Military Review

Inconvenient questions for supporters of the aircraft carrier lobby

177

Perhaps, starting this material, it would be worth saying that the topic of aircraft-carrying ships has long been controversial for our country. This issue was raised more than once at the Military Review - and, I think, my publication will not be the last in this difficult dispute.


Previous article on the issue of the revival of the marine aviation, stirred up a discussion that affected carrier-based aviation - one way or another, many people still believe that aircraft carriers can become a guarantee of ensuring the defense of the Federation's maritime borders. I do not plan to put forward theses opposing coastal and deck-based air forces - first of all I would like to consider issues that are sometimes avoided by both supporters and opponents of the "aircraft carrier lobby".


The development and production of carrier-based aircraft can cost Russia even more than the construction of the aircraft carrier itself. Source: US Navy

Aircraft carriers are very often viewed as a kind of superweapon. In some respects, this statement is true. However, in order to fully unleash the potential of carrier-based aircraft, many conditions are necessary, which, in fact, exist in an extremely limited number of countries in the world. And ours - unfortunately, does not apply to them. Given the current foreign policy strategy of the Russian state, injecting funds into weapons of this type is beginning to seem completely insane - however, we will leave the issues of conceptual application for later. First of all, we need to decide on problems of a completely different nature ...

Where to build?


In general, here it would be just right to ask: "Who should build?" However, we will have to combine such large-scale issues together.

Military shipbuilding is one of the most difficult areas of activity. Cooperation of suppliers, the number of which reaches thousands and thousands, timely design and delivery of many unique components ...

When supporters of Russian carrier-based aviation start talking about carrier ships, the impression begins to appear as if the country is replete with engineers and specialists in this field, and we are doing new ships, as Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev said, like sausage. The problem is that at the moment we cannot even determine the intended appearance of a ship of this class, let alone its design. All attempts at leadership fleet to issue terms of reference for the development of promising projects looked at least unintelligible, and the Navy cannot get rid of the obsession with creating a new aircraft-carrying cruiser - moreover, a springboard. This point should be kept in mind by all lobbyists on this topic. For if the "aircraft carrier business" gets off the ground, the country will receive not an analogue of "Gerald R. Ford", but a new "Admiral Kuznetsov" ... And this is at best.

By the way, the Navy categorically rejected the preliminary design of a nuclear aircraft carrier with a displacement of 60 thousand tons, which is a modernized version of "Ulyanovsk" - project 11437 - the first and never saw the life of the Soviet classic aircraft carrier ship.

In general, this issue looks extremely bad even at the stage of conceptual development - and consideration of the problems of practical implementation looks even worse ...


Even such a technologically advanced country as France could not develop a catapult aircraft carrier without the help of the United States. Source: US Navy

If we talk about the closest modern experience of Russian shipyards working with carriers of carrier-based aircraft, then this, of course, will be the restructuring of the Vikramaditya, the former aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Gorshkov. Here I would like to draw your attention to the fact that at the time of those works, a significant part of Soviet specialists were still “in the ranks” - it was banal for them not so many years, and the United Shipbuilding Corporation had experienced and efficient personnel at its disposal.

Now another decade has passed - and it is reasonable to ask, how many of those who participated in the work on the Vikramaditya are still “in the saddle”?

However, even this factor did not save the ship - everyone knows about the accident during sea trials, when the power plant of the aircraft carrier failed. The very same project of re-equipment of "Admiral Gorshkov" turned out to be unprofitable for Sevmash. But, even worse, it influenced the implementation of the state armaments program - because of the problems that arose, the delivery of the Yuri Dolgoruky, Alexander Nevsky and Severodvinsk nuclear submarines was postponed. And this, for a minute, was not the construction of an aircraft carrier from scratch and with quite lively Soviet personnel!

There is another point that is rarely mentioned in discussions: before there is even a grain of steel on the stocks, it will be necessary to carry out hundreds of R&D, which will cost billions of rubles. An aircraft carrier is one of the most complex technical structures created by man, and a country that does not have experience in the construction and operation of such an object will be doomed to a lot of research and development work that will drag on for many years. At the moment, Russia does not even have competencies in coastal-based naval aviation - in such conditions, the development of carrier-based aircraft will become a real "black hole" of the defense budget. It is necessary to develop a nuclear power plant, catapults, elevators, electronic equipment, deck tractors and many other elements, without which the functioning of a ship of this class is impossible.

If we talk about the direct construction of a full-fledged AB (such as, for example, the type "Nimitz"), then we are faced with the problem of a shortage of shipbuilding capacities. Proposals for a large-block modular assembly are untenable - we need large slipways, which we simply do not have, and welding work on open slipways at sub-zero temperatures (if we talk about the same Sevmash) is undesirable. What does this mean? Firstly, you will have to invest billions of dollars (by no means rubles) in modernizing and expanding the capabilities of the ship industry - and, secondly, at least five years to wait for results.

As a conclusion, I would like to add that we also do not have an infrastructure for basing such ships - and it needs to be built from scratch. For example, China (with its monstrous economic power and engineering and construction potential) has been doing this for four whole years - that is how much it took to build a special naval base in Qingdao.

I think the conclusions from the last paragraph will do everything themselves.

How to fight?


This question is much broader than it seems: we are talking not only about deck aircraft, but also about escort ships, without which, in fact, the very meaning of building an aircraft carrier is lost.

At the current moment in time, the only serially produced combat aircraft suitable for basing on AB is the MiG-29K. To this day, this vehicle can already be called at least morally obsolete - if we talk about the future (and we have no choice, given the preparation time for the construction and the construction of the carrier of carrier-based aircraft), then it will be as suitable for combat operations as and Po-2.

This leads us to the logical conclusion that full-scale work on the design and construction of new types of machines suitable for basing on a domestic aircraft carrier is required to complete the aircraft wing.


Successful use of aircraft carriers in combat requires experience and decades of practice. We don't even have one in the operation of deck helicopters ...
Source: US Navy

The most obvious choice seems to be the use of the Su-57. However, this aircraft is still not in serial production, does not have second stage engines, and is probably too heavy even for an ejection AB. And, accordingly, it needs significant alteration for service in carrier-based aviation. All of the above entails extensive R&D and de facto development of a completely new machine.

However, the situation with the AWACS aircraft is much worse - and without this class of aircraft, any dreams of a Russian aircraft carrier can be considered unrealizable and untenable. Many people often like to appeal to the Soviet Yak-44, forgetting, however, that it was never built even as a prototype for a rather prosaic reason - the work stalled at the stage of on-board equipment development, and this happened with the mighty and living defense industry of the USSR! Considering that at present our Oboronprom has rested even on a large-scale modernization of the A-50, any talk about a carrier-based AWACS aircraft can be considered fantastic history about the jelly shores. Moreover, the Russian Federation has not yet launched mass production of aircraft of this class, even ground-based ones - and they have much less structural complexity (there are no restrictions on the length of the runway, fewer requirements for compactness of equipment, etc.).

To this we can add the absence of multipurpose shipborne helicopters with a modular architecture of functional loading - in Russia there is no serial production of deck-mounted vehicles similar to the Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk, and serial army helicopters are unsuitable for ship-based.

Summing up, we can say that the cost of creating an aircraft fleet can exceed the cost of the aircraft carrier itself - and, much worse, there is no guarantee that by the time serial production begins, our promising carrier-based aircraft will not be outdated.

The issue of recruiting an escort group stands apart. We, as usual, touch on it in passing. And often the main argument in it is the statement that, they say, frigates, they say, will close all the necessary niches. This can be called either an impudent lie, or a blissful delusion: ships of the "frigate" class can perform auxiliary tasks as part of the AUG, but they are definitely not its backbone. Moreover, in the event that our ship group is in the ocean (and the supporters of aircraft carriers always emphasize the fight against the enemy "on the distant lines"), ships of such a modest displacement may be unable to use weapon due to the restrictions imposed by the pitching. Sometimes even vessels as large as destroyers find it difficult to cope with the turbulence in the oceans. And what can we say about ships with a displacement of 5000 tons?


For the price of an aircraft carrier group, you can purchase 20 intercontinental stealth bombers - and their bomb load will be at least ten times greater.
Source: US Air Force

The main problem, however, is the frigates' inability to form an air defense battalion. In the US Navy (and a more exemplary AUG operator in the world simply does not exist), the task of air defense of the formation falls on the ships of the first rank, such as the destroyers Arlie Burke and the cruiser Ticonderoga with the appropriate anti-aircraft missile and anti-missile weapons. Moreover, they are equipped with a multifunctional BIUS "Aegis", which has no analogues in our country. Separately, it is worth mentioning the integrated supply ships (by the way, they themselves are slightly smaller than AB and their construction requires appropriate funds and capacities) - we do not have ships of this class, and without them the autonomy of the aircraft carrier strike group is called into question. All this leads us to the fact that for the formation of the AUG, it is necessary to develop and design new naval weapons, automated control systems and, in fact, the combat and auxiliary ships themselves.

I think everyone understands very well how much it will cost the country.

Where to apply?


Alas, this is by no means an idle question - many people like to talk about "the longest maritime border in the world", forgetting, however, that most of it lies in freezing waters, and all other water areas are blocked by natural barriers that are successfully used by our enemy: the Danish Straits , Bosphorus and Dardanelles, Faroe Islands and Iceland, Aleuts and Japan. Our fleets are locked in closed seas, which automatically defines our aircraft carriers in the category of defense weapons, narrowing the range of their practical use. Limited by "glasses" of small water areas, our AUG will be under constant observation of the enemy, which, however, still holds the Black, Baltic and Okhotsk seas at gunpoint.

If we talk about the prospects for the development of missile weapons and long-range reconnaissance UAVs, the situation is taking on a completely unpleasant turn for us.

The deployment of single squadrons in the oceans controlled by the United States and its allies also looks like a sophisticated form of suicide, especially given our lack of a network of foreign naval bases. Of course, this will force the enemy to divert significant forces and means, but it will end in the inevitable destruction of our AUG - and, given the complete lack of experience in the combat use of formations of this type, as well as the total air superiority that the enemy can provide almost anywhere in the world, by no means it is not a fact that in the course of performing this task, he is at least guaranteed to suffer large losses.

As a conclusion of this material, I would like to quote from the book “Strategy. The Logic of War and Peace ”by military analyst Edward Nicolae Luttwak, a man who worked in the Ronald Reagan administration and who saw the peak of the development of the US Navy with his own eyes. This excerpt focuses on the debate that emerged in Congress following an analysis of the fighting in the Falkland Islands War.

“The commanders of the US Navy won this debate easily. They clarified that an aircraft carrier should not operate alone, but only in "battle armor" consisting of escorting destroyers and cruisers engaged almost exclusively in protecting aircraft carriers from anti-ship missiles, as well as from submarines.

Dipole reflectors, confusing enemy radars, naval missile impulses in the infrared range, and deliberate electronic interference will all deflect anti-ship missiles targeting aircraft carriers off course, while anti-aircraft missiles and escort ship cannons will shoot down other missiles, and planes that risk flying too close to be released. And this, as indicated by the commanders of the Navy, was only the middle layer of defense.

24 long-range fighter-interceptors on each aircraft carrier, with four aircraft equipped with long-range warning radars, and four electronic warfare aircraft to produce interference will have to provide the outer layer of defense, while four tanker aircraft will provide them with long-range refueling.

Finally, there was also an inner layer of defense: radars, countermeasures, anti-aircraft missiles and guns on each ship, including special automatic anti-aircraft guns designed solely for this purpose.

This response to the 1982 anti-ship missile enthusiasts was so overwhelming that the other side of the coin received almost no attention.

If you calculate everything that is required to successfully respond to anti-ship missiles, it becomes clear that in addition to the extremely high cost of escort ships, a significant part of the combat power of the aircraft carrier itself is absorbed in the task of protecting against attack by anti-ship missiles.

Do we really need an aircraft carrier to pour the bulk of our defense budget into its construction program for decades?

Is the country really ready to sacrifice the development of vital defense programs in order to create, in essence, a parade ship, unsuitable for the hostilities that we will be forced to conduct?

Aircraft carrier fantasies are far from harmless.

This is a malicious message that rejects a much-needed pragmatic approach for the country, a call to waste money allocated to the development of the armed forces.

The rationale behind their construction has no practical justification, except for the notorious desire to enter the circle of aircraft carrier powers.
Author:
Photos used:
US Air Force US Navy
177 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Proton
    Proton 30 March 2021 15: 21
    +30
    The article is a huge plus.
    The author presented everything in detail and reasonably.
    1. Alien From
      Alien From 30 March 2021 16: 10
      +1
      Thanks to the author! Or maybe it's true, we don't need aircraft carriers?
      1. Proton
        Proton 30 March 2021 16: 17
        +1
        At the moment - no, they are not needed.
        We will not pull them either in terms of money or technology.
        Everything has its time.
        1. Vladimir Mashkov
          Vladimir Mashkov 31 March 2021 22: 20
          +1
          An interesting article. The author is smart, literate, convincing and ... crafty.

          After the first reading, it seems so: yes, there is no one, nowhere, there is nothing to build and there is no need for Russian aircraft carriers, which have nowhere to base!

          But, after some reflection, you come to different conclusions. In Russia Yes who to design and build an aircraft carrier, an air wing, and where. There is where to base them both in the Northern and Pacific fleets. The most, of course, weighty argument AGAINST - the high costs of a scanty budget for both construction and operation.

          But today, Russian aircraft carriers are not particularly needed: Russia is a huge, largest country in the world with a sufficient number of airfields inherited from the USSR, in the west, in the east. In addition, Russia's policy is peaceful, not aggressive, and defensive. And aircraft carriers in peacetime are, first of all, a means of dictating and intimidating underdeveloped countries.
          1. Vladimir Mashkov
            Vladimir Mashkov April 1 2021 11: 50
            0
            Build someone and where is limited, but it still exists today.
            For the defense of Russia, aircraft carriers are not needed.
            But to provide assistance to friendly countries may be required. But the acquisition by Russia of a pair of aircraft carriers for the Northern and Pacific fleets is not a matter of the near future and with a stronger economy that allows this to be done.
            1. andybuts
              andybuts April 8 2021 13: 40
              0
              Quote: Vladimir Mashkov
              But to provide assistance to friendly countries may be required.

              Does Russia have these friendly countries that will need aircraft carriers to defend them?
              This is the maximum of Belarus and Kazakhstan for all the complexity of Russia's relations with these countries. So ships are not needed to protect them. Does Russia need to defend the conditional Venezuela, Syria or North Korea from NATO with all its might?
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal April 20 2021 07: 47
              -2
              and with a stronger economy allowing for this

              The economy is sad.
              And the course taken in 2014 to "return the territories of the former empire", at the cost of spoiled relations with developed countries from a dozen economies, reduced the growth of our economy by at least 1 times.
              Until 2014, growth rates were already modest ...
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 30 March 2021 17: 36
        -8
        Long live May 32!
        shyrshe step into the future !.
        We will build by 2030 10 AV units, 100 TVI each, at the expense of private investments of Russian patriotic oligarchs!
        FIRST - CONTROL OF EURASIA. ALL WANTED - THEN.
      3. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 1 2021 08: 46
        +1
        Aircraft carriers are needed. More precisely, new aircraft carriers are needed as more functional (capable of defending themselves even with weak escort).
        1. Provide air cover for the fleet in operations far from their home shores.
        2. They will provide counteraction to enemy anti-submarine aircraft in the areas of combat patrols of our nuclear submarines, significantly increasing the chances of performing combat missions.
        We need a new aircraft, a lightweight fighter of the 5th generation with a takeoff weight of 15-17 tons, and this will be suitable for the deck group. Su-57 is too heavy and expensive for such a purpose, as, indeed, for many others.
        1. Alien From
          Alien From April 1 2021 09: 22
          +3
          Rhetorical question: where is the money, Zin?
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 2 2021 11: 53
          +1
          When you already realize that a 5th generation light fighter is, in principle, impossible ...
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal April 20 2021 08: 19
          -1
          A relatively realistic option for a country that has the ability to purchase any military equipment:
          1) UDC of dimension "America" ​​or slightly less,
          2) fighters / strikers F-35B,
          3) AWACS aircraft based on V-260 Valor.

          Now about the option for the Russian Federation:
          1) UDC of suitable projects 23900 "Ivan Rogov" is still only at the beginning of construction, expected by 2028, as it were.
          2) There is no SCVVP of its own, the Yak-50 was in more than 141% readiness (outdated) and existed only in the form of a preliminary design of the Yak-201. The development of a new one will take at least 10-15 years.
          The layout with an eye on successful general solutions in the same F-35b is preferable: one lifting main engine (product 117, as an option) with a rotary nozzle, connected through a gearbox with a lifting fan.
          The maneuverable characteristics should be at least at the level of the MiG-29K, the high-speed ones - the Yak-141 / F-35b. The presence / absence of internal weapons bays - to choose from.
          3) With tiltrotor AWACS is still more difficult. There has never been such a machine.
          But history allows us to peep more successful solutions, in particular, the use of a rotary gear, like the V-260 Valor.
          However, it is not clear how long the creation of this machine will take.
          There is a negative example of the last 20 years - the story of the Ka-60/62, which seems to be very needed (as a universal analogue of the American UH-60), but did not go further than a flying prototype.
  2. Bez 310
    Bez 310 30 March 2021 15: 22
    +13
    The article is very timely and sensible.
    1. ammunition
      ammunition 30 March 2021 16: 07
      0
      Quote: Bez 310
      The article is sensible.

      Yes. Our geographic location + limited resources make aircraft carriers meaningless.
  3. Denis Rumyanny
    Denis Rumyanny 30 March 2021 15: 22
    -13%
    You don't understand the psychology of a Russian person. If you are obliged to buy an old Mercedes from a neighbor-oligarch BMW, even on credit, or collect it in a trash heap.
    90% of the time he will stand by the wall, collect bird droppings, but you feel no worse than your neighbor. And let China cut down the entire forest in Siberia, but we will build an aircraft carrier.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 30 March 2021 17: 10
      +2
      Quote: Denis Rumyanny
      And let China cut down the entire forest in Siberia, but we will build an aircraft carrier.

      There is nothing to build it on. China is richer than us. So they are building.
    2. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst April 7 2021 14: 24
      0
      According to statistics, 90% of the time, personal cars in each family are idle, collecting bird droppings, but the family gets moral satisfaction from the opportunities that have opened up after purchasing it. And the family budget, even on credit, even as a one-time investment, is only becoming more economically pragmatic and designed for a long PERSPECTIVE! But more recently, propaganda at the state level asserted that a car is a luxury.
      1. Denis Rumyanny
        Denis Rumyanny April 7 2021 15: 26
        -2
        Everything goes according to plan.
        UDC, then a vertical take-off aircraft - reanimated YAKs (the leader of the Slavs and all Muskvabad has already stuttered), then AWACS planes - again reanimated YAKs. Well, there are little things Ka - 27 from museums, everything for a beautiful view at the parade. The main thing is that the pulylizor should work properly and the population should not riot from the Tsar's amusements.
        The second stage - we put all this junk at the wall "for repair" and eventually to China on pins and needles.
        The third stage - UDC and AV was a mistake, we begin to catch up with the patrol aircraft submarines. In the meantime, we will go to space. And again, all over again.
  4. Dodikson
    Dodikson 30 March 2021 15: 23
    +13
    AB are not needed now. Yes, when Russia is a rich and powerful country, then it is possible to build 10 AUG, because it is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick.
    but that time has not come yet.
    so far, to protect our shores, we need Migi with Daggers, SSNS with Zircons and Il-38 + diesel-electric submarines against enemy submarines
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 30 March 2021 17: 39
      +4
      Everything is simpler - do not build fortresses, build a railway - one German military leader at a time.
      IT IS NECESSARY TO BUILD HSR AND HIGH-SPEED HIGHWAYS. at least to Krasnoyarsk, better than Irkutsk.
      and there is an indicator - the density of the highway per 100 sq. km
      these are the prerequisites for the power of the country.

      still modest - the birth rate and population growth in the Russian Federation.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 30 March 2021 18: 38
        +2
        Quote: antivirus
        HSR AND HIGH-SPEED HIGHWAYS. at least to Krasnoyarsk, better than Irkutsk.
        and there is an indicator - the density of the highway per 100 sq. km

        Freeways are cool. Only for whom.
        Before calculating the density of roads, you need to calculate the density of the population.
        There are fewer people living from Irkutsk to Krasnoyarsk than in one district of Moscow.
        1. Snusmumrik
          Snusmumrik April 1 2021 08: 24
          +1
          The infrastructure in the eastern half of Russia must be built with a reserve for the future. First, create the connectivity of the country, then the territories will develop, then the population will begin to grow. This is a strategy - first create paths of communication, then goods, services and people will move along them. By the way, gas pipelines and power grids are also included in the concept of infrastructure.
          In short, it is necessary to build roads, the main thing is not to pay. And a bridge to Sakhalin is also needed.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 3 June 2021 13: 10
            +1
            There is a problem: the development of private initiatives. Remember how the "Russian Elon Musk" ended his days in Kaliningrad.
            No one has canceled the sanctions either (it reduces economic growth by 2-3 times).
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 3 June 2021 13: 05
      +1
      IL-38 is a relic. We need a new PLO aircraft, based on the MS-21 or Tu-204.
      MAPLs are needed first of all with modern torpedoesregularly using them in exercises (necessary experience for crews). With this, everything is sad, ice firing has not been carried out for a long time.
  5. rocket757
    rocket757 30 March 2021 15: 31
    +5
    The author asks interesting questions!
    Answers ... as it sees fit.
    Consensus on this topic can never be found, because the positions of supporters / opponents are a mixture of desires, faith and much more !!!
    In principle, it is not surprising, because there are both in the world ... at the expense of the advantage of one over the other, it will not work, because the real confrontation was VERY LONG, the technology has long and significantly changed, there are simply NO new examples for comparison!
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 30 March 2021 16: 37
      +2
      Quote: rocket757
      The author asks interesting questions!

      The author very sensibly and widely gives answers to questions that are not the first time raised on the site. Reasoned article.
      Quote: rocket757
      Consensus on this topic can never be found, because the positions of supporters / opponents are a mixture of desires, faith and much more !!!

      It is not necessary to seek consensus, but to listen to all the pros and cons. The climate of Russia does not allow the use of aircraft carriers anywhere. Low temperatures and gusty winds. Why do we need this ballast, if it’s even difficult to “come up with” tasks for it.
      The basing of ships of this class is possible in the Black Sea, BUT there they will be under the scrutiny of NATO countries.
      In a word, it is enough to create prerequisites for cutting budget funds. It's time to deal with real problems and problems.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 30 March 2021 19: 11
        0
        There is nowhere to build, there is nothing, there is no one, there is no need ... no, not to convince.
        All will remain at their own. If they do not build, for objective reasons, most likely - we CANNOT!
  6. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 30 March 2021 15: 32
    +4
    Cool news from Turkey about the armament of their UDC. Analogies themselves ask for.

    Ismail Demir: “We can easily equip TCG Anadolu with drone UAVs. In terms of fighters, we spoke with TUSAŞ representatives regarding the development of a separate version of the Hürjet fighter with a vertical takeoff / landing capability. We are working on it"

    Recall that the TCG Anadolu landing helicopter carrier was built with an eye on the acquisition of American F-35 fighters with vertical take-off / landing capabilities in order to use the landing helicopter carrier as a light aircraft carrier (not suitable for classic Anadolu fighters), but the US ban on the supply of fifth generation fighters forced Turkey to look for alternatives. The creation of a version of the HÜRJET combat trainer (not to be confused with the 5th generation TF-X fighter under development) with vertical take-off and landing can solve this problem.

    1. bayard
      bayard April 1 2021 20: 35
      0
      It's funny. But there is no alternative for the Turks, except for the F-15В, and there cannot be. Well, unless in KB Yakovlkva bowing with money and a distant perspective. So Bayraktars and helicopters will be based.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 1 2021 20: 39
        -1
        The Turks are working with Rolls-Royce. They make engines for them. So the only question is desire and money.
        1. bayard
          bayard April 1 2021 20: 41
          -1
          So let them buy a Pegasus and fly it. request
          Weak Anglam to renew "Harrier" for the Turks?
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik April 1 2021 20: 47
            -1
            They can buy them from Spain or Italy, the Harriers are just exchanging them for the F-35B. The plaque is not so big there. The resumption of production is comparable to the creation of a new aircraft.
            The market for light AV / UDC is emerging, a light cheap fighter-attack aircraft with UVVP may be in demand. Making it optionally unmanned makes it even more interesting.

            But in general, I think this is an element of pressure in the dispute with the United States. The niche is too narrow. But what the hell is not kidding.
  7. 1536
    1536 30 March 2021 15: 35
    +2
    It turns out that a large, very large laden barge with an engine can terrify the world, the main thing is to place it "correctly" in some strait or channel. So why not think about new classes of ships, for example, aircraft carrier icebreakers for the development of the Arctic Ocean? Probably, such ships, carrying dozens of aircraft (and not only military ones) on board and breaking any thickness of ice, will be in demand, since they will be able to quickly respond to certain incidents, study weather conditions, ice conditions, etc. And moored to the coast, they could provide energy for small towns, which, perhaps, would appear throughout the entire NSR. This is fantastic, but as S.P. Korolev: "I love science fiction in drawings" ... They will ask why? Yes, because this land is the richest, the territory is huge, and, most importantly, as the writer VA Obruchev said, people are drawn to the search for the legendary "Sannikov Land", which is "lost" somewhere in the Arctic ice.
    Give free rein to the Americans, they would have built an aircraft carrier the size of the Ocean, so that it would go directly to some "scourge", and immediately began to walk on the deck of such a monster. But why go after those to whom a bad head does not go to rest?
    1. GTYCBJYTH2021
      GTYCBJYTH2021 30 March 2021 15: 45
      -9
      Quote: 1536
      It turns out that a large, very large laden barge with an engine can terrify the world, the main thing is to place it "correctly" in some strait or channel. So why not think about new classes of ships, for example, aircraft carrier icebreakers for the development of the Arctic Ocean? Probably, such ships, carrying dozens of aircraft (and not only military ones) on board and breaking any thickness of ice, will be in demand, since they will be able to quickly respond to certain incidents, study weather conditions, ice conditions, etc. And moored to the coast, they could provide energy for small towns, which, perhaps, would appear throughout the entire NSR. This is fantastic, but as S.P. Korolev: "I love science fiction in drawings" ... They will ask why? Yes, because this land is the richest, the territory is huge, and, most importantly, as the writer VA Obruchev said, people are drawn to the search for the legendary "Sannikov Land", which is "lost" somewhere in the Arctic ice.
      Give free rein to the Americans, they would have built an aircraft carrier the size of the Ocean, so that it would go directly to some "scourge", and immediately began to walk on the deck of such a monster. But why go after those to whom a bad head does not go to rest?

      1. VORON538
        VORON538 30 March 2021 16: 15
        +8
        Google gives out on the image-T 55 Angola
        and where does the SMP and the photo ??? lol
        1. frog
          frog 30 March 2021 16: 51
          -1
          OK. Angola is not our way ...


          1. VORON538
            VORON538 30 March 2021 16: 57
            +4
            Photos of positions on the SD, this is normal, in the Blagi area there is also, where the marauders could not get through :)))
            1. frog
              frog 30 March 2021 17: 24
              0
              Fine??? OK. The question is cleared. Good luck hi
              1. VORON538
                VORON538 31 March 2021 14: 27
                +1
                What do you propose to do with these fortified areas? To what extent do they correspond to the modern conditions of database management? In the Blagoveshchensk region, activists under the leadership of one caring person made a museum from several points, this is what ferrous metal lovers could get to, they destroyed everything. hands to the truly buried historical monuments - who is to blame for them? On the territory of the former BVTKKu there is a monument with the IS-3, so it is in place, it is maintained in good condition, although the schools have not been for more than 20 years, and those tanks that were dug in, as you have in the photo, in the fields, they are gone for a long time. There is only that behind the ITS line.
                1. frog
                  frog 31 March 2021 14: 49
                  0
                  Well, I'm not really talking about that. More precisely, not about that at all. If in much more ... sorry, civilized places, a rod of rather sickly size was laid on this, then what can you want
                  in places farther from the Moscow Ring Road?
                  And by posting a photo of what once (and not so long ago) guarded, so to speak, our borders. On the very islands, because of which there is so much noise .... And what was the use of these .... bunkers in the same 1983 ?? When many large islands were inhabited at least by border guards ...
  8. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 30 March 2021 15: 36
    +7
    If it’s so straightforward, maybe it’s time to work on a drone carrier comparable in size to the UDC, with a good power plant, a minimal crew and a couple of drones developed specifically for this task. On the one hand, I agree with the theses of the aircraft carrier lobby about the need for an aircraft carrier or two in the Pacific Fleet (in terms of functionality), on the other hand, I myself have repeatedly emphasized here that this is an absolutely unaffordable task, clearly excessive in terms of investments for defense. That is, some defensive need VS economic considerations.
    If we observe a sufficiently successful introduction of UAVs as "aviation of the poor", and if we develop large UAVs such as "Orion" and "Okhotnik" - perhaps the direction of studying the use of such devices at sea is not such a crazy idea in the future, taking into account our economy and capabilities ...
    1. t-12
      t-12 30 March 2021 15: 59
      +1
      drone carrier comparable in size to UDC

      If an ordinary UDC is equipped with a catapult, this is quite enough for the takeoff of the drones. Another thing is that the UDC will need the same escort as in the case of an aircraft carrier. And the UDC will be locked in the same way by the straits (Black Sea, Baltic, Pacific) and the Norwegian Sea.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 30 March 2021 19: 28
        0
        I proceed from a number of theses -
        1) We need an aircraft carrier as an element of defense, because we have a long sea border and the possibility of strengthening air defense or strike functions within it or in some adjacent areas will play "+" our defense as a whole.
        2) We do not have the means and capabilities to rely on some kind of powerful external oceanic operations far from our borders - because the fleets and the capabilities of the economies of our opponents from among the major economies / maritime powers in the same Pacific Ocean or the same France / WB / Italy + the possibilities of other means in their regions + the issue of leaving significant forces to protect its water borders - tightly locks our fleet within our borders or makes it an instrument of a crazy adventure, taking into account the fact that the complexes of indicators are repeatedly not on our side.
        3) Probably in the future, the question of the importance of BP systems, network-centric methods of military operations and high-precision weapons will grow. The ability of BP systems + the increasing ability of AI to detect / select / track targets, endure greater overloads, work longer in the right period of time than a person are the undoubted advantages of such systems relative to a person.
        Corresponding we will naturally develop these technologies, and their further development for the tasks of defense and replacement of naval aviation will not require any cardinal investments.
        4) Sizes of carriers for such devices can be much more optional than for traditional aircraft carriers. The aircraft carries significant volumes, weight and complexity, designed for a person and his rescue / life. And its design undoubtedly takes this into account. The design of the UAV will make it much smaller than a traditional aircraft, while retaining the necessary functions. Sizes similar to UDC seem to me to be the maximum of this concept both in economic terms and in terms of the volume of the required functionality per unit.
        5) The demographic capabilities of our country in the near future will make the expansion of robotization in production and defense uncontested. The sooner we realize this and start preparing, the better.

        Regarding the escort forces, unfortunately in terms of economics, we are now very steeply behind the potential enemy. In this regard, we will need the unification of projects if we want to increase the number of our fleet. The option with a certain one-dimensional platform (at the stage of laying) - which is subsequently developed into a drone carrier or an escort ship - seems to me a rather interesting idea. Perhaps to people who are better versed in matters of naval construction, this idea will seem insane. But economically, I see no alternatives to this.
        1. t-12
          t-12 30 March 2021 19: 45
          0
          We need an aircraft carrier as an element of defense because we have a long sea border

          On what "sea border" will the aircraft carriers be located? In the Far East there are Sakhalin, Kuril Islands and Kamchatka - there you can place airfields ("unsinkable aircraft carriers"). There is Crimea in the Black Sea, Kaliningrad in the Baltic. In the north - Murmansk, Novaya Zemlya, Komsomolets, Kotelny.

          Land-based airfields will be both cheaper and more reliable: large reserves of fuel and weapons will fit there, aircraft will be in concrete caponiers, and there will be a powerful air defense system around the airfields.

          The aircraft carrier, on the other hand, will be sunk by the first strike "at exactly 4 o'clock without a declaration of war." Moreover, the aircraft carrier will not have a decent escort (because it is very, very expensive).
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 30 March 2021 20: 10
            +4
            Airfields are stationary targets, unfortunately, their coordinates are known, their capabilities will be more limited by the distance to the target - and the enemy will knowingly know about these restrictions and will take them into account. Without airfields, no one will fall in love - an aircraft carrier or an analogue of an aircraft carrier is a means of focusing forces in defense, but in no way a replacement for some stationary elements.
            I agree with the idea that a large aircraft carrier is a priority target for destruction, especially if there are few of them - but at the same time, history shows that highly stationary objects are even more vulnerable, and in the event of their loss, this is ready-made infrastructure for the enemy, which he will undoubtedly take into account when planning operations, and therefore we will take this into account and build up forces to protect such objects - as a result, our defense becomes minimally plastic and in the end it can also play against us. It may turn out that the American concepts on the use of low-power nuclear weapons are not such an absurd thing - in this case, an all-out nuclear war may not start, but the stationary object on which a lot of things are tied will come to an end and there will be a big gaping hole in the defense.
            1. t-12
              t-12 30 March 2021 21: 43
              -2
              The aircraft carrier's coordinates are also known (if only because it will be constantly monitored by cruisers and submarines).

              Stationary targets are vulnerable when they are not operational. For example, when planes without ammunition stand next to each other in an open area. If the planes are dispersed, covered in caponiers (protected from concrete-piercing bombs), kept ready with ammunition, and the pilots on duty are kept close to the planes, then the enemy may not attack because the attack is pointless.

              Repair of "Kuznetsov" costs 60 lard. For this money, it was possible to equip 60 ground airfields and actually increase the defense capability.
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 30 March 2021 21: 57
                +1
                Either you did not understand me, or I myself missed an important detail - I am in favor of small aircraft carriers on which, instead of aircraft, 2 types of UAVs will be used - fighters and bombers. The time of monstrous aircraft carriers has passed, it is easier to hide a small ship, and if it is a typical project working inside the defense, then the cost of the tracking and destruction operation will be incomparable with the resources expended, and we will not receive critical damage from the loss of one or two such ships.
                1. t-12
                  t-12 30 March 2021 22: 22
                  -2
                  And what about "small aircraft carriers"? Bombers are heavy birds, they need to lift a large bomb load. This means a long take-off deck and large size of the aircraft carrier.

                  Further, an aircraft carrier needs high seaworthiness and good stability. This is also the large size of the ship. Yes, the Italians have a small "Garibaldi", but it does not come out of the Mediterranean Sea.

                  Further, the aircraft carrier must have significant reserves of fuel and ammunition. Especially in the absence of numerous supply bases (NATO has such bases, but Russia does not). For such stocks, an aircraft carrier needs the appropriate size.
                  1. Knell wardenheart
                    Knell wardenheart 30 March 2021 23: 26
                    +1
                    The points .
                    1) The word aircraft carrier is misleading - the carrier of drones, so it will be more correct.
                    A ship with the dimensions of Japanese helicopter carriers of the "Hyuga" class with its 18 tons of displacement comes to the fore. But in relation to the task of positioning drones, the dimensions and displacement can vary depending on the specifics of the project. I will emphasize that this is nothing more than a conceptual reflection, because the task rests on many factors and trade-offs, and most importantly, the size of the UAV and their characteristics.
                    2) In my opinion, it is unnecessary to overload the drone with weapons, because a massive and recoverable design is completely different views. At the same time, it should be a fairly high-tech, albeit lightweight (relative to a modern military aircraft) object - the main function of which will be to deliver high-quality weapons unified with it from point A to point B (in relation to a bomber), in relation to a fighter, the task is reduced to the first detection and first launch of medium-range air-to-air missiles. Of course, there is something to discuss here, but I imagine it this way. Everything here rests not so much on the quality of the drone itself, but on the quality of the ammunition for it. A modern airplane is expensive and overloaded with functionality related, among other things, to its survival - this functionality is superfluous, including due to the presence of a highly vulnerable element on board, a human. The task of which, in general, then (taking into account the use of modern weapons) is reduced to their own survival and the use of homing weapons.
                    If you remove a person from this scheme, this will affect the weight, epr, cost of the car on the one hand, on the other hand, there will be no task to overload the plane with weapons, because it will be possible to increase the number, because the pilot is a "piece goods" and a drone is a drone. Here we have the opportunity to save on protective equipment (reducing them to the possibility of maneuvering at the limits of the structure, thermal trickery, etc.), in the case of a sufficiently good rocket and the possibility of massive use of such drones, the issue of overloading each specific weapon will not be relevant.
                    3) Concerning bombers - the issue of unification with missiles / ammunition "for the task". Where the plane will take several large ammunition and cost as much as several UAVs, it will be enough for the UAV to take 1-2 similar ammunition, if this "smart weapon" task is reduced to delivery to the launch line, and the drone will perform this task in the same way as an aircraft with a pilot ...
                    4) High seaworthiness - how high is seaworthiness needed? Sail to the coast of California and do what long-range strategic bombers or cruise missiles can do? This is superfluous functionality. Let me remind you that conceptually this is a solution for defense, that is, for their own seas and not long-term autonomous oceanic crossings. The product must be endowed with the appropriate qualities, at the level of the same "Hyuga" + -.
                    5) The presence of an array of ~ 10 such ships will allow for more flexible rotation, and their use near their territory will allow them to be designed not as ugly bloated weapons and fuel depots.

                    As far as I imagine, such a concept should be based on 3 elements - The first and most important is the main investments in air-to-air missiles and other precision weapons for such drones so that the task is reduced to delivery. The second element is the creation of a massive and, if possible, unified design between fighter drone and bomber drone - maximum manufacturability and serial production of such products, their groundwork for the modernization of sensors, communications and "brains".
                    The third element is the unification of the very design of such a "drone carrier" with the design of the escort ship.
                    1. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik 30 March 2021 23: 37
                      -1
                      I like this name better smile You just don't need to build them separately, the adapted UDC will cope with this task. They can launch and control surface and submarine unmanned ships.
          2. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 30 March 2021 20: 12
            0
            On the borders - I am most worried about the Pacific Fleet, because in other regions we have incomparably great opportunities to support the fleet by other means, and incomparably less opportunities for our opponents to conduct an imperceptibly prepared blitz operation.
            1. t-12
              t-12 30 March 2021 21: 51
              +1
              The Pacific Fleet is covered by Sakhalin, Kuriles and Kamchatka. This is where well-equipped airfields are needed.

              And the Pacific Fleet will not go far into the Pacific Ocean anyway. What should he do there: land troops near San Francisco?
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 30 March 2021 22: 12
                +1
                The mobile transport capabilities of our forces in this direction, in my opinion, are inferior to the importance, size and level of preparedness of our neighbors there. Some kind of nodal defense there will also have its drawbacks due to the peculiarities of the climate and relief, it is expensive and disgusting to build there, and also to supply. I also do not think that we need to make a fleet designed to operate far from our shores - we are a land power, this is not a matter of choice - this is a stigma that huge and complex borders and an abundance of neighbors impose on us. However, in the Pacific Ocean we have representatives of three nations with extremely strong and developed fleets and, shall we say, lack of understanding for us or appetites for our territories. This kakbe hints that the arrangement of defense in this area should correspond to the scale of the potential. threats, and the defense itself should be as flexible and diversified as possible. Therefore, for the support complex for coastal elements and airfields, it still makes some sense to have aircraft carriers of one type or another there - at least for defense, as a maximum for covering the deployment of SSBNs.
          3. Anzhey V.
            30 March 2021 22: 10
            +2
            I fully support your point of view, comrade t-12
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 15: 40
    +27
    Honestly, I don't see any uncomfortable questions in the article. Comprehensive answers have long been given to all these questions.
    But, since it still seems to someone that these questions are "inconvenient" - I will answer them again without any problems. In the format in which they were set, that is, the response article
  10. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 30 March 2021 15: 40
    -1
    The correct article.
    As a joke of humor, you can only note that the term "Danish Straits" is ambiguous, but we will have problems with all "Danish Straits", if anything.
  11. squid
    squid 30 March 2021 15: 43
    -2
    Great article. They whipped the "aircraft carrier witness sect" on the tinsel. And this is not even going into technical details and not exposing the stories and nonsense of aircraft carrier adherents. Bravo!
    1. Denis Rumyanny
      Denis Rumyanny 30 March 2021 16: 14
      -2
      You underestimate the flight of thought of our leaders. Easily get out of the grave "Ulyanovsk", "The Great Leader and Teacher" will finish with a felt-tip pen catapults and "YAK" (he has already hinted at a vertical takeoff aircraft) and under the cries of U-R-I-I-Ya forward into the bright future.
      The admirals only clap their hands. With an aircraft carrier, you can learn not only children, but also grandchildren in London. He will also stay at the dacha in the Alps.
  12. geniy
    geniy 30 March 2021 15: 53
    -1
    The author's article is entirely erroneous. He views the Russian aircraft carrier only as a purely defensive weapon. Whereas, in fact, it was Russia that could use aircraft carriers in an offensive form, and in peacetime - without any war. The fact is that a bloc of 28 NATO countries is acting against Russia. But despite the fact that there are so many of them in their deployment there is a huge vulnerable moment - they are all divided in half by the Atlantic Ocean. That is, the two largest countries in terms of area, population and total economic power of the United States and Canada are on the same side of the ocean, while all the other 26 small and rather poor and militarily weak countries are located in Europe - next to Russia, for example, that Russian tanks could easily reach Paris in a week if the Americans did not transfer hundreds of thousands of troops to them across the Atlantic in cargo ships and cargo planes. And if several Russian aircraft carriers, moreover submarine aircraft carriers, are constantly patrolling in the Atlantic Ocean, and Russian fighter-bombers constantly fly over peaceful ships sailing in the Atlantic, then it will become clear to the whole world that if a world war breaks out, even if not a nuclear one, then Russian planes will very quickly sink thousands of foreign ships in the Atlantic, and no transfer of troops from the United States to Europe will work, and Russian tanks will end up in Warsaw, Berlin, Rome and Paris. Aircraft carriers are needed, but not ordinary ones are especially needed - but submarines-aircraft carriers. That is, building an aircraft carrier from scratch is long and expensive. But now there are several outdated ballistic missile submarines that have been disabled by the fleet as unnecessary. These are Shark-class submarines. They were built 5 units. And although from many of them only aft parts with nuclear reactors remained - this is just good! Because it is enough to build two huge cylinders in the form of a catamaran in order to accommodate one hundred or two hundred fighter planes in them, you will get a wonderful submarine aircraft carrier. More precisely, as many as 5 aircraft carriers. That is, to cut out their missile silos and put decks and elevators in their place, and put two more submarines in parallel and connect them with sides to get a nuclear submarine - an aircraft carrier catamaran. And then she can easily, in a submerged position, make at least a round-the-world voyage and flare up completely suddenly for the enemy at any point. And then she can either simply provide moral support to the people of any small and poor country: at least the same Korea, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua, or Angola, or Argentina, or the Philippines, or Indonesia - and in general there are about 200 countries on the globe. And if American aircraft carriers, for example, sail to Korea, then a Russian submarine aircraft carrier can easily surface in the same area and calmly stand by without threatening the Americans, but clearly hinting that they do not wave their swords too much, and there are also Russian interests in this area. Or, for example, America has now driven an aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean Sea, and aircraft from an American aircraft carrier will fly there with impunity.
    And besides - everyone needs to understand that airplanes - from the point of view of the use of the ship's displacement, are, in essence, an ordinary cargo that can be easily removed in the port and replaced with any other cargo. For example, tanks, armored personnel carriers, boxes of ammunition or food, and also thousands of tons of different types of fuel can be pumped into the tanks of a submarine - from ordinary gasoline for cars, to diesel fuel for tanks, or kerosene for aircraft. You will recall that some German submarines during WWII served as "cash cows". And a huge catamaran submarine could carry thousands of tons of liquid fuel - remember that during the landing from the coast of Britain to France, an underwater pipe was even laid to pump fuel. And Soviet submarines-catamarans of the Akula type were mockingly called water carriers, because almost a large part of their displacement was occupied by ordinary sea water, which, in principle, is very easy to replace with liquid fuel.
    And the submarine is fundamentally different in that, unlike the surface aircraft carrier, it has a low freeboard, and there is a way that if you completely cut it off, then when navigating in position you can easily achieve such a meager freeboard (if desired) commander) - for example, only 3 centimeters - and then no cruise missile can get into it at all, and it will be impossible to detect a tankless submarine in positional position.
    And one more circumstance: since the freeboard for submarines is smaller (5-10 m) than for huge aircraft carriers (25 meters), and in addition to the submarine, you can also create a trim on the stern, from which the bow will rise, then it will be able to slightly crawl out onto an unequipped shore, and releasing a ramp to land tanks, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled howitzers and thousands of paratroopers on shore. And while still unload them ashore thousands of tons of fuel, ammunition and food. And even landing a sudden landing in any coastal country in the world in order to help her can threaten the omnipotence of America.
    1. squid
      squid 30 March 2021 16: 25
      0
      I have not completely mastered it, but already the first paragraphs are enough. An illustration of the thinking of a typical representative of the "aircraft carrier witness" sect. They are all like that, only some of them are hiding, puffing out their cheeks with a mysterious look. But in reality - about the same. Ukolchik haloperidol and sleep.
    2. Dilettante grandfather
      Dilettante grandfather 30 March 2021 16: 55
      +1
      Is it you, excuse me, have read Savitsky, the book "Battlefield - America"?
      1. geniy
        geniy 30 March 2021 17: 07
        -3
        I don't know who Savitsky is.
        Now I don't read books at all - there is no time
        1. sabakina
          sabakina 30 March 2021 17: 39
          +1
          Quote: geniy
          I don't know who Savitsky is.
          Now I don't read books at all - there is no time

          Clear. Chop the loot. But who are the Strugatsky brothers, even if you know?
          1. geniy
            geniy 30 March 2021 17: 51
            -5
            But do you know who the Strugatsky brothers are?

            Well, unlike the Strugatskys, I do not create naked fantasies, but create a technical project with calculations. It seems to you all - yes to create a submarine an aircraft carrier is complete nonsense - because aircraft require a large hangar. And I came up with the idea that the planes should be kept in this hangar with the landing gear retracted, and roll them inside on special very low carts. Moreover, to reduce the height of the keels of fighters, the wings will also be folded. So, with a displacement of a submarine aircraft carrier of about 50 thousand tons versus an American 90 thousand tons, my aircraft carrier fits not even a hundred, but two hundred aircraft - and there is still free space for ammunition. And as for aviation fuel - it seems 20 thousand. So I have all projects with calculations. And if they seem fantastic to you, it's because of your illiteracy and the fact that you are guided by existing ships that are designed extremely illiterately. For example, on all aircraft carriers, planes ride inside hangars on extended landing gear. What for? After all, you can ride planes on low carts. None of you even thought to think about this question.
      2. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 31 March 2021 13: 27
        0
        He is not a reader, he is a writer. laughing
    3. Paul
      Paul 30 March 2021 17: 36
      +4
      It is somehow inconvenient to even put a minus. In some cases, the minus is not enough, you need some kind of special symbol - well, how does the Olympic Games differ from the special Olympic Games. Here is a third special option for evaluating such passages.
  13. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 30 March 2021 15: 59
    0
    everything was correctly written by respected A. Voskresensky
    1. Anzhey V.
      30 March 2021 18: 46
      +3
      Thank you!
  14. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 30 March 2021 16: 11
    +4
    Until the aircraft carrier is built, it will become obsolete. The era of the Midway is over ... AB is more of a psychological weapon. When AB arrives to the shores of the Aboriginal state, accompanied by "comrades", it certainly has an effect. And for Russia, whom to scare or support.
  15. Shahno
    Shahno 30 March 2021 16: 17
    +1
    Quote: Alien From
    Thanks to the author! Or maybe it's true, we don't need aircraft carriers?

    Maybe there is nothing to it. So does hypersound. So is the use of lasers. "Maybe there is nothing" - there were also UAVs yesterday ..
    1. bk316
      bk316 30 March 2021 16: 36
      +6
      So is the use of lasers.

      There is one difference, but it is significant. Aircraft carriers were needed yesterday and lasers will be needed tomorrow laughing
  16. Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 30 March 2021 16: 20
    -5
    An excellent article against aircraft carriers. An excellent article for aircraft carriers will be released tomorrow or later. Unfortunately, I don’t know what level of attitude the esteemed comrade has towards shipbuilding. Resurrection.
    In my opinion, an aircraft carrier is needed, even at least for practicing the fight against them. The problem is the unwillingness to build aircraft carriers, there is everything for construction. You can even order an empty hull in China or South Korea, and then fill it with your own at the wall. For thirty years of capitalism, the owners of the GCC and design bureaus have stolen so much that you can plant without trial or investigation. Why am I? To organize sharashki following the example of the thirties, and let them work out in the form of blueprints for new naval aircraft, new ships, aircraft carriers, radar stations, and so on.
    1. bk316
      bk316 30 March 2021 16: 37
      +2
      what is the level of attitude towards shipbuilding

      order an empty case in China or South Korea, and then fill it up at the wall with your own.

      This is what I understand LEVEL OF ATTITUDE laughing
      I'll tell you a secret, even with a motor boat it is difficult.
      1. Soldatov V.
        Soldatov V. April 1 2021 12: 12
        -1
        The entire fleet of Gazprom, Norilsk Nickel, Rosneft was built in South Korea: supertankers of LNG, oil, icebreaking nickel ore carriers, and you mean motor boats.
        The attitude to shipbuilding for me is working at the shipyard as at least a shipbuilder and having built at least one ship of any size from scratch before delivery.
        As a former deputy chief shipbuilder, I affirm that in Russia it is possible to build ships of ANY size and at the optimum time.
        1. bk316
          bk316 April 1 2021 16: 14
          0
          As a former deputy chief shipbuilder, I affirm that in Russia it is possible to build ships of ANY size and at the optimum time.

          I'm not writing about this, but about the fact that "filling with your own" is exactly what it means to build a ship.
          And this is really difficult, and the hull is the tenth thing, well, if there is a slipway.
          And by the way, how many designers do not land ships from this will no longer be.
          1. Soldatov V.
            Soldatov V. April 1 2021 16: 59
            0
            We have a very bitter pre-war and military experience. Remember the aviation sharashka-the result was. And the vaccine that the designers received from the NKVD, they gave out masterpieces to death and spoke only well about their homeland.
            So you built a house and set up a stove but brought nothing in - can you call it a house? Yes
            Without a hull, even if all the equipment, weapons are folded in one place, this cannot be called a ship. From experience, a 100-meter river vessel was built in two months. A passenger from 6 to 12 months. A military corvette from 70 to 100 meters can be packed in a year. Was would desire.
            1. bk316
              bk316 April 1 2021 17: 52
              0
              We have a very bitter pre-war and military experience

              The designers and scientists were sitting in sharashkas.
              Do we have a problem with projects?
              We have a problem in production, moreover, in SERIES production.
              I have not heard something about sharashka factories.
              If this is at all possible, then perhaps it is possible to send the entire Sevmash for a thorn.
              But I think that it will not take off.

              Because in sharashkas there were many meanings other than FORCE to work, it was also a secrecy regime and ensuring security and reducing distractions. All this was later embodied in closed monotowns. And vaccinations from the NKVD were practically not given there. For fear, nothing great can be created, only for conscience. Here is the organization of a closed trade community, over whose members ANYTHING of everyday life does not press down, which simply have nothing to be distracted by - this is useful. Only this is not for the workers - this is for the scientists, the workers will simply sleep for the most part. laughing
  17. g1v2
    g1v2 30 March 2021 16: 45
    +4
    Most of the question in the article agrees with the author. But even the main questions are different.
    The first is tasks. The Anglo-Saxons depend on maritime trade and therefore need aug to control the oceans as nodes of military power at a distance from their territory. In our country, all sea trade, in fact, goes near our shores, and the one that takes place at a remote location - just with a potential enemy and in the event of a war will stop by itself. For example, we supply oil to the United States at oil refineries on the east coast and the south. And that our fleet will protect the US oil tankers from the US fleet? Or ships going to Rotterdam from the Dutch fleet? belay
    Second. Even in the event of a major war, its AUG will not be able to break through the natural barriers protected by NATO. It is clearly impossible to pass by Iceland, Japan or Hawaii, where the American augs will be transferred by force. There are stupidly more of them, and even the Chinese economy will not be able to build a surface fleet on the basis of aug, comparable in total power to the combined fleets of the Anglo-Saxons and their allies. As VVP used to say, our answer should be asymmetric. fellow
    Third. An aircraft carrier of the classic type is in fact an obsolete class of ships. And building it for a lot of money is about the same as building battleships of the Second World War - why? The development of missile weapons, a network of satellites and drones will give rise to new types of warfare and will surely spawn new types of ships. For example, mother ships for drones. We have already begun to build such mothers for underwater drones, and it probably makes sense to think about designing surface ships for airborne drones. The lack of crews allows serious savings on the size of such ships and increases the payload capacity. Again, reconnaissance and strike drones can be made simpler and larger than carrier-based aircraft. Again, they can be partially stored disassembled and collected as needed. Again, the drones are much smaller and more inconspicuous. It is much easier and cheaper to train an uav operator than a deck pilot. There is no danger of retinal detachment from frequent blows to the deck on landings. In my opinion, such ships are the next step for the world's fleets. hi
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 30 March 2021 17: 17
      +2
      I completely agree with the first two points. With the third - absolutely not. All of these drones are good when there is no serious RTV opposition. If the enemy can interfere with the control signal of the drone, then it becomes at best an expensive trinket, and if it intercepts control, then the saddest options are possible. I think no one will dare to hang nuclear weapons on a drone, even in the most nightmare version, there is no alternative to a person. Of course, unmanned aerial vehicles have their own niche, it is gradually being occupied, but it is finite and the person from the aircraft cockpit will not be completely displaced even when.
      There are no underwater drones and cannot be due to communication problems, and if we are talking about Poseidon, then this is just a huge torpedo.
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 30 March 2021 18: 35
        0
        And what, in fact, is the difference between such an uav from a smart rocket? They also need to overcome EW barriers. request The competition between the drone and electronic warfare will be ongoing. Again, not every ship will have electronic warfare equipment that can knock off course or intercept enemy UAV control. Again, they will also interfere with their ships and UAVs.
        Underwater drones are already being created and will continue to be created. The same cephalopod, for example. request Again, an underwater drone does not need to be in constant communication with the uterus. He needs a serious on-board computer and a detailed program of behavior in the first place. Everything else is secondary. And communication problems are also a question to be solved. For example, just the other day, three of our ships made a simultaneous ascent in the Arctic. And they stood up exactly, as if on a ruler at a relatively short distance. How did they keep in touch during the campaign? And they regulated the simultaneous ascent again.
        1. Sergey Valov
          Sergey Valov 30 March 2021 23: 14
          +2
          "An uav from a smart missile?" - what is a smart rocket? So there are stupid ones? And what is a drone anyway? How is a drone different from a rocket? And from a torpedo? And from the bomb? As they say, agree on the terminology and most of the questions will disappear by themselves.
          "The competition between the drone and electronic warfare will go on constantly" The competition is not between the drone and electronic warfare, but the competition between the drone and electronic warfare CONTROL SYSTEMS, and the winner here is obvious, it will be electronic warfare, because it is always easier to put interference than to defend against them. a drone always has less space and power-to-weight ratio for equipment than on a ship and even more so on the ground.
          "They will also interfere with their ships and UAVs" - not a fact, the question is in the operating frequencies, their own and the foe, this is one, and in the direction of the sent signal against the foe, that's two.
          "Underwater drone" - I repeat, there are no underwater drones, this is a question of terminology.
          “We need a serious on-board computer and a detailed program of behavior in the first place. Everything else is secondary ”- the device you described is just a more serious torpedo. Or will you acquire a ballistic missile, too, with the buzzword of a drone?
          "Also a question that can be solved" - I am not an expert in this matter, but what I have heard suggests that at the moment the problem is in its infancy.
          “Three of our pilots made a simultaneous ascent” - so what? Where is the specifics about the connection between the boats? Only guesswork. But the acoustics could well, and probably listened to each other. True, knowing a little the native army and its love for show, one can assume anything.
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 30 March 2021 19: 22
      -5
      Blah blah blah, not a single clever thought was expressed, but there are a lot of letters.
  18. Niko
    Niko 30 March 2021 16: 57
    +7
    It is good to communicate offline. I myself came up with questions (such as inconvenient ones), I answered them myself, it looks very convincing. And real questions and answers to them are ignored (otherwise it will not be so convincing). The simplest example is AN ALTERNATIVE WHAT ???? To squeeze deeper and deeper into the ropes of the ring, closing your eyes and bowing your head, waiting to be pulled apart in pieces? Threaten all nuclear weapons? (Having no alternative) Constantly relying ONLY on a nuclear shield? It's like getting a grenade if you're drunk on a tram.
    1. Anzhey V.
      30 March 2021 18: 45
      +3
      ALTERNATIVE WHAT ???? Squeeze deeper and deeper into the ropes of the ring


      Yes, at the end of the existence of the USSR, we "squeezed".

      Only now, speaking with your analogies, we would first "put a blow", and only then run to buy the "champion belt".
      1. Niko
        Niko 30 March 2021 19: 30
        +2
        Quote: Anjay V.
        ALTERNATIVE WHAT ???? Squeeze deeper and deeper into the ropes of the ring


        Yes, at the end of the existence of the USSR, we "squeezed".

        Only now, speaking with your analogies, we would first "put a blow", and only then run to buy the "champion belt".

        It is necessary to put a blow BEFORE entering the ring. And the question is painfully simple (just one of the questions) OR Russia is a great power, OR She is not able to repair "Kuznetsov" (to begin with). You write about China yourself, and for some reason, after thinking about strengthening the fleet, they do not answer how you answer "your questions": "Oh, we have nowhere to build it" - they take it and build it, and this is a sign of the Great Greats or those who want to be them (and this the question is not of money, in fact, but of what place they want to occupy in the world). The United States, with all its dislike for them, is discussing whether to build more aircraft carriers? And you can be sure: if they decide what is needed, they will build it (WW2 in confirmation).
        1. Anzhey V.
          30 March 2021 19: 43
          +3
          You yourself write about China, and for some reason, after thinking about strengthening the fleet, they don't answer like you do "your questions"


          Yes, I have written about China many times because it is a great example for us.

          When the PRC did not have the resources to create an ocean-going fleet, for many decades they were engaged in ensuring the defense of their shores with the help of a mosquito fleet, industry, engineering personnel and the economy, and did not dream of arranging Midway for countries that were many times superior to them in military terms.
          1. Niko
            Niko 30 March 2021 20: 40
            0
            Quote: Anjay V.
            You yourself write about China, and for some reason, after thinking about strengthening the fleet, they don't answer like you do "your questions"


            Yes, I have written about China many times because it is a great example for us.

            When the PRC did not have the resources to create an ocean-going fleet, for many decades they were engaged in ensuring the defense of their shores with the help of a mosquito fleet, industry, engineering personnel and the economy, and did not dream of arranging Midway for countries that were many times superior to them in military terms.

            To be honest, I do not always believe that you are serious.
            1. Anzhey V.
              30 March 2021 20: 48
              +3
              Niko, believe me, I want to see the powerful Russian ocean-going fleet just as much as you.

              But now there are no prerequisites for its creation. Not at all.

              We do not even have an appropriate naval doctrine, as well as personnel for its implementation.

              If we now give the leadership of our Navy money for the program of aircraft-carrying ships, at best they will give birth to “either a son or a daughter; not a mouse, not a frog, but an unknown animal "!

              Military construction does not tolerate stupidity and hasty decisions. At sea we have already been "thrown out of the ring" - there is nowhere to hurry. Now you need to do a real phased naval construction.
          2. Niko
            Niko 30 March 2021 20: 48
            +2
            Quote: Anjay V.
            You yourself write about China, and for some reason, after thinking about strengthening the fleet, they don't answer like you do "your questions"


            Yes, I have written about China many times because it is a great example for us.

            When the PRC did not have the resources to create an ocean-going fleet, for many decades they were engaged in ensuring the defense of their shores with the help of a mosquito fleet, industry, engineering personnel and the economy, and did not dream of arranging Midway for countries that were many times superior to them in military terms.

            There is an aircraft carrier (half, but not so important) There is a solution-repair-modernization. Theft and Failure to make ELEMENTARY cover up with reasoning "oh we don't need him, all other fools" - that's a crime
            1. Anzhey V.
              30 March 2021 20: 55
              +5
              There is an aircraft carrier (semi, not so important) There is a solution-repair-modernization


              The horror of the situation is that the people on it will serve the same. And they will give orders.

              The same people who, 25 years after the collapse of the USSR, could not bring a single carrier of carrier-based aircraft to combat readiness.

              And there was no infrastructure for its maintenance ...
              1. Niko
                Niko 30 March 2021 23: 27
                +2
                Quote: Anjay V.
                There is an aircraft carrier (semi, not so important) There is a solution-repair-modernization


                The horror of the situation is that the people on it will serve the same. And they will give orders.

                The same people who, 25 years after the collapse of the USSR, could not bring a single carrier of carrier-based aircraft to combat readiness.

                And there was no infrastructure for its maintenance ...

                The question is much simpler. Do we want to develop the fleet or not? If we want to repair "Kuznetsov" so that the old ones do not disappear and new personnel can appear for service on it. There will be an aircraft carrier, there will be an incentive to create an infrastructure for it (no one will create anything for non-existing ships). the ship and new ones will be really expensive to teach. the plane is also there, not the best in the world, but you can start with it - there will be no ship, no one will design a new plane, etc. And it's not about the aircraft carrier, if you go the way you write about, then in 20 years we will be launching long-obsolete submarines to stuff the not-too-versed public with names like "black hole" that was once quite justified (but the public, of course, does not have to to know that this name applies to a dozen more boats and not ONLY this one. All this will continue indefinitely if you do not take and DO.
                1. t-12
                  t-12 31 March 2021 13: 47
                  +2
                  The question is much simpler. Do we want to develop the fleet or not?
                  The question is not whether we want to or not, but how best to defend against possible threats. It is necessary to build an aircraft carrier if this aircraft carrier is really needed, but in order to show someone that it is not weak for us to build an aircraft carrier.

                  The meaning in "Kuznetsov" is exclusively educational ("maintaining the experience of pilots") and advertising ("we are a mighty power"). I see no military sense in Kuznetsov.
                  1. Niko
                    Niko 31 March 2021 14: 23
                    0
                    Quote: t-12
                    The question is much simpler. Do we want to develop the fleet or not?
                    The question is not whether we want to or not, but how best to defend against possible threats. It is necessary to build an aircraft carrier if this aircraft carrier is really needed, but in order to show someone that it is not weak for us to build an aircraft carrier.

                    The meaning in "Kuznetsov" is exclusively educational ("maintaining the experience of pilots") and advertising ("we are a mighty power"). I see no military sense in Kuznetsov.

                    At the moment, this "educational meaning" is more valuable than any other. I do not want to argue who wants to see he sees, who does not want to see, I respect any reasonable opinion. However, in 10,20,50,1000 years, when (if) the money for the construction appears, there will still be NO WHERE to build and even more NOT FOR SOMEONE (personnel) NONE (personnel) and for the USA and China the first ship is so and so training much more than combat. I also wrote about the prospects for designing something for a non-existent ship.
                    1. t-12
                      t-12 31 March 2021 18: 04
                      -1
                      "In 10,20,50 years" aviation will become unmanned: living pilots simply will not survive in battle with robotic aircraft, which have no overload limits, and FPGAs with trillions of valves work 1000 times faster than the brain. Accordingly, the experience of deck pilots will become purely historical / reenactment (like the experience of shooting from a mosinka).

                      And in 1000 years military science will change, I don't even know how. What was there in the XNUMXth century? First Crusade? Cavalry, spears, swords and shields? How much use are they now?
                      1. Niko
                        Niko 31 March 2021 18: 29
                        0
                        Quote: t-12
                        "In 10,20,50 years" aviation will become unmanned: living pilots simply will not survive in battle with robotic aircraft, which have no overload limits, and FPGAs with trillions of valves work 1000 times faster than the brain. Accordingly, the experience of deck pilots will become purely historical / reenactment (like the experience of shooting from a mosinka).

                        And in 1000 years military science will change, I don't even know how. What was there in the XNUMXth century? First Crusade? Cavalry, spears, swords and shields? How much use are they now?

                        James Cameron agreed with you in 1984.
                      2. t-12
                        t-12 31 March 2021 19: 31
                        0
                        No, in 1984 there were no multi-core processors, FPGAs and neurochips that outstripped the brain in terms of power. And now we already have, and in 20 years the advantage of combat electronics will become overwhelming. Aircraft of the 6th generation will be 100% unmanned. And those countries where planes remain manned will lose the war.
                      3. Niko
                        Niko 31 March 2021 21: 07
                        -1
                        Quote: t-12
                        No, in 1984 there were no multi-core processors, FPGAs and neurochips that outstripped the brain in terms of power. And now we already have, and in 20 years the advantage of combat electronics will become overwhelming. Aircraft of the 6th generation will be 100% unmanned. And those countries where planes remain manned will lose the war.

                        It is quite possible.Just a country that, having made a DECISION at the highest level, to repair its aircraft carrier (you can replace the aircraft carrier with any other word) and not only unable to do this, but also justifying its inability in 20 years, with a high probability, will no longer be able to build even those semi-historical SHIPS that are all is still building now, and your fantasy about super duper robots will remain in the memories of "Robot Fed"
                  2. bk316
                    bk316 April 1 2021 18: 17
                    0
                    FPGAs with trillions of gates are 1000 times faster than the brain

                    No, they don't work. They change sets of states faster, but this is not at all the work of the brain. Actually, the work of the brain IS THINKING. How it works, no one knows for sure, there are, of course, hypotheses, but no more.
                  3. t-12
                    t-12 April 1 2021 19: 05
                    0
                    How it works has long been known: there is a neural network. The electrical signal moves only along neurons at a speed of 100 m / s, and along silicon 100 km / s. And the brain is big, the distances are long, and the chip is small. So count it.
                    This is not to mention the fact that the brain does not work in the best way in conditions of overload and air combat. And the chip will calmly withstand both danger and 1000g.
        2. Niko
          Niko 31 March 2021 08: 44
          +1
          Quote: Anjay V.
          There is an aircraft carrier (semi, not so important) There is a solution-repair-modernization


          The horror of the situation is that the people on it will serve the same. And they will give orders.

          The same people who, 25 years after the collapse of the USSR, could not bring a single carrier of carrier-based aircraft to combat readiness.

          And there was no infrastructure for its maintenance ...

          I was just unpleasantly surprised by the tone of your article, peremptory and self-confidence (The thoughts themselves have every right to express themselves and discuss). I understand that this is the simplest way to find support among readers, very many unfortunately cannot explain their thoughts calmly and with respect and like to so did others. There is also a large similar contingent on VO, but do you think you need to focus on it?
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 30 March 2021 22: 53
    +2
    Quote: Niko
    The simplest example is AN ALTERNATIVE WHAT ????
    Threaten all nuclear weapons? (Having no alternative) Constantly relying ONLY on a nuclear shield? It's like getting a grenade if you're drunk on a tram.

    Well written.
    What else remains? Sitting on the warheads and waiting for the enemies to figure out "how to decapitate these warheads" ... After all, an aircraft carrier is expensive, a destroyer is expensive. Only then it is necessary to sit and "not shine" ... But all I want to play in big politics ... Either to fight in Syria, then send bombers to Venezuela, then put bases in Sudan and the Central African Republic ... "And the Fleet is expensive. ... he is not needed, here are the rockets, they are not so expensive, they are needed ... "Logic somewhere ......
  • Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 30 March 2021 17: 09
    0
    the main question with the AUG is what goals they should fulfill
    in the event of a full-scale conflict with the United States, they are unlikely to be needed, respectively, it is necessary to determine their goals in the "peaceful" period
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 30 March 2021 17: 20
    +2
    A very weak article from the category "put an owl on a globe" and ask her to say "Uh-huh":
    1. Build in the same place where the UDC is being built now.
    2. Aircraft and escort ships can also be built.
    3. The Northern and Pacific fleets, it turns out, do not know that they are locked.
    4. In addition to the funds for the ship, funds will be invested in the development of science and industry: everything from catapults to water purification systems will have to be developed and done by ourselves. The British, for example, directly in their press and reasonedly with examples proved how much the industry and the economy of their country stimulated the construction of the Queen.
    And in general, following the logic of the article, it is possible not to invest in the defense industry at all - there is nuclear weapons, and the ground forces are still less than that of NATO and the Yankees.
    1. Anzhey V.
      30 March 2021 18: 43
      +2
      Build in the same place where the UDC is being built now


      Compare for God's sake the displacement of the UDC and the aircraft carrier ...

      Aircraft and escort ships can also be built


      For the Americans, the purchase of already developed aircraft for the "Ford" wing cost $ 13 billion. Without R&D and the aircraft carrier itself.

      For comparison, our military budget for this year is only $ 43 billion.

      Are you ready to pay at least a quarter of it for two deck squadrons?

      Northern and Pacific fleets, it turns out, they do not know that they are locked


      Have a look at the cards at your leisure, please
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 30 March 2021 19: 08
        0
        Quote: Anjay V.
        for the displacement of the UDC and the aircraft carrier ...

        Aircraft carriers are different. And their displacement is different. And no one is proposing to build a supercarrier, but an analogue of "Charles de Gaulle" or less is quite.
        Quote: Anjay V.
        Are you ready to pay at least a quarter of it for two deck squadrons?

        Do you need to buy a 12-24 MiG-29K at once? Or maybe it is worth contacting 12-24 cars for a period of 5 years?
        Quote: Anjay V.
        Have a look at the cards at your leisure, please

        Looked. Especially considering where our nuclear submarines are going in the North and from where - in the East. And also checked who the Kuril Islands belong to.
        1. Anzhey V.
          30 March 2021 19: 15
          +4
          analogue "Charles de Gaulle" or less - quite


          Let's face it, de Gaulle is twice as large as the UDC under construction in our country.

          And its relatively compact size in comparison with the "Nimitz" should not be misleading - it is still an insanely complex technical structure, which the French, by the way, did not completely master it alone.

          They had to buy catapults and AWACS aircraft in the USA. And they РјРѕРіР »Ryo buy them - but we do not.

          MiG-29K


          Let's get something from the aviation museum at once. What if it rolls too?
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 30 March 2021 21: 55
            -2
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Let's face it, de Gaulle is twice as large as the UDC under construction in our country.

            I agree, more. But it is also designed for 40 cars, and 24-30 cars are enough for us to cover the patrol area.

            Quote: Anjay V.
            a complex technical structure, which the French, by the way, did not master completely alone.

            They had to buy catapults and AWACS aircraft in the USA. And they could buy them - but we could not.

            If they haven’t mastered it, it doesn’t mean that we will not. In the end, there is the PRC with its best practices.

            Quote: Anjay V.
            Let's get something from the aviation museum at once. What if it rolls too?

            And that the 29K is no longer able to fight the Hornets or hunt PLO vehicles? Or is he so significantly inferior to the Grippens, Rafals? Or the carrier-based F-35 suddenly became combat-ready (you can talk about the prospects of this program for a long time)?
            1. Anzhey V.
              30 March 2021 22: 05
              +4
              If they haven’t mastered it, it doesn’t mean that we will not. In the end, there is the PRC with its best practices.


              Griffin, do you even remotely realize the degree of absurdity of the words you speak?

              Our shipbuilding is now "mastering" the construction of frigates and corvettes with difficulty! What the hell is an aircraft carrier?

              Where are you going to use it if you want to make a displacement less than that of de Gaulle? Are you aware that the pitching imposes restrictions on takeoff and landing, and that is why the Americans are building such large ships?

              In the end, there is the PRC with its best practices.


              So far, the PRC has only a lot of beautiful words. In fact, they could not make a nuclear reactor for an aircraft carrier and did not, they do not have a catapult, carrier-based AWACS aircraft are only in the form of prototypes.

              The United States was and is the only country that can make catapults for aircraft carriers.

              And that the 29K is no longer able to fight the Hornets or hunt PLO vehicles?


              Even if tomorrow the General Staff and the Ministry of Defense go crazy and run to build an aircraft carrier to the detriment of the entire budget, it will take at least 10-15 years until it is put into operation.

              By this time, the MiG-29K will be able to fight only with the Zimbabwean Air Force - and that is not a fact.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 30 March 2021 22: 35
                +3
                Quote: Anjay V.
                Our shipbuilding is now "mastering" the construction of frigates and corvettes with difficulty! What the hell is an aircraft carrier?

                If we do nothing, then we will not be able to build anything. At the same time, our industry is at the very least poor with the construction of icebreakers, but it copes. And the nuclear submarines are riveted. The same Nakhimov, but in the end they will give the fleet.
                And frigates and corvettes are not able to ensure and cover their patrolling areas for nuclear submarines to enter the Atlantic. As well as not being able to provide support during expeditionary operations. In fact, we do not have a fleet now, but we need to build and develop it.
                Where exactly the aircraft carrier should be used has already been discussed several times in half a dozen articles.
                29K is as an option from what is now. In 15-25 years there will be other machines, especially since the MiG did not stop its work on light (medium) machines.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                completely locked, worse than in the baltic, in the sea of ​​Japan, there the strait of laerouse and tsushima

                And the Pacific Ocean is already in Kamchatka, incl. is no longer based? And the nuclear submarine from there through the avenue La Perouse in the TO go?
      2. Ryusey
        Ryusey 30 March 2021 19: 20
        -2
        Learn history at your leisure, please.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 30 March 2021 21: 39
      +2
      Quote: Blackgrifon
      The Pacific fleets, it turns out, do not know that they are locked.

      completely locked, worse than in the baltic, in the sea of ​​Japan, there the strait of laerouse and tsushima
      1. Anzhey V.
        30 March 2021 22: 06
        +4
        Is this really a problem? We'll stick our aircraft carriers straight into the straits! laughing
    3. t-12
      t-12 31 March 2021 13: 59
      0
      Science and industry can be developed by other, much more useful tasks. For example, it is possible to organize the mass production of the Su-57, which is now being built at a snail's pace. Modern minesweepers can be built to protect naval bases from modern mines. It is possible to create an electronic industry so that Russia has its own microcircuits that are not inferior to the American ones. In short, there are a huge number of ways to develop science.
  • squid
    squid 30 March 2021 17: 25
    -2
    "This is a malicious message that rejects a much-needed pragmatic approach for the country, a call to waste money allocated to the development of the armed forces."

    I would also add that these lobbyists have a second line of malicious defense - in the form of calls for the revival of specialized naval missile-carrying aviation with specialized aircraft based on the Su-34. And this at a time when no one in the world has been making such highly specialized machines for several decades, because the capabilities of multipurpose fighters as carriers of anti-ship missiles are more than enough. As a result, a lot of money will be spent on aviation, which is not suitable for anything other than NK attacks, even for an air battle over the sea (say, for repelling an air attack on the South Kuriles), and at this time we will soon have nothing to cover the key regions of the country - in plans are only a pitiful 76 cars of the conditionally fifth generation.
    Oh, it's a pity the article for sabotage was canceled!
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 30 March 2021 22: 21
      -1
      Quote: squid
      I would also add that these lobbyists have a second line of malicious defense - in the form of calls for the revival of specialized naval missile-carrying aviation with specialized aircraft based on the Su-34. And this at a time when no one in the world has been making such highly specialized machines for several decades, because the capabilities of multipurpose fighters as carriers of anti-ship missiles are more than enough. As a result, a lot of money will be spent on aviation, which is not suitable for anything other than NK attacks, even for an air battle over the sea (say, for repelling an air attack on the South Kuriles), and at this time we will soon have nothing to cover the key regions of the country - in plans are only a pitiful 76 cars of the conditionally fifth generation.
      Oh, it's a pity the article for sabotage was canceled!

      I completely agree, it is stupid to make a special aircraft for the sea (except of course an PLO aircraft, for example, BE200 PLO or TU 95, to convert into that 142) shock and AWACS and reconnaissance should be carried out by the same aircraft as on land, just increase the series and perhaps train pilots with specificity
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 30 March 2021 17: 25
    +2
    The author focuses on economic, technological and infrastructural constraints when creating an aircraft carrier fleet in Russia. But Russia also has no political goals forcing to create a fleet commensurate with the American one. The goal of Russia is to ensure a peaceful existence and development for itself in the conditions of the economic and technological superiority of a potential adversary, and the path to achieve it has been chosen. This is maintaining the strategic nuclear forces at a decent level.
    A decent level at this stage presupposes, first of all, the creation of intelligent systems to ensure the functioning of all components of the strategic nuclear forces, incl. naval, anti-jamming communications, automated control, global intelligence.
    1. Anzhey V.
      30 March 2021 18: 35
      +4
      I didn't even mention the political ones, because the Sonderkommando will immediately be drawn, which will popularly tell that we are all stupid, but right tomorrow we will need an aircraft carrier with which we will roll Australia into the Stone Age)
      1. Ryusey
        Ryusey 30 March 2021 19: 18
        -1
        And why tell if it is already visible with an unarmed eye).
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 30 March 2021 19: 17
      -1
      There are goals, but some people do not have brains, unfortunately
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 30 March 2021 21: 57
        -2
        Quote: Ryusey
        but some people do not have brains, unfortunately

        well, list these goals, if of course they are and if you have brains ... only please apply brains in detail, which means fulfilling a number of conditions 1 for a war with a knowingly weak enemy, but not apply, there are enough nuclear submarines for punishment and frigates for other actions 2 for countries that are far away, do not apply as they will not be able to attack the Russian Federation. .... that is, prove the goals and objectives of using AB only against the aggressive USA and its allies, (NATO and Japan) give the goals in detail, explaining the practical application and tactics ... if, of course, you have brains, then this is easy for you, and we will listen
  • Basarev
    Basarev 30 March 2021 18: 08
    +2
    I have always said that with our puddles it would be more correct to focus on the coastal fleet, but it must be a really strong coastal fleet, with all the necessary components - submarine, surface, coastal aviation, missile and artillery systems ... In general, so that in our seas foreigners could only act with our permission.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 30 March 2021 19: 16
      -1
      Only if your loved ones will serve there, with all that it implies ...
    2. Anzhey V.
      30 March 2021 22: 17
      +2
      In general, so that in our seas foreigners can act only with our permission


      I completely agree with your words.

      It is not we who should feel like prey in our closed waters, but the enemy that has thrust itself into it.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 30 March 2021 19: 15
    -1
    Katz offers to surrender, or build boats with machine guns?)
    1. hydroy
      hydroy 30 March 2021 21: 43
      0
      2-3 aircraft carriers could be built, no more, Russia does not really need them, our goal is to restore the economy, and most importantly, demography, and only then get involved all over the world, we do not need aircraft carriers for the coming years
  • WapentakeLokki
    WapentakeLokki 30 March 2021 19: 36
    +1
    Well, a little history .. from the battles of WW II the USSR brought out the idea of ​​a super-weapon (well, or the hegemon of the battlefield) a tank !!! and for all the remaining years of the existence of the USSR, he built tanks, tanks, tanks (something for 150 to various armored objects) .. and almost everything had to be refined, alas ... but the USA considered such a uber-waffey AB (which for the USSR and for the USA had underneath an iron foundation - it was these hegemons (in their element) that Victory in the war was forged) well, they were built and developed all the way, but ... if the collapse of the USSR allowed us to `` cut the sturgeon '', then everything remained in force overseas (and the aircraft carrier lobby is still in force) .. I'm bringing this up to what .. that if on land a traditional tank (as a result of local wars and the Caucasus) became a very controversial participant in the battlefield (it was not for nothing that the Terminator and Armata appeared) then on the sea is just like in the days of well, at least Vietnam ... but times are changing and quite ... and now trying to join an aircraft carrier league is like building a LC before WW II (it seems like it is needed and everyone does this, but ... it will take a couple of years and ... you know ... a new hegemon will appear (but what kind of a new round of evolution it will be - a RIDDLE) but ... definitely fight niy in the spirit of Midway will no longer be (besides, for Russia there will be no Prokhorovka) ... so it is not worth spending energy and money on future RELICTS definitely ...
    1. hydroy
      hydroy 30 March 2021 21: 45
      -2
      Rather, you can invest in aviation, not drones, but bombers and high-speed helicopters!)
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 30 March 2021 22: 01
      -2
      Quote: WapentakeLokki
      a couple of years will pass and ... you know ... a new hegemon will appear (but what kind of a new round of evolution it will be - RIDDLE)

      I support, I think it will be this or that development of rocket weapons, supersonic, stealth, etc., everything goes to this ...
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 30 March 2021 19: 44
    +3
    I'm embarrassed to ask, how quickly are helicopters based on the decks of Soviet (Russian) ships?)) Did the respected author hear about the cruisers "Moscow" and "Leningrad"?))) Or is this an invention of Putin's propaganda?)))
    1. Anzhey V.
      30 March 2021 22: 19
      0
      Why are you so evil?)

      Deck helicopters are now out of business with us, as it was in the Soviet Union - I meant that.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 30 March 2021 23: 27
        +1
        Well, there is no need to sign "for everything and for everyone." The fact that it is not very good now does not mean that it has always been this way. Similarly, does the presence of 5 TAVKRs mean "complete lack of experience in operating aircraft carriers"?)))
        1. Anzhey V.
          30 March 2021 23: 55
          +2
          Similarly, does the presence of 5 TAVKRs mean "a complete lack of experience in operating aircraft carriers"?


          You can easily get an answer to this question by looking at the only combat use of "Kuznetsov"))
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 31 March 2021 12: 05
            0
            And you don't want to see the combat use of "de Gaulle" or "Prince of Wales"?)))
            1. Anzhey V.
              31 March 2021 12: 07
              -3
              It seems that I did not stand up for them here))
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 31 March 2021 12: 47
                0
                Well, so you cited "Kuzyu" as an example, and I asked. And soon you will still have a look at "Conti di Cavour" - it will be fun))) the old, but quite working "harier", was replaced with a fashionable mattress tsyatska.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 30 March 2021 20: 51
    +3
    In his article, the author wrote the reasons why we cannot organize AUG, but not the reasons why the aircraft carrier is not needed. I believe that Russia needs 2 AUG (for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet) and 12 heavy ejection carriers for them. Don't we pull? It means that we must do without aircraft carriers, half measures are harmful in this case.
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 30 March 2021 21: 04
    +4
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Honestly, I don't see any uncomfortable questions in the article. Comprehensive answers have long been given to all these questions.
    But, since it still seems to someone that these questions are "inconvenient" - I will answer them again without any problems. In the format in which they were set, that is, the response article

    Can I have a couple more questions?
    1) where it is planned to create a home base capable of servicing the aircraft carrier quite quickly. For example, pumping 8 tons of aviation fuel, which is important as a matter of priority, taking into account all the requirements for quality control.
    2) in the same place, in theory, a large number of ASPs for aircraft will have to be stored;
    3) what will be the combat stability of this place? (how many kilometers from it to NATO airfields) What is the stability in comparison with the main US bases;
    4) It will be possible to write a list of goals and objectives for an aircraft carrier by priority from a practical point of view. those. Let's say 40% of the time he is there and there and does this and that. twenty%
    5) in these regions, indicate approximately the balance of forces ... our AUG is the number of aircraft and the composition of the ship. Well, the approximate number of NATO aircraft capable of attacking our aircraft carrier
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 30 March 2021 22: 08
      0
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      1) where it is planned to create a home base capable of servicing the aircraft carrier quite quickly. For example, pumping 8 tons of aviation fuel, which is important as a matter of priority, taking into account all the requirements for quality control.
      2) in the same place, in theory, a large number of ASPs for aircraft will have to be stored;
      3) what will be the combat stability of this place? (how many kilometers from it to NATO airfields) What is the stability in comparison with the main US bases;
      4) It will be possible to write a list of goals and objectives for an aircraft carrier by priority from a practical point of view. those. Let's say 40% of the time he is there and there and does this and that. twenty%
      5) in these regions, indicate approximately the balance of forces ... our AUG is the number of aircraft and the composition of the ship. Well, the approximate number of NATO aircraft capable of attacking our aircraft carrier

      you are right to the point, they will not be able to give answers to these questions, how to give, they will begin to evade, make assumptions such as "suppose that the Americans are all blind", or "suppose all their satellites are broken" cousin-nikolsky, but these specific 5 questions will bypass
      1. Anzhey V.
        30 March 2021 22: 25
        +4
        Well, our "AV-fetesists" do not hold such questions in high esteem at all: there is some kind of infrastructure, fuel bases, you know ... aircraft carriers move due to pathos and aura of power!

        Usually, it’s funny to read about detection: stupid Americans do not have selective blindness and they will not be able to find a ship connection in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. But theirs AB, we will immediately find out in the ocean and seven with one blow, as they say!
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 31 March 2021 06: 39
          +1
          Quote: Anjay V.
          Well, our "AV-fetesists" do not hold such questions in high esteem at all: there is some kind of infrastructure, fuel bases, you know ... aircraft carriers move due to pathos and aura of power!

          yes yes it is! I support ... members of the totalitarian destructive sect of aircraft carrier witnesses are not inclined to logic
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 2 2021 23: 22
      0
      For example, upload 8 tons of aviation fuel


      You there it ... more careful, or something.

      2) in the same place, in theory, a large number of ASPs for aircraft will have to be stored;


      Not necessary.

      Well, the approximate number of NATO aircraft capable of striking our aircraft carrier


      Directly all NATO will rush to our aircraft carrier with ardor.
      Greece and Turkey shoulder to shoulder in the Norwegian Sea.
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 00: 21
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        You there it ... more careful, or something.

        2 weeks of surgery
        50 sorties per day (against the backdrop of messages from avik fans about 150 and a peak of 200)
        tanks 12 liters
        14 * 50 * 12 = 000

        Let's get your calculation done.

        Not necessary.

        Where will it be stored?


        Directly all NATO will rush to our aircraft carrier with ardor.
        Greece and Turkey shoulder to shoulder in the Norwegian Sea.

        capable strike our aircraft carrier. - Does the highlighted word mean anything to you?
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 3 2021 01: 18
          0
          Let's get your calculation done.


          I give laughing

          2 weeks of surgery
          50 sorties per day (against the backdrop of messages from avik fans about 150 and a peak of 200)
          tanks 12 liters
          14 * 50 * 12 = 000

          So see? laughing

          Where will it be stored?


          Where it is now stored, there it will be. The aircraft carrier can take on board the APS ammunition at any berth or in general at sea.

          capable of striking our aircraft carrier. - Does the highlighted word mean anything to you?


          You not only start from airplanes, but also from:

          available airfields in the theater of operations and their aircraft capacity. Just for example - synchronizing the actions of aviation strike groups that took off from different airfields is a most difficult task that still needs to be able to be solved. With the highest probability, it will be possible to simultaneously withdraw only aircraft from one airbase to strike.

          pilots trained to fly over non-oriented surfaces and attack surface targets.

          Consider the range of the strike.
          The larger it is, the higher the chances of getting into a missile ambush instead of killing the HVU. Or fly to an empty place, at best.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 01: 43
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Where it is now stored, there it will be.

            As it was in Syria, it will be so.
            If everything is stored where it is now stored and done as it is now done.
            You cannot do the same and expect a different result.


            available airfields in the theater of operations and their aircraft capacity. Just for example - synchronizing the actions of aviation strike groups that took off from different airfields is a very difficult task.

            Here, once again, the bias in your knowledge is reflected. You know a lot about the fleet. Almost nothing about aviation.
            But that doesn't stop you from speaking without even thinking about pause and clarification.

            Have you ever watched civilian planes landing?
            Near the airfields there are places near the end where you can stop by car and watch the planes come in to land.
            They fly at amazingly even intervals.
            Civil boards.
            Various airlines. From different parts of the world.
            Keep within timing + - minute.
            Standard procedure.

            You write here about the military - "the most difficult task."


            pilots trained to fly over non-oriented surfaces and attack surface targets.

            Began .. sick with syphilis. Broken left leg. Right leg. Not taken off because of a flock of birds.
            As a result, all of Europe is dotted with airfields, but no one flew in ...
            Clear.

            Consider the range of the strike.
            The larger it is, the higher the chances of getting into a missile ambush instead of killing the HVU. Or fly to an empty place, at best.

            You about the Mediterranean Sea. Where the enemy has an advantage in reconnaissance.
            This is a solid missile ambush for us there.

            Give laughing
            2 weeks of surgery
            50 sorties per day (against the backdrop of messages from avik fans about 150 and a peak of 200)
            tanks 12 liters
            14 * 50 * 12 = 000
            Is this clear? laughing

            No. Name any of your introductory
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 3 2021 01: 52
              0
              Various airlines. From different parts of the world.
              Keep within timing + - minute.
              Standard procedure.

              You write here about the military - "the most difficult task."


              Yeah, and now two hundred airliners that took off from different airfields, collect 50% of their flight range into one group, and so that they line up in some order (in battalion boxing, for example laughing ) and all this in the radio silence mode and with satellite navigation inoperative due to interference.
              You are our specialist.

              Began .. sick with syphilis. Broken left leg. Right leg. Not taken off because of a flock of birds.


              Please stop acting like a fool.

              You about the Mediterranean Sea. Where the enemy has an advantage in reconnaissance.
              This is a solid missile ambush for us there.


              It can be easily organized, if that. What traffic did you see there?

              No. Name any of your introductory


              Let me give you one last try before I start driving you face down on the asphalt.
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov April 3 2021 02: 41
                0
                Yeah, and now two hundred liners,

                Those. you have already decided on the quantity yes. Something already.
                How will you repel a volley of 200 liners?

                take off from different airfields, collect 50% of their flight range into one group, and so that they line up in some order (in battalion boxing, for example laughing)

                Collection areas are designated. Tankers and planes take off there. Refuel, form a strike group - attack.


                It can be easily organized, if that. What traffic did you see there?

                Completely Russian, I suppose? And there are more of our ships there, right? Well, to assume that it will be easier for us to organize an ambush than for them. Yes?
                Again, you ignore reality and try to "surround" ten alone?
                Is it really so difficult to understand that we are losing there in everything - which does not give us the opportunity to count on a favorable outcome of using almost any tactics.

                and all this is in radio silence mode and with satellite navigation inoperative due to interference.

                Please stop acting like a fool.

                Start with yourself.
                Stop acting like a fool.
                And write things that have nothing to do with reality.
                To organize an ambush, we need our ship to enter the Mediterranean Sea.
                And he can enter there only through the narrowness that all "graze" NATO.
                Therefore, any ship that passes there is identified multiple times (including the acoustic channel), if it is our warship a penny drone or other ship is hung up to it and it is "led" all the time while it is in the Mediterranean using the BIGGEST set of tools.
                Now explain how in such conditions you set up an ambush.

                And in order to organize an "ambush" you need to have a weapon for it. In this case, air defense. If you have air defense with a radius of 10 km, then you need to "catch" the direction of the aircraft strike - how are you going to do this while masquerading as traffic?

                Let me give you one more last try

                8400 tons approx.
                50 Tu 160.
                You wrote that the problem is to refuel even a few, I want to know how you will refuel 50.

                and all this is in radio silence mode and with satellite navigation inoperative due to interference.

                Each of the aspects is related to what?
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 30 March 2021 21: 53
    +2
    Not for Stenka's hat. Ambitions are not supported by an industrial and scientific base, in the absence of infrastructure and side effects, like the AUG order and others (with regards to AWACS aviation and PLO helicopters). With a stake on the adaptation of front-line aviation to the needs of the deck.
  • Bradley
    Bradley 30 March 2021 22: 09
    -2
    The author correctly writes: “We cannot afford a classic aircraft carrier, either in terms of money or technology.
    It is corny even there are no ships for this class. A frigate or corvette looks absolutely funny in the ocean. However, they were not created for the ocean.

    But we are a sea power, at least that's how they taught me at school. But that was a school, and today we understand that we are far from a sea power, but an ocean power ...
    Although, if you look at the main ocean players, it is not so offensive, because those same players are the United States and China. Not the poorest countries, I think.

    But we need a mighty fleet, it must be created! This is money and technology, this is an investment, a huge investment that will bring "profit" not tomorrow or next week. These are years, perhaps decades. But it's worth it!

    First, we need to start at least with UDC, at least with helicopters.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 30 March 2021 22: 26
    +2
    that aircraft carriers can become a guarantee of ensuring the defense of the maritime borders of the Federation

    Not a pledge, but one of the components of this defense.
    ... at the moment we cannot even determine the intended appearance of a ship of this class, let alone its design.

    Who are we"?
    Was this the task?
    All concepts and "models" at sea salons are, so to speak, an "initiative", and, moreover, some kind of strange, to put it mildly ...
    ... then the country will receive not an analogue of "Gerald R. Ford", but a new "Admiral Kuznetsov" ...

    Both of them are not needed by the Russian Navy. Ford is too big. Kuznetsov - no longer meets modern requirements for aircraft-carrying ships.
    The very same project of re-equipment of "Admiral Gorshkov" turned out to be unprofitable for Sevmash.

    And the navy is rarely profitable ...
    Defense is expensive.
    As a conclusion, I would like to add that we also do not have an infrastructure for basing such ships - and it needs to be built from scratch.

    Yes, we have a lot of things. And even what once was and worked is now completely destroyed and you need to start from scratch ...
    In Kerch, two UDCs were laid ... Also large ships, not cheap, complex (not such, of course, as an aircraft carrier). Who designed them? Who will build them?
    No naval aviation - no. Well, it should be. Or, if it is not there, then it is not necessary ...
    Summing up, we can say that the cost of creating an aircraft fleet may exceed the cost of the aircraft carrier itself.

    Without a doubt. Three times, I think ...
    ... and, much worse, there is no guarantee that by the time of the start of mass production, our promising carrier-based aircraft will not be outdated.

    Doubtful.
    How many decades have Hawkeye and the F18 been in service with US aircraft carriers?
    The issue of recruiting an escort group stands apart. We, as usual, touch on it in passing.

    This is yes. For the last 30 years, if the Fleet is "touched", then in passing ... And who prevented us from making Project 22350 25-30% larger? Now there would be an ideal platform, "for all occasions." Who prevented from taking up the domestic ship engine building 20 years ago? For building a modern shipyard?
    The fleet is not born in 10 years. And for 20 it is difficult to build. The ship is possible, the Fleet is not. And there is no need to say that "we cannot, because ..." We all can, more than once we have proven this to the whole world ...
    You just need to prioritize. What does the country need? Olympiads, championships, paving stones, balls and yachts, or .... a modern army capable of protecting its people. And, of course, there is not enough money for everything. What kind of aircraft carrier is there ... If only frigates and track corvettes were supplied to the Fleet ...
    1. Anzhey V.
      31 March 2021 08: 48
      +3
      Not a pledge, but one of the components of this defense.


      For comparison, the purchase of aircraft for Gerald Ford alone cost $ 13 billion. Serial equipment of ready-made projects.

      Russia's military budget this year is $ 43 billion. In subsequent years, the Ministry of Defense predicts its decline by up to 10%.

      Yes, the “sacred aircraft carrier cow” should become no less than a pledge, because thanks to it, all defense purchases will be thwarted at least for a decade in advance.

      Kuznetsov - no longer meets modern requirements for aircraft-carrying ships.


      Well, I congratulate you, because the Navy again wants just such a frame.

      How many decades have Hawkeye and the F18 been in service with US aircraft carriers?


      SuperHornet is in fact a completely new aircraft with the old name. He even had a redesigned and enlarged glider.

      With Hockey, the situation is similar.

      In Kerch, two UDCs were laid ... Also large ships, not cheap, complex (not such, of course, as an aircraft carrier). Who designed them? Who will build them?


      The UDC project was acquired during the Mistral purchase transaction. Frankly, the question of their construction remains open, and it is inconvenient to mention the air wing at all.

      For the last 30 years, if the Fleet is "touched", then in passing ... And who prevented us from making Project 22350 25-30% larger?


      Because after the collapse of the USSR, it turned out that the fleet was not particularly needed.

      It would not have been built even now, if not for state prestige - and, incidentally, those in power from time to time are clearly disappointed in such motivation, and the Navy begins to go to insane tricks in order to add value to itself, as with the Poseidons.

      The presence of the fleet depends entirely on the economy and the development of sea trade. If these factors are not there, pour in at least 3/4 of the defense budget - and the fleet will still rot at the berths idle.

      Do you know what the experts from the NATO countries foresaw as a matter of priority when they were drawing up the Ukrainian Navy Strategy-2035? Namely, they focused on the use of the ports remaining in Ukraine for peaceful purposes - otherwise, any naval construction would lose its meaning.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 31 March 2021 09: 30
        +1
        ... the purchase of aircraft for Gerald Ford alone was worth $ 13 billion.

        The Americans and the nuclear submarines were three times more expensive ... They are out of competition in "cutting" the budget. Even our optimizers are jealous ...
        Yes, the “sacred aircraft carrier cow” should become no less than a pledge, because thanks to it, all defense purchases will be thwarted at least for a decade in advance.

        Come on you ...
        Fewer dubious "Poseidon & Co" programs, then funds will remain for the necessary programs (torpedoes, anti-torpedoes, anti-mine weapons, naval aviation, etc.).
        Well, I congratulate you, because the Navy again wants just such a frame.

        What the Navy wants there - I don't know. But the fact that for several decades the Fleet has been reluctant to build, finding thousands of reasons and excuses is indisputable.
        SuperHornet is in fact a completely new aircraft with the old name. He even had a redesigned and enlarged glider.

        And who is stopping the modernization of the Su-33, or upgrading to the deck version of the Su-35 / Su-30 ..? It will turn out much faster and cheaper than bringing hypothetical "deck UAVs" or "Su-57K".
        Because after the collapse of the USSR, it turned out that the fleet was not particularly needed.

        Who "found out"? To the enemies of our Motherland? So they do not need the Air Force and the Strategic Missile Forces. Remember how the Pioneers and Tu-22s cut with pleasure ... Without the Russian Navy, you can forget about international influence / big politics and about efficient trade. The rejection of the modern Navy is a voluntary isolation from the World ... And this applies not only to military shipbuilding, but also to civilian ones. Surprisingly, the bulk of Russian exports are transported on Korean ships flying the flag of Liberia ...
        1. Anzhey V.
          31 March 2021 10: 33
          +5
          Surprisingly, the bulk of Russian exports are transported on Korean ships flying the flag of Liberia ...


          For favorable working conditions, reduced rates of port dues, small registration fees and much more, which is not the case in Russia, where, thanks to officials, even the marine fishing industry has become unprofitable (!!!).

          Fewer dubious "Poseidon & Co" programs, then funds will remain for the necessary programs (torpedoes, anti-torpedoes, anti-mine weapons, naval aviation, etc.).


          Doc, the fact of the matter is that our aircraft carrier program is questionable. This is exactly what I am trying to convey.

          This is the same "Poseidon", only many times more expensive
        2. Silhouette
          Silhouette April 1 2021 10: 09
          +2
          Quote: Doccor18
          Without the Russian Navy, one can forget about international influence / big politics and efficient trade.

          What the fuck is the influence? What the hell is big politics? With a bare butt .... Until the standard of living of the people equals that of European countries, and people stop fetching water in wells and stoking the stoves with wood, talking about big politics is simply ridiculous.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 April 1 2021 10: 45
            +2
            Quote: Silhouette
            Until the standard of living of the people equals that of the countries of Europe, and people stop fetching water from wells and heating stoves with wood, talking about big politics is simply ridiculous.

            It's funny, not funny ... and they will continue to "extract" water and firewood in Russia, but some of them will continue to "play superpower" at this time ...
          2. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 2 2021 23: 27
            0
            Until the standard of living of the people equals that of the countries of Europe, and people stop fetching water from wells and heating stoves with wood, talking about big politics is simply ridiculous.


            Europe FIRST built fleets and imposed on all mankind an unequal exchange of goods by force, and THEN there people began to eat three times a day - precisely because there was an unequal exchange.
            You don’t understand the fundamental thing - aircraft carriers make money, not the other way around.
            Do you want to switch everyone to gas? Include five or six hundred million people in different countries in your economic system, and then PROTECT this system by FORCE.
            Then and only then will there be money for gasification. Not earlier.
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette April 3 2021 10: 15
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Europe FIRST built fleets and imposed on all mankind an unequal exchange of goods by force, and THEN there people began to eat three times a day - precisely because there was an unequal exchange.


              Do you even know that in order to open America, India and China, the Russian military fleet was not needed? We got to them on dry land. Without any fleet! Comparing Russia with any country in Europe means not understanding anything about your country. Once again I suggest you read N. Danilevsky thoughtfully and not persist in your ignorance. People in Europe began to eat 3 times a day only in the 70s and not because they acquired aircraft carriers instead of battleships. There are completely different reasons. The thesis about the equivalent exchange of goods with the natives amused me. Have you used hand-rolled history textbooks?
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              You don’t understand the fundamental thing - aircraft carriers make money, not the other way around.

              And I, naive, thought that aircraft carriers were devouring money (a billion dollars a year in peacetime).
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Do you want to switch everyone to gas? Include five or six hundred million people in different countries in your economic system, and then PROTECT this system by FORCE.
              Then and only then will there be money for gasification. Not earlier.

              Have you heard enough of Gazprom? ... Why then, when there was communism under Brezhnev, pipes were thrown into Europe, and gas never appeared in the villages near St. Petersburg and Yaroslavl. The same as at Suzdal, Vladimir and Ivanov?
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 3 2021 22: 12
                0
                Do you even know that in order to open America, India and China, the Russian military fleet was not needed? We got to them on dry land. Without any fleet!


                And who included them in their economy later? Are we too? You do not understand at all what you are carrying.
            2. GEOID
              GEOID April 3 2021 17: 45
              +1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              imposed on all mankind an unequal exchange of goods by force

              Here you can argue.
              With industrial espionage, you don't need to impose anything.
              In general, there would be such a quality, no one would impose.
              What did you trade with Europe in the 17-18 century? Hemp, tar, furs.
              Why did Peter cut the window? Where did you teach navigators? etc.
              Could the Papuans make beads and guns themselves ...
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 3 2021 22: 13
                0
                Peter just "cut the window" so that the Empire could cut more money from its own exports.
                Precisely in order for the unequal exchange to become less equivalent.
  • Konstantin Pekhlivanov
    Konstantin Pekhlivanov 30 March 2021 22: 51
    0
    Not in the subject, I'm afraid, but the USSR was developing ballistic missiles against US aircraft carriers. Maybe in the 80s technology was not allowed. But now the PLA has adopted the DF-21D. Maybe the hour has come?
  • Xenofont
    Xenofont 30 March 2021 23: 00
    +2
    After reading many articles on our military development (not to be confused with Stroybat), there is a feeling of a discrete vision of the prospects for the development of the Russian Armed Forces in our Defense Ministry. Or, more precisely, the country's leadership, because it still hovers in the minds of some that a big war is not possible or not soon, so there is no need to rush. This can be clearly seen in naval and aviation affairs with plans for re-equipment going into eternity. At the same time, the modernization of tanks, air defense, and Arctic infrastructure was very successful. But after the beginning of a major mess, the industry will lose the ability to make up for losses with a high probability. And we will have to fight with what we have until the reserves are completely depleted. And it is still not clear how priorities are set for the near future from the point of view of the lack of a full-fledged satellite constellation, the proper number of AWACS aircraft and much more. And if tomorrow is a war? The world is clearly overheated by "partners".
  • SVD68
    SVD68 31 March 2021 02: 59
    +4
    This is the argument: you cannot build, since we do not have specialists. Naturally, if you do not build, then there will be no specialists and will never appear.
    Another argument of a similar plan: you cannot build, since there are no other components of the system. Naturally, if they are not built, then they will not be.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 31 March 2021 03: 14
      +1
      Quote: SVD68
      This is the argument: you cannot build, since we do not have specialists.

      And they also need to be trained. recourse For example, they taught me to be a builder for three and a half years. Is free. And they even paid a stikuh. Thirty. Plus coupons for another 15 rubles, which could be exchanged for food in the buffet. By the way, the sausage was there for some reason. It’s even surprising. request
    2. S. Viktorovich
      S. Viktorovich 31 March 2021 11: 07
      0
      Now some groundwork is being formed for long-range means of destruction of surface targets. For them, it is necessary to focus on new means of reconnaissance, tracking and target designation (space, UAVs). The notorious "Liana" is made according to the ideas of the last century and is outdated before deployment. All this can become one of the alternative ways to create an aircraft carrier fleet.
      The second way, to ensure ASW, is the deployment of means of monitoring the underwater situation (autonomous drones, stationary observation posts, etc.).
  • Dilettante grandfather
    Dilettante grandfather 31 March 2021 06: 01
    0
    Quote: geniy
    I don't know who Savitsky is.
    Now I don't read books at all - there is no time

    And you read it. A submarine aircraft carrier carrying 5 fighters is described there. Start - from a capsule, on accelerators and with the help of an EM catapult. Moreover, the start is from a submerged position. Interesting tale, by the way)
  • Alexilyin
    Alexilyin 31 March 2021 08: 33
    0
    Everything is correctly noted. Dreaming is not harmful. It is necessary to take a realistic and deliberate approach to the formation of the fleet.
  • Ptolemy Lag
    Ptolemy Lag 31 March 2021 11: 35
    0
    I wonder what Timokhin will say in response to this article?
    1. looker-on
      looker-on April 1 2021 11: 50
      +1
      Quote: Ptolemy Lag
      I wonder what Timokhin will say in response to this article?

      And Andrey is from Chelyabinsk. Ps The article is very good. I would start all articles like this: Are we ready to tighten our belts and live a little worse, but build an aircraft carrier? After all, the construction will be for our money.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 2 2021 23: 30
        0
        The answer article has already been written and will be released soon. I think that on Monday or Tuesday, but the administration may post it earlier
  • TerraSandera
    TerraSandera 31 March 2021 14: 29
    -1
    And you can find out from the knowledgeable, what is the difficulty of inventing a catapult for AB? I'm just interested, because here it is almost the main difficulty described when creating an AB without a springboard "from 0".
    The topic, like the article, is interesting. Everywhere has its own + and -. Unfortunately, we still cannot afford them financially. Yes, article +. More realistic in the current realities is the similarity of the UDC-with UAV alteration. But even here huge funds are needed. But I think the future is not for classic aircraft carriers. Even if we have the money now, it will take 20 + - years. And with the current development of technology and our development of microelectronics, the lag is difficult to overcome.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 31 March 2021 14: 30
    0
    The aircraft carrier is needed. At least so that there are specialists. And where can he be at the beginning of hostilities? Yes, where you need it.
  • Earnest
    Earnest 31 March 2021 21: 09
    0
    Quote: geniy
    Well, unlike the Strugatskys, I do not create naked fantasies, but create a technical project with calculations ..

    Gridasov ?? Oh woe to us, woe ... There was still a necromancer, revived belay laughing
  • Earnest
    Earnest 31 March 2021 21: 58
    0
    Quote: geniy
    Well, unlike the Strugatskys, I do not create naked fantasies, but create a technical project with calculations ...

    I forgot, you used to make us so happy under the nickname "Gridasov" or "Aviagra" in the spring-autumn aggravations? Not firing Borov grenade launcher, not taking off the Scolopendra UAV and other "planes on low carts"?
  • Angry
    Angry April 1 2021 09: 05
    -1
    The "writer" is talking nonsense! Just cave shortsightedness! Thank God the voiced decision does not depend on people like him. It is clear that how many people have so many opinions. Only he is not at all Admiral Yamamoto, who back in the 30s of the last century said "A fleet without wings is a relic of the past." As long as there are Oceans and Humanity, there will be fleets! While there will be aviation, there will be aircraft carriers. And the fact that they are not in our fleet now does not mean that they are not needed. It's just that their time has not come for us. There is neither a building base, nor competencies, nor is there an operational need to cover the forces of the fleet, since our fleet is virtually nonexistent in the DMZ. But the fact that many of the world's fleets that have never had AB (Korea, Turkey, Australia, etc.) are building them on the sly, according to the author's conclusions, clinical? And Russia is slowly moving in the same direction. And what is being built in Kerch, what do you think? We need Kuznetsovs2-3-4, etc., as aircraft carriers of air defense / anti-aircraft defense, their strike functions are superfluous, since strike weapons will be on the ships of the formation, as an example of an escort AUG USA, where there are six BNKs with about 600 cells in a typical composition, in which can easily be half or more of the SLCM. And 300 Tomahawks will break through any air defense sector! And the transport and landing aviation will go into the corridor. And AB aviation covers all this splendor in all environments. When we have such KUGs carrying hundreds of SLCMs, aircraft carriers will appear, it's a matter of time. Since the best air defense systems, these are the F-18 / MiG-35 carrying a dozen explosive missiles outside the radius of the SM-3 / S-400 air defense system.
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette April 1 2021 09: 56
    +1
    Great article. And most importantly - in fact, there is nothing to argue. One can only supplement and describe in more detail the impossibility of mastering an aircraft carrier in the given historical conditions and the reasons for this. And why the service on our non-aircraft carrier is a horror movie. But this requires a separate article.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN April 6 2021 12: 25
    0
    The concept and preliminary projects can, of course, be worked out. Even without going to the stage of development of a complete TTD. For the next decade, the largest new military surface shipbuilding projects will be 2 UDCs from Kerch.
    And it will be necessary to work out innovations and train naval pilots on the Kuznetsov.
  • Evil eye
    Evil eye April 9 2021 12: 36
    0
    “The deployment of single squadrons in the oceans controlled by the United States and its allies also looks like a sophisticated form of suicide ... Of course, this will force the enemy to divert significant forces and means, but it will end in the inevitable destruction of our AUG - and, given the complete lack of experience in the combat use of formations of this type, as well as total air superiority, which the enemy can provide almost anywhere in the world ... "

    Logically, this is what should happen in the event of a war, if a small aircraft carrier squadron (an aircraft carrier, a tanker, several destroyers, a submarine + possibly a cruiser) is deployed in advance, for example, in the Atlantic, and it will be commanded by people who have no legs and experience.

    First, the squadron must move away from satellite surveillance. Perhaps, simply destroy dangerous satellites on their own or wait for such an attack on satellites from Russia. Now there is nothing incredible in knocking out satellites.
    If the war has not reached such a stage, then just hide - and how to do it, Alexander Timokhin chewed.
    Then our squadron must repeat everything that the German raiders did in the world wars - sinking large transports and weak ships, as well as individual air patrols. And to evade large enemy forces, including massive air raids, using AWACS deck aircraft. As a result, the enemy will either have to put up with excessive losses, or divert large forces to capture our squadron, making it possible to attack our main forces from our territory.
    You will have to refuel right at sea. If there is no type of neutral countries ready to help us behind the scenes, then with the help of civilian ships that were withdrawn in advance under the guise of merchant ships. Tankers with kerosene instead of oil, bulk carriers with shells and spare parts.
    Finally, sooner or later, the fuel will start to run out. This means that you will either have to carry out the last suicidal attack on the large forces of the enemy, or on a large base, or break through home with the fight. For example, the squadron attacks NATO forces in the north from the Atlantic, and the Northern Fleet simultaneously from the North Ocean.
    Or make your way home, but secretly.
    Or, by that time, our troops have already captured at least one key strait and pushed the way into the World Ocean.
    Or go to the Far East around the globe.
    Or surrender to a neutral country like Crown Prince Wilhelm.
    You see how many options there are, and you immediately start yelling that we have legs and we can't do anything.