Military Review

Aircraft carrier myths

274

I see no reason to write a long introduction: all regular VO readers are already aware of the battles around aircraft carriers. So let's get straight to the point.


Answer to A. Timokhin's article A few questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers

The arguments of the authors usually boil down to three or four theses of the "target-trough" type, "you can't hide from satellites", "we can't master it, there is no money" and the like.

They are not limited to this, their list is much more extensive.
It would be more correct to say this: besides 100 others, arguments include these.

Why target?


Alexander wrote a number of publications on naval topics, in which he revealed the issues of "tracking weapons».

What is the advantage of this tactic?

We take one inexpensive ship and assign it to keep track of a more expensive and powerful enemy ship, or a whole KUG. We keep our forces safe. It turns out that, firstly, we are aware of the movement of the KUG, and secondly, we can attack all their ships, and they are only our "small and cheap".

When an aircraft carrier is in the ocean, the situation looks like this. First, it still needs to be found. Secondly, the ship sailing behind it must have a high speed and range, and there is a problem here. If we are monitoring a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, it can maintain sub-maximum speed for an unlimited amount of time.
And a non-nuclear ship burns fuel much faster at these speeds. Therefore, it is difficult to apply this tactic in the ocean.

What happens when an aircraft carrier enters the waters of our interest? Black Sea, Mediterranean, etc.

Firstly, we will not even be able to get there unnoticed, everyone will know in a week that our AV is sailing past Norway. And from that moment on, any small ship or a cheap drone sticks to AB. And 24/7 in SuperHD broadcasts everything that happens on the deck.

Alexander's argument on this topic, expressed by him in one of our
conversations - they say, the aircraft carrier there will be watching someone. He will, of course, follow, but the point of tactics is to follow a CHEAP ship, keeping the main strike forces safe, and not under attack. And it turns out that our aircraft carrier is under a potential attack from the entire coastal infrastructure of NATO, and "tracking with weapons" is possible even at the stage when it is only
sails to the Mediterranean Sea, that is, "a week before". Actually, that's why the target.

Driving AV into a "puddle", we deprive it of operational space. And the tactical advantages that he could have in this very open space, including the main thing - the ability to attack enemy ships aviationoutside of the retaliatory strike zone.

This fact naturally affects its real combat effectiveness in this region, with a constant price tag. And this, in turn, affects its ability as a combat unit to compete with other combat units for funding.

And the trough ... The main criterion of truth is experience. What happened in Syria allows us to say that what he saw is really closer to the concept of "trough" than to the wording "strike aircraft carrier".

Such wars do not shine for us; interests outside our borders must be abandoned.


The fact is that in reality there are many instruments for promoting one's interests. While Timokhin (and in his person among the supporters of AV) has only one such instrument - an aircraft carrier. Only in such a paradigm of thinking, rejection of AB automatically means rejection of interests. In the future, I will analyze this issue in detail.

Arms competition


That is, denying aircraft carriers the right to exist, the supporter of this point of view declares the following de facto.

If only everything was as simple as Alexander wants to show. In all his articles devoted to the "advantage" of aircraft carriers, the respected A. Timokhin makes the same fatal mistake: he compares the effectiveness of aircraft carriers with ... emptiness.

While the arguments of many opponents are based on the understanding of the fact that the world is much more complicated. And, consequently, the resources used for the construction of AB can be used more effective.

Therefore, as an example, I propose in the future to compare the effectiveness of two aircraft carriers with what can be built for the same amount. For example, with the same money, you can make 8 submarines, built like Borei, but with Caliber tactical missiles in the mines. Each such boat will carry 14 * 7 = 98 Caliber, which will make this ship the most powerful strike weapon on navy... Or you can also build as many as 8 helicopter carriers with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons. And I am not saying that this is what needs to be built. There are many options. My task is only to demonstrate possible alternatives.

For example, you can optionally consider another option - the renewal of the Tu-22M3M series, for which there are already updated engines. So, for example, having estimated an aircraft carrier at 280 billion, we can say that 34 Tu-22M3M can be built for the same amount, if we assume that this aircraft will cost half the price of the Tu-160.

Taking into account that the life of an aircraft will be half that of an aircraft carrier, we get 17 aircraft. We base them in Engels. Proceeding from the fact that in any given period of time we can count on 1/3 of this fleet during the first two days, we have 6 aircraft.

Note. At the moment we already have these aircraft, but their flight life is gradually coming to an end, and in the next 10 years we should expect the resumption of production.

Let's immediately try to throw some of this into battle, using the example proposed by Timokhin, and answer his question, formulated as follows:

Or simply imagine the aggravation of the situation in Sudan, fraught with attacks on our PMTO in Port Sudan. What if air support is needed to protect or evacuate PMTO personnel? To Khmeimim, after all, 1800 kilometers along a realistic route. How will we work from there on requests from the "ground"? But an aircraft carrier, at the first signs of a threatened period, moved from Tartus to the Red Sea is quite a solution to the problem. And not only the question of the PMTO.

1800 km you say?

Combat radius of Tu-22 (hereinafter I will simply write Tu-22: it is clear what is at stake) with a load of 12 tons ... * drum roll * 000 + missile range 2400.

Each aircraft carries 8 missiles (X-50, aka X-SD, aka product 715, aka Goga, aka Zhora), the mass of all this ammunition is slightly more than 12 tons. We will reduce the range to 2000 due to the greater mass and two missiles on the external sling.

More than enough in range. Let's see what the quantity is.

From the number of missiles, we can conclude that the Tu-22 is equivalent to four Timokhin's carrier-based aircraft at once. We have 6 of these machines.

6 * 4 = 24.

And how much did Timokhin have?

And we gave the URO ships a head start with the number of missiles in the cells, overestimating them from the really possible and setting them a speed at the transition of 20 knots, although in reality it will be lower. We also have only 8 attack aircraft, not 16, for example. But it could have been 22!

In fact, the estimated price of the aircraft carrier was taken not as Kuznetsov, but as a somewhat larger aircraft carrier.

It was about the following configuration.

For this money, it is quite possible to get a nuclear catapult ship capable of providing basing 36 heavy multifunctional fighters. 4 specialized AWACS aircraft, 4 electronic warfare aircraft and 10 helicopters.

But we have two aircraft carriers. And, consequently, we still have unallocated money from the second aircraft carrier. We will take 8 helicopter carriers for them.

This means that we can choose four areas for constant patrolling with tasks:

1) Kamchatka - monitoring of the underwater situation of submarines by helicopters (cover for strategists), an additional deterrent from a limited conflict a la Falklands.
2) SF - monitoring software / covering strategists.
3) Mediterranean Sea.

And suddenly

4) Red Sea.

This means that we will have at least one helicopter carrier in this area. Moreover, since this is an MTO point for the fleet, and the fleet also uses helicopters, it is logical to assume that hangars for servicing and rotating helicopters from frigates and corvettes should also be equipped there.

I will also remind you that since we are cooperating with Egypt, we have already developed a version of the KA-52 for this region and we have already produced them.

Attack helicopters of the Egyptian Air Force have a number of differences from those supplied to the Russian Aerospace Forces. Due to the harsh environmental conditions, anti-corrosion materials are more widely used in the Nile Crocodile, additional cooling systems are installed, the fuselage structure is reinforced, and the chassis weight is reduced to reduce take-off weight in hot climates. The helicopter is equipped with the OES-52 optoelectronic aiming system, the President-S anti-missile system and the Crossbow-52 radar for navigation, reconnaissance and detection of ground targets at a distance of up to 25 km, and air targets up to 15 km.

These helicopters have already passed the baptism of fire and their combat use has been worked out. In the video below, two Ka-52s organized a carousel.



Moreover, how does Timokhin plan to rotate ship crews in Sudan?

By sea? So that the sailors spend an additional couple of weeks at sea and, during the transfer, arrive in Sudan in this state?



Is the rotation of the rest of the staff the same?

I mean, there is the second largest airport in Sudan next to the port. From where planes can take off, up to TU-22. And it is obvious that the fastest "bombing" the territory of Sudan will be able to planes that took off from the airfield ... Sudan.

Therefore...

Answer to question number 1 "How are you going to fight without aviation in principle?" such is: "We are not going to fight without aviation at all - we have a lot of it without AV."

And, having answered this question, I want to ask a counter one.

Aviation is represented by:

Tu-160
Tu-22
Su-34
Katrans
Mi-24 N airfield
Orion
Altair
The air tanker IL-78, with the help of which the same Su-34 could be withdrawn to Sudan.

Each type of aviation has its own niche. After all, it's not for nothing that they exist in the world in general? This means that there are tasks with which the UAV copes better than the Su-34, and the Tu-22 is better than the Katran, and the Katran is better than the deck aircraft.

I understand that Timokhin, declaring one thing in words:

Apparently, you will have to return the discussion to a rigid conceptual framework,

in fact, "rigidly" formulated these frameworks as follows:

Or simply imagine the aggravation of the situation in Sudan, fraught with attacks on our PMTO in Port Sudan.

That is, no specifics. Aggravation? Attack? Who attacked? Why attacked? By what forces?

But what type of aviation will become the most effective will depend on this very specifics (again the question arises: whose approach is more limited). But, verbally appealing to a rigid framework, the respected A. Timokhin shies away from this specifics, like the devil from incense.

And why exactly aviation?



So, the question is: Where did all aviation go, and not only aviation (all of the above and not only)?

Here I will go straight to question number 5.

Question 5. Why do you not want to use aircraft for strike missions, even when this is the best option?

The fact is that, without knowing the "clear" conditions, it is impossible in principle to formulate what type of aviation is optimal.

But, since in the CAB thinking paradigm there is only a deck, then this question does not arise in their root. Well, look at the topic as a whole - aviation in bulk. Use it - I don't want to. Moreover, taking into account the speed of movement of AB from the base point to the Northern Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, it is much inferior in time to conventional aircraft and, moreover, to the means available in the region itself.

Ballad of Time


"Where our aircraft from the shore cannot be in the minimum necessary time."

Aircraft carrier myths

Leaving the Northern Fleet base, the aircraft carrier reaches the point from which it can begin to “bomb Egypt” (our main partner in Africa, which accounts for almost 40% of the trade turnover), in about 6 days. Something tells me that the Tu-22 will fly from Engels to an operational airfield (for example, Khmeimim) and strike much earlier.

But maybe I'm biased?

The criterion of truth is experience. Let's turn to the experience of France. On the 13th, terrorist attacks were carried out. On the 15th it was decided to send De Gaulle. On the 18th he sailed and on the 23rd the first blows were struck. Eight days. Three of them are for the aircraft carrier's fees. Draw conclusions.

Question 2. How are you going to fight without aviation with those who have it?

The question has two parts.

The answer to the first part was given above: we have a lot of aviation, especially in the case of Turkey. The second part was answered by here.

Then Timokhin concretizes the question.

And now a question for the opponents of aircraft carriers - how can all this be ensured without an aircraft carrier? I'd like to hear the answer. Will we hear?

How to ensure what? Sitting in the bushes of an aircraft carrier?

Our aviation will strive to suppress enemy air defenses before they do it with us. Then he will destroy the airfields. After that, Turkey will already be forced to go to the world. Because further - only the total destruction of a multitude of expensive and technological objects: "rubbing into the Stone Age." Therefore, oddly enough, but the shortest way to save the base in Syria is through ignoring it and focusing on the announced goals: to suppress the air defense as quickly as possible.

The Turks will have a similar situation, by the way: in order to prevent us from doing this, they will also need to concentrate in one direction, without dispersing their forces on secondary goals.

For an aircraft carrier, the most effective use is: active, that is, attack, attack. What happens if the Turks ignore the convoys? The aircraft carrier will remain sitting in the bushes. A wonderful plan from Marshal Timokhin.

And yes, it will all end much earlier. And there won't be any convoys.

The uselessness of aircraft carriers: bombing in the Syrian scenario


Let us recall the favorite tactic of the Westerners: wait until we invest in the country properly, and when it comes to the return on these investments, just arrange a coup there, and that's it.

And for this, at the first stage, it will be necessary to provide air cover for their forces. And then after their withdrawal - to bomb all those who disagree "according to the Syrian option", supporting local friendly forces, as in Syria.

It turns out that in Ukraine it was necessary to bomb the Maidan according to the Syrian scenario?

Alas, once again the narrow views of the AV supporters are evident. The fact is that the war in Ukraine was waged with the use of weapons that you will not find on the balance sheet of the Ministry of Defense. This is the work of intelligence, agents, PR-department, bought politicians, including the opposition, bought journalists and the media. These are all "weapons" too. And we lost this war.

Moreover, the defeat inflicted on us in Ukraine is 10 times more severe than Tsushima. Simply respected Timokhin can understand defeat in a naval battle. And defeat in a war that was proceeding according to fundamentally different laws cannot. Therefore, I will allow myself to ask a second question.

Question number 2. How can AV help us "return Ukraine" in any form: as a maximum in the form of a satellite country, with a puppet government, serving not as a NATO outpost against us, but on the contrary as our security belt?


Vietnam can be considered another "successful" experience of using AB. Despite the monstrous technological advantage over the rival and the presence of several aircraft carriers participating in the DB, the bombings did not succeed in achieving their goals.

These two examples are striking proof that attempts to substitute AB in the solution to any problem do not work. At the same time, there are vivid examples when countries like Turkey achieved their goals precisely due to the correct priorities in armament.

What would have happened if all this time we had not been spending money on the "trough", but would have let them into the development of Orion, which we would have at the beginning of the operation in Syria? How much resources could you save? What if they had been deployed in Syria in limited numbers even earlier? How successful would the militants' offensive be if their equipment were destroyed in the same way as the Azerbaijanis did in Karabakh? And what would happen to Karabakh if ​​the Armenians had not disproportionately expensive planes, but export versions of Orion?

In an extreme case, it will be necessary not to let anyone interfere with the establishment of order, at least by reliably blocking access to the country of interest: both from the sea and from the air. Moreover, the latter is without airbases, which may not exist at this time.

Well, why does Alexander add an extreme sentence? Let's take a look at the base.

When AB (hereinafter CAB) supporters talk about ... squeezing out (the original wording) of submarines, preventing a submarine from breaking through, blocking access - how do they technically represent this? Destruction of the boat? Throwing nets on her and towing her "home"?

What about blocking access? Let's take a look at Syria. We had everything there. And a ground base. And A-50. And the S-400 with full stuffing of echeloned air defense. And even we were in the country officially, unlike everyone else.

And what, how and what did we block there? Whom? Israel? France? USA?

Maybe our air defense has worked at least in the Kyrgyz Republic? But not even here. Why waste rockets designed to defend yourself? And to arrange a demonstration of the combat work of our air defense under the gaze of all reconnaissance assets of the "partners" ...

Maybe our pilots, in an attempt to block access, shot down someone besides the UAV? Not. But ours were shot down. As for me, all of the above are just words. Pshik, behind which there is nothing concrete.

But I will still ask question number 3. How does the CAB see all this squeeze-out, breakout avoidance, and access restriction for operations like Syria?

Scam with Africa


The question is not idle - let us consider the scheme of the Russian economic presence in Africa.

We look at the money invested and the turnover.

Money and turnover in the presented picture are expressed in baskets, stars, bananas and other icons. We open analytical digest.


Egypt, Algeria and Morocco (all representing CA) remain the largest African countries in terms of the value of goods purchased from Russia. These three account for 73,7% of all Russian exports to Africa.

That is, in terms of priorities, it turns out that only a few countries are of particular interest to us, and they are located in the same regions: north and east of Africa.

Again, the whole range of means - an airfield in Sudan, an airfield in Khmeimim. Consider, for example, the defense of Egypt. A submarine with 100 missiles and a MTR team with a mini-submarine is sailing in the Mediterranean Sea. And a helicopter carrier. In the east of Egypt - the same composition.

Someone will say that Katrans have a small combat radius of 200-300 km, depending on the time for the battle. But let's remember what the teacher told us stories about Egypt? The population there is located along the Nile River.


There are just 300 km.

In addition, there are obvious inconsistencies in all of these conditions. So, for example, do we plan to defend our interests in Egypt with the consent of the "host" or "in spite of"? If “contrary to”, then see the example of Ukraine. Other methods. If agreed, it implies the provision of aerodromes. Or, as Timokhin thinks - the Russians come to bomb, but we won't give the airfield? Well, nonsense! Not?

Now, regarding Timokhin's confusion with stages. If we start our report from the moment when there is a legitimate government in Egypt, then we need to proceed from the fact that at this stage the security measures look completely different: it is intelligence assistance. Consultation on the organization of operational work, identification of unreliable elements and signs of the work of hostile special services. Precise cleansing operations, arrests in a format similar to what is happening now in Dagestan and Chechnya. The war at this stage is waged by approximately the following methods. But there is no way to "attach" AB here. Therefore, Timokhin immediately proceeds from the fact that we lost the first round and immediately moved on to the second.

Wasn't it worth it, for example, in Chechnya to eliminate a dozen people in time and put your own people at the helm, so that later you would not have to fight 2 wars? Not? Direct massacre scenarios?

Leapfrog with strategists


Prevent SSBNs from deploying at the points from which a strike is delivered to the European part of Russia, because a strike only against the Siberian formations of the Strategic Missile Forces does not make sense. The disruption of a strike on the European part of Russia is the disruption of a nuclear attack as a whole.

Well, let's start with the fact that there are two such districts, which means that it is designed for four AB. Timokhin is silent about this.

Continuing with the fact that I already asked a question about what this mythical prevention looks like.

Well, in conclusion: helicopters, not airplanes, will be engaged in the detection of submarines (oh, it turns out, what Kuzya was doing in Syria ... he opened the underwater situation with fighters). This means that the same helicopter carriers will cope with the task. They will only cope with detection much better. For the simple reason that, unlike AB, we can really afford 4 helicopter carriers, for sure.

With a sudden blow to kill all the ships of the KPUGs and - home. As long as the Russians lose the planned communication, until they find out that their ships are not communicating because they are no longer there, the SSBNs will have time to pass.


It becomes more and more difficult to comment on the "arguments", since the degree of science fiction has been going off scale for a long time. Watching the video and counting the time between the event and the broadcast of the distress signal, taking into account that this is a civilian vessel.

That is, our ships will kill everything so quickly that they will not even have time to start working on any air defense? Will there be a combat alert? By the way, a question for knowledgeable people: but on our ships, no one thought of making automatic sending of messages by satellite at the beginning of air defense work?

Of course, nothing can be guaranteed in a war, but we admit that it is much easier for our aircraft carrier to evade a strike than to inflict one on the enemy. Factor of. You just need to be able to do it, train properly.

And build four aircraft carriers. And no, we don't. See the relevant paragraph at the very beginning of the article for why AB is a target in the Mediterranean. There is nowhere for him to "evade" there.

Mysticism



Timokhin in the article Sea warfare for beginners. The interaction of surface ships and strike aircraft writes:

If someone wants to fantasize about refueling in the air, then we may not even have enough tankers for bomber aircraft. So the presence of a refueling system is not essential in such a situation.

Apparently, for this reason Timokhin wondered how it is possible to bomb Sudan from Khmeimim, at a distance of 1800 km? Probably, there were just not enough tankers. Which is logical: after all, all aviation and all airfields have disappeared.

Only racially correct deck-based aircraft - super-heavy MiG-29s - have the right to refueling in the air "now" according to an extremely effective "pop-beak" scheme for AV.

How much does the fleet cost


In conclusion, I would like to comment on the article by Andrey from Chelyabinsk, in which he gave a calculation of the cost of the fleet.

Andrey's calculation, in essence, rests on the fact that the amount for the construction of the fleet is expressed in terms of a percentage of the total budget allocated to the fleet. The “advantage” of the method chosen by Andrey is that it (the method) allows calculations in today's prices without regard to inflation. But this method also has a serious drawback - the calculations only work if the mentioned percentage is a constant. And this, alas, is not so.

The general budget conditionally consists of 3 parts: expenses for maintenance, repair and modernization, construction of new equipment. Let's imagine an abstract example - we have nothing and we start building 100 aircraft. Maintenance costs 0. There is also nothing to repair. What percentage of the total budget is available for construction? 100 percent.

Next year, we already have 100 aircraft on our balance sheet, the pilot training program is designed for 100 flight hours per year, aircraft use up resources, break down, etc. As a result, not 100% is left for the construction of new equipment, but, say, 70% of the budget. Such an example clearly demonstrates how the percentage "for construction" changes depending on the amount of equipment already built.

But let's continue to consider the example further.

In the second year, we decided to increase the flight time of pilots to 150 hours a year, but we did not build new aircraft. Maintenance costs have also increased, and the amount available for the construction of new equipment has decreased again. As a result, sooner or later, a kind of "balance point" will be reached. When the number and intensity of equipment operation will not allow us to build more aircraft for the remainder of the funds than the number required to update the existing fleet.

Let me explain. As soon as Andrey "starts" building ships one more than there is now, the calculated percentage for construction will begin to decline. Due to the fact that the built "over" will start to eat the budget for maintenance. And the more ships “over”, the lower the percentage: 30%, then 28%, then 26%, etc. And since we are already close to that very equilibrium point, the limit will come very quickly.

Therefore, in my opinion, the calculation is absolutely wrong.

The only thing that can be used is rough and rough calculations of the cost of equipment.

Question number 3.

Trade turnover between the RF and all Africa $ 20 billion (digest link was above). A similar indicator between the Russian Federation and Ukraine was slightly less than 50 in the region of 2013 in prices of the same year. We have lost about 25 billion from this volume. That is, one Africa. We lost another Africa, due to lost profits from a potential increase in freight traffic through Ukraine, as well as the need to be under sanctions, to build Crimean bridges, etc.

In this connection, I want to hear explanations from Mr. Timokhin, why is he considering the issue with Africa and not proposing the issue with Ukraine: after all, in Africa no one has actively pressed us yet, but in Ukraine everything has been going on for a long time?

What is the reason for this selectivity?

When you have an example of a real war in front of your eyes, and you “fantasize” for the sake of example, what will happen if somewhere in Africa, in some distant country that supplies us with two boxes of bananas, there is an “aggravation”? And you are trying to convince us all that we urgently need to invest for the sake of these bananas in an aircraft carrier.

And, of course, they are much more versatile than the specialized base scout.
At the same time, unlike the old Tu-95RTs and its hypothetical future analogues, the aircraft carrier is much less limited by geography - if necessary, it will make the transition even to Antarctica, and will work as aviation there, even for reconnaissance purposes, even for the purpose of destroying air, surface or ground targets. It will not work like that with an airplane: the banal refusal of Iran or Afghanistan and Pakistan to let scouts through their airspace - and that's it, in the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean we were left without aerial reconnaissance.

Of course, against the background of problems with Ukraine for the Russian Federation, it is now intelligence in the Indian Ocean that is a priority.


And 14 km doesn't bother us at all? And the fact that AB will cover this distance in almost two weeks?

So, our strike group fires at targets 96 missiles and goes to the base for new ones at a speed of 20 knots. At that moment, when the missile ships fired off, the aircraft carrier begins to move to the line of the rise of aviation and appears on it after 10 hours.

It was in 10 hours that Kuznetsov sailed to Syria. As, in fact, the French Charles de Gaulle.

At the same time, since Timokhin initially prefers to operate in an extremely uncertain situation (who attacked whom and with what composition), it remains unclear - maybe in most scenarios nothing will be needed at all, except for 10 Caliber missiles and two Katran sorties?

But everything falls into place when we remember that Timokhin's task is not at all to draw up an objective picture of the world, but to “prove” the necessity of an aircraft carrier in a certain “theoretical abstract situation in a vacuum”. In this case, certainty with the scenario only distracts from the main thing. What if it doesn't work out? For example, the cost of maintaining helipads in Egypt and the cost of an aircraft carrier. Well, what if?

PS


Aviation of Russia, according to Timokhin, is like Winnie the Pooh's honey - a very strange subject. It seems to be there. But it doesn't seem to be there. And "there is nothing to bomb".

Author:
Photos used:
wiki, report of the TV channel "Zvezda",
274 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Operator
    Operator April 22 2021 18: 13
    -17%
    You are not opposing the signatory - guest worker Timokhin, but the anonymous authors of advertising articles about aircraft carriers - employees of Russian shipbuilding companies.
    1. ammunition
      ammunition April 22 2021 18: 44
      +10
      It is necessary to take into account the geographical location, goals and opportunities. For the USA, aircraft carriers are very good. For the USSR .. still all right. For R.F. - rather a burden. For Mongolia, it is a heavy and useless burden. smile
      1. Xenofont
        Xenofont April 22 2021 20: 09
        +3
        The Mongols' main problem is to persuade the Sumerians to dig the sea for themselves, but the Sumerian went wrong today, he more and more perfected his skills in cabbage pots and chamber pots.
      2. xorek
        xorek April 22 2021 20: 39
        -10%
        Quote: ammunition
        It is necessary to take into account the geographical location, goals and opportunities. For the USA, aircraft carriers are very good. For the USSR .. still all right. For R.F. - rather a burden. For Mongolia, it is a heavy and useless burden. smile

        Yeah .. But I probably agree with you partially .. winked
        But we will modernize Kuzyu and put it on duty .. It's a matter of principle!
        And the aircraft carriers, although expensive, but Russia would not be prevented, somewhere near Cuba and Venezuela to be on duty ... Then there would hardly be such a howling as it is now around Russia .. All would be polite .. Because OUR aircraft carriers are not just a wing, for threats .. There is such a stuffed! Well, okay, I already started to fantasize and carried me .. wassat crying
      3. Alexander Vorontsov
        April 22 2021 21: 10
        -1
        Quote: ammunition
        It is necessary to take into account the geographical location, goals and opportunities. For the USA, aircraft carriers are very good. For the USSR .. still all right. For R.F. - rather a burden. For Mongolia, it is a heavy and useless burden. smile

        I totally agree.
        1. Lannan Shi
          Lannan Shi April 22 2021 21: 25
          +12
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          I totally agree.

          Taking into account the geographic location, ships that are more expensive than a kayak are generally contraindicated in Russia. For everything that you have written about Aviks is equally applicable to cruisers, and to destroyers, and to frigates. And a "cheap" tracking ship can be glued to the frigate. And a destroyer in the Mediterranean will be like in a puddle, and a cruiser will be more expensive than coastal launchers. Simply put, if, in your opinion, the Russian fleet is basically unnecessary. Well, if only a bit of coastal pelvis, which need to legally limit the cruising range. So that God forbid, the TU-22 did not come out beyond the radius.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 22 2021 21: 45
            -12%
            Quote: Lannan Shi
            Taking into account the geographic location, ships that are more expensive than a kayak are generally contraindicated in Russia. For everything that you have written about Aviks is equally applicable to cruisers, and to destroyers, and to frigates. And a "cheap" tracking ship can be glued to the frigate.

            the frigate and corvette are so cheap. that it is difficult to find a ship cheaper and able to reach Kamchatka and the Barents Sea and fight a frigate, ..... but cruisers and destroyers are definitely not needed, they are getting older and we are switching to frigates
            1. Andy
              Andy April 22 2021 22: 34
              +10
              Quote: vladimir1155
              but cruisers and destroyers are definitely not needed, they are getting older and we are switching to frigates

              in any way we pass on popovki. you are their adherent
            2. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 31
              0
              MRK is cheaper, and the missile launcher based on Kamaz is even cheaper .. I remember how right there on Topvar they wrote "expertly" that it was necessary to cut all the Buyans because the contract was terminated and we do not need them hi
        2. ancient
          ancient April 22 2021 21: 44
          +23
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          It is necessary to take into account the geographical location, goals and opportunities

          Dear author ... here is your quote ... "... Combat radius of Tu-22 (hereinafter I will simply write Tu-22: it is clear what this is about) with a load of 12 tons ... * drum roll * 000 + missile range 2400 1 .. "
          Where have you read this .... crap ... (may the listeners forgive me my French).
          12 tons of fuel and at the same time ... Rtak.max ... 2400 ?????? ..... What did they drink in the morning .. or what "speeches" did they listen to wassat
          This is what kind of AKP you and Tu-22M already fly 1500 km ???? belay
          Quote - "Each plane carries 8 missiles (X-50, aka X-SD, aka product 715, aka Goga, aka Zhora),"
          Oh, how ... you have already "screwed" on the Tu-22M and the X-50 ..... well done ...... come on at once and "Zircon" ... Che is trifling.
          In general, the conclusion ..... the article is utter nonsense of a dreamer urya-patriot .... who does not need anything, namely, military equipment, to tactics, to the strategy and planning of warfare ... has no ... relationship! !!
          The fattest MINUS !!!!
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 22 2021 22: 09
            +24
            Plusanul. In compensation for the pink ponies.

            I must say right away that this text is still nonsense, since quite recently this author suggested attacking submarines from the Tu-160.

            And this is all in all seriousness, with punches in the chest and irony about how much smarter he is than his opponents.
            1. ancient
              ancient April 22 2021 22: 13
              +11
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              that this text is still nonsense, since quite recently this author suggested attacking submarines from the Tu-160.

              I read this opus ...... I will not give any comments ... I have no strength .. wassat
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              And this is all in all seriousness, with punches in the chest and irony about how much smarter he is than his opponents.

              Yes, there is a seal here ... over the edge ... it would be okay on business, otherwise ... I heard a ringing, but does not know ... where he is ... lol
            2. Alexander Vorontsov
              April 22 2021 22: 16
              -14%
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Plusanul. In compensation for the pink ponies.

              I must say right away that this text is still nonsense, since quite recently this author suggested attacking submarines from the Tu-160.

              And this is all in all seriousness, with punches in the chest and irony about how much smarter he is than his opponents.

              Who would doubt that. You invited him here.
              Circus. laughing

              Why was the old man released into the arena?
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 01
                +15
                Alexander, I know that you are not just a little unfriendly with your head, but also a shameless person.
                But then you took on a new depth.
                I didn't call anyone anywhere. And you should gratefully accept the criticism from a professional who, unlike you, flew the military planes so beloved by you.
                1. Alexander Vorontsov
                  April 22 2021 23: 13
                  -12%
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Alexander, I know that you are not just a little unfriendly with your head, but also a shameless person.
                  But then you took on a new depth.
                  I didn't call anyone anywhere. And you should gratefully accept the criticism from a professional who, unlike you, flew the military planes so beloved by you.

                  And which of this is loaded with at least a fraction of the meaning and relates to the topic?
                  I answered his "criticism" below, if that.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 17
                    +8
                    And which of this is loaded with at least some sense?)))


                    Of course, everything.
                    1. Alexander Vorontsov
                      April 22 2021 23: 22
                      -10%
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      And which of this is loaded with at least some sense?)))

                      Of course, everything.

                      Well so be it.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 27
                        +9
                        I’m glad you don’t argue. Now answer the ancient to his comment please, just do not scoff like an adult.
                2. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U April 23 2021 03: 51
                  +3
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  But then you took on a new depth.

                  Or height! laughing
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. EvilLion
              EvilLion April 23 2021 12: 46
              -8
              Oh, what a good mine you have, comrade. Timokhin!
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 23 2021 12: 48
                +3
                Why are you doing this?
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion April 23 2021 12: 56
                  -7
                  To the fact that you have nothing to cover, because all your arguments are contrived examples that ignore everything else. And the worst thing is that you have already been told this in plain text.

                  Curiously, not so long ago it was shown very accurately in one article that battleships are not built because their tasks are solved by other means, and not because the battleship is bad. In the same way, Russia has been successfully solving all the real military tasks for many years without aircraft dumpers.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 23 2021 13: 06
                    +7
                    Here I was shown a fierce trash, completely divorced from reality. Unfortunately, I cannot spend time analyzing this stream of creation with memasics, but especially for your sake, I am ready to expand some of Vorontsov's theses in the comments.
                    1. Alexander Vorontsov
                      April 23 2021 22: 46
                      -4
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Here I was shown a fierce trash, completely divorced from reality. Unfortunately, I cannot spend time analyzing this stream of creation with memasics, but especially for your sake, I am ready to expand some of Vorontsov's theses in the comments.

                      Excellent drain Alexander =))

                      Expand your thesis better ...
                      Do you remember who Zhou Enlai is? It was also he who formulated in the 60s that in the modern world Clausewitz's formulation should be read the other way around - politics is a war conducted by other, non-violent means.
                      Nothing new and aircraft-carrying ships fit into this movement like nothing else

                      Tell us how it fits into the solution of the most acute problem for us - Ukraine.
                      We already understood that you were proposing to bomb the Maidan. But I want the details.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 23 2021 23: 08
                        +3
                        This is not a drain, you are mistaken.
                      2. Alexander Vorontsov
                        April 23 2021 23: 42
                        -4
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        This is not a drain, you are mistaken.

                        It is he himself.
                  2. EvilLion
                    EvilLion April 24 2021 13: 37
                    +1
                    I, of course, apologize, but only your "scripts" can be called fierce trash. Take, for example, your nonsense about the aircraft carrier covering some transports crawling to Khmeinim around Europe while Turkey is attacking the base. The obvious thing was told to you in simple Russian language that no transports will sail anywhere, because they simply will not have time to arrive before the end of the air battle over the Black Sea, which inevitably should begin just to prevent the Turks from attacking this Khmeinim (or taking revenge for him, since a couple of raids hundreds of F-16s at once will not be repulsed by the local air defense), and the Su-35 from the Central Corner will arrive for this batch in 10-12 hours from the moment of the order, even if the same amount of pilots sleep off, then in a day they will already join the battle. And in another 2-3 days, everything will be over, the Turkish Air Force will be simply destroyed due to the overwhelming quantitative and qualitative superiority of our Air Force.

                    But in your scenarios, Russia simply does not have the Air Force or any other troops. There are only aircraft carriers, which must quickly save our base in Sudan with their turtle by aviation standards. What the author of the article wrote to you in no less understandable Russian language.
                2. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 32
                  +1
                  even as that overkill .. Or "argument" is "not to have business where the plane will not fly from the shore"?
        3. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I April 22 2021 22: 37
          +8
          Quote: ancient
          The fattest MINUS !!!!

          Three-meter! fellow
        4. Ka-52
          Ka-52 April 23 2021 10: 35
          +7
          Where have you read this .... crap ... (may the listeners forgive me my French).

          yes from Wikipedia, where else. It's just that the author does not understand how the payload differs from the target one. And what fuel Tu takes under 50tn. And this is without taking into account the air navigation fuel supply and the guaranteed balance.
      4. ancient
        ancient April 22 2021 22: 02
        +12
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        It is necessary to take into account

        Let's continue further ...:
        Your quote- "..... Something tells me that Tu-22 will fly from Engels to an operational airfield (for example, Khmeimim) and strike much earlier."
        But to me "something" tells me that you are writing another "urya-patriotic noodles" .. because from Engels your Tu-22M ... can only fly ... in short, you can count yourself .... but you you also want with a full bookmaker ... wassat
        Or how .... Will BC be waiting for you in Khmeimim (or somewhere else)? So then you need to send there brigades from the nuclear submarine and the NK group ...
        And by the way, this is .. what kind of quote is this - .. "for which there are already updated engines" ????
        And the engines have already been some .. "updated" ... screwed on ...?
        And about .. "bomb" .. this is generally ..... a northern fur animal ....... you can only bomb .. "Papuans" and then .. exclusively from a great height .... !!! am
        In general, I will repeat it once again written by you .. utter nonsense !!! soldier
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          April 22 2021 22: 43
          -15%
          But "something" tells me that you are writing another "urya-patriotic noodle" .. because from Engels your Tu-22M .. can only fly ....

          Of course, only ...
          After all, Timokhin reduced all aviation, including tankers