be crossed. The born cannot fly. It is possible to give aviation to the fleet, but there must be its own vertical of command. This principle flew to the target over the sea, which means naval aviation.
  • Rlptrt
    Rlptrt 25 March 2021 18: 38
    -1
    We are quite capable of a program like Reagan's "600". So for this you need your own John Lehman, and not these clowns in the naval general staff, who are busy with garbage for a hearty and warm chair! And the commander of the country is a real one, not a swimmer behind slipped amphoras and an unserviceable general as a minister.
    In China, which today is building at an accelerated pace not only the most powerful fleet, but everything in general, there was nothing recently. But he had a Chairman who was for his country. And as long as the money and children of our chairmen are with our enemies, we will have nothing. And we will not be here soon ...
    1. agond
      agond 25 March 2021 19: 12
      -1
      It is not clear what motivates people who, under different sauces, throw up the idea of ​​the need for the country of aircraft carriers (contrary to the common sense of everyone else), but I really want to break this common sense and impose an unnecessary expensive thing on all of us, while the facts are completely ignored and silent
      1 There are only two places with non-freezing water near the coast in the strand, these are the regions of Murmansk and Vladivostok, the Black and Baltic seas, as well as icebreakers for escorting aircraft carriers not to offer.
      2 The country has never been, is not, and is not yet expected the appearance of aircraft sufficiently suitable for operation from an aircraft carrier, those that exist, the so-called "heavy fighters" are corny too large for this purpose
      3 Our country adheres to a defensive doctrine, we do not need to demonstrate our power on foreign shores
      4 The aircraft carrier will be at sea, at best, several months a year, and the airfield on the island all year round
      5 And probably the most important argument, in addition to aircraft carriers, the country probably has other more important tasks
      1. Rlptrt
        Rlptrt 25 March 2021 21: 22
        0
        Did I even say a word for the aircraft carriers? Or did you write in the wrong place?
        And Lenin also said that the best defense is an attack. Wake up.
      2. Ryusey
        Ryusey 26 March 2021 08: 47
        -2
        And I do not understand what motivates people fighting for the mosquito fleet:
        1. Is it stupidity impassable?
        2. Desire to harm your country?
        Countries with a defensive strategy usually disappear from the political map.
        The aircraft carrier will be at sea for as long as necessary.
        There are no more important tasks than ensuring security, there have never been and never will be.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 19: 20
          0
          Quote: Ryusey
          Countries with a defensive strategy usually disappear from the political map.

          are you talking about Sweden or China? they are on the map and are not going anywhere, and in general, the whole world except the United States is advocating for a defensive policy ... the aircraft carrier will not be at sea as long as necessary, will not require replenishment of supplies and quick repairs due to wear and tear of materiel, the personnel must go ashore , it is so old that the maintenance of this unnecessary vessel harms the defense budget, and the defense in general, and the new one will generally kill all supplies of equipment to the troops and to the VCS and to the navy for several years ... building an aircraft carrier for the Russian Federation is impenetrable stupidity, this is big a mistake than RTOs, because although they are not very needed, they are few and far between and they are cheap ... no one "stands up for a mosquito fleet", Adequate people stand up for coastal aviation, for submarines, for minesweepers, for a few surface ships of the third rank on the seas and frigates corvettes PLO on the oceans
          1. Ryusey
            Ryusey 28 March 2021 20: 48
            -2
            Dying these "adequate people" realize their mistake, but later it happens).
            NATO is a peace-loving organization - ha the Serbs would have raised you to a pitchfork for these words).
            China is peace-loving - twice HA Vietnam, Tibet, India laugh loudly at you).
  • Devil13
    Devil13 25 March 2021 18: 59
    0
    The author, you would at least count the numbers.
    How many airfields are needed?
    How many planes do you need?
    What kind of BC and reconnaissance is needed?
    How long does it take for a squadron to take off, what are the chances of an airfield (covered) to survive a raid normally?
    How much does it take to provide all this per year? (How much does one su-34 / tu-22m3m eat per flight? How many training flights are needed on board x number of boards x costs per plane-hour), etc.
    And then the proposals are very unfounded, although they are not devoid of logic (reaction time, transfer time, the possibility of massive missile strikes, etc.)
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 March 2021 15: 47
      +1
      Quote: Devil13
      How much does it take to provide all this per year? (How much does one su-34 / tu-22m3m eat per flight? How many training flights are needed on board x number of boards x costs per plane-hour), etc.

      And add to this the cost of maintaining a 12-hour readiness to receive aircraft the entire network of coastal airfields of the Navy throughout the country... Otherwise, you can not even stutter about any high mobility and rapid concentration of aviation in a threatened direction - it will be like in Khomutovo in 2013: there is no money from the Ministry of Defense for fuel, we cannot accept planes.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 19: 12
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And add to this the cost of maintaining a 12-hour readiness to receive aircraft of the entire network of coastal airfields of the Navy throughout the country.

        keep lighting devices and a radio beacon in good working order around the clock, this is one part-time electrician and 3 watchmen a day / three, possibly a snow blower tractor driver
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 19: 08
      0
      Quote: Devil13
      How much does it take to provide all this per year? (How much does one su-34 / tu-22m3m eat per flight? How many training flights are needed on board x number of boards x costs per plane-hour), etc.

      who does not want to feed his army will feed someone else's ... the importance of the Strategic Missile Forces no one denies, all these costs for the SU34 tu22 are not much compared to one vulnerable and draft-constrained aircraft carrier costing the entire air defense of the country consuming a railway tank of fuel per day, even if his planes do not take off and require all kinds of allowances for 5000 personnel ...
  • Escobar
    Escobar 25 March 2021 19: 38
    +1
    What is good about aviation is that it can be transferred from one fleet to another in a short time. Thus, at first, you can not try to saturate all four fleets at once, for example, with the same Su-30, 5-6 aircraft for each fleet per year, which in any case will not work, but have a new formation of 20 each year. -24 vehicles that can jointly strike against ship formations
  • Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 25 March 2021 20: 42
    0
    for the author
    stopped reading after the words about the combat radius of 400 km.
    the combat radius of the Su-30 and Su-35 is at least 1500 km.
    1. agond
      agond 25 March 2021 22: 36
      0
      Quote: Rlptrt
      Did I even say a word for the aircraft carriers? Or did you write in the wrong place?

      It is not clear to whom you are addressing this, if it was to me it was my answer to the author's question
      "Question number 3: why do we need to develop ground infrastructure? Why not build one aircraft carrier instead of three or four airfields?"
    2. Anzhey V.
      26 March 2021 09: 34
      +2
      for the author
      stopped reading after the words about the combat radius of 400 km.
      the combat radius of the Su-30 and Su-35 is at least 1500 km.


      You are right, of course, but you do not take into account that the plane still needs to go back, that it will be burdened with weapons and that it will probably have to actively maneuver in combat and then get out of it using maximum speed.

      Besides, you read it wrong - it was not about the combat radius of specific aircraft models.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 26 March 2021 18: 32
        -1
        it will be more interesting when the moment-41 is shown ..
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 March 2021 15: 50
      0
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      for the author
      stopped reading after the words about the combat radius of 400 km.
      the combat radius of the Su-30 and Su-35 is at least 1500 km.

      400 km is the effective radius of coastal aviation when covering targets at sea.
      Outside this radius, the reserve from the shore simply will not have time to approach the protected formation before the enemy launches the anti-ship missile (provided that the enemy is detected 400 km from the formation).
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 27 March 2021 17: 45
    +2
    I fully support the respected A. Voskresensky, naval aviation does not require R&D, (except for PLO), you can use the same equipment as the Aerospace Forces, and ships should reduce diversity and, moreover, not start megaprojects, this is obvious. It is necessary to saturate the fleet with submarines, minesweepers, frigates and PLO corvettes and to achieve their combat effectiveness. development of their capabilities, and not a stupid increase in displacement and saturation with calibers. The caliber is useless if the NK does not see the submarines or sinks on a mine. It will sink along with the Caliber ... all the more, the spreading of R&D on senseless AB in a single copy, super battleships disguised as destroyers, without a goal and tasks, will ruin such necessary R&D on PLO PMO.
    1. Anzhey V.
      28 March 2021 11: 52
      +4
      Put a plus)

      The aircraft carrier lobby in our country is, of course, something with something.
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 29 March 2021 07: 35
    0
    I was surprised to think that the airfield is more stable than an aircraft carrier. Otherwise, an interesting look at things.
    1. squid
      squid 29 March 2021 20: 11
      0
      Quote: Sckepsis
      the airfield is more stable than an aircraft carrier

      What else? What is there to be surprised at? AB with a single hit from anti-ship missiles will be at least disabled, like any NK. Worst of all, along with the entire wing. Airfield - try to crush it at all. The runway is repaired in hours, the aircraft are dispersed and can be kept in concrete shelters, the air defense systems are at a distance and their launchers / radars are also dispersed ... In fact, any NK is stuffed with the most complicated expensive equipment point target. Airfield - areal, and consequently, it is certainly incomparably more stable. And the cost of even three airfields is an order of magnitude lower than one aircraft carrier.
      1. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 3 2021 08: 39
        0
        And how many AB were disabled anti-ship missiles in history?
        Well, at least one case is capable of citing?
        It's easy to write, but to do ... the aircraft carriers are very well protected, the defeat of the anti-ship missile system is very doubtful. And protection - not only in the numerous air defense systems of the escort, but also in the means of electronic warfare, which have a multiple advantage in energy power. The power of the jammer of a large NK can be measured in megawatts, the GOS KR has very little chance of overcoming such a barrier.
        1. squid
          squid April 4 2021 10: 39
          0
          Quote: Illanatol
          How many AB were disabled anti-ship missiles in history?

          Awesome argument. We can continue this thought - how many nuclear submarines were sunk by enemy submarines in history, how many atomic warheads were delivered to MBRs in history, etc. etc. The iron logic of the aircraft carrier witness sect.
          These American cars are well protected. Against orders of magnitude smaller fleets. And even then decades ago. Ours will go to the bottom of the first "Virginia" within a radius of 1000 km with a volley of tomahawks block 5 or (by the time of its appearance) something more serious
  • squid
    squid 29 March 2021 20: 03
    0
    Another great article, I agree with almost every word!

    A couple of points:
    - the attack of the Danish straits - all the same too much, "and then Ivan suffered." unless by waiting for the European population to be finally replaced by blacks and Arabs
    - as usual, no attention has been paid to space reconnaissance and target designation systems - and here the progress since the time of the "legend" microscopic center is more than in aviation in the transition from piston biplanes to supersonic fighters. detection and, in the future, target designation of any large nc will soon become a trivial task on a global scale (and for our "probable partners", they probably already are)
    - Pak yes, according to all reports, subsonic, and is analogous to the B-2 / B-21, not the Tu-160. and why would he not be able to attack surface targets? as a "distant hand", capable of reaching with its PCRs with an external tsu somewhere in the Indian Ocean - quite to itself. and the Tu-160, with a little modification, the same
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev April 8 2021 21: 37
    0
    This is definitely necessary. But the question is what we have and what are the real prospects. What kind of submission and how it will be. These two points are very murky. Little reliable information.
  • Nross
    Nross Yesterday, 20: 10
    0
    Something lately there have been too many apollogies of the theory of the destruction of the Russian fleet under the guise of "economic expediency".
    I propose to put all of them on a stake!
    And to continue and further promote the ort of the ocean-going fleet. In reality, if you do not steal, then there is not so much money there is obtained for 3-5 AUG. It is enough to press 3-5 oligarchs to the nail.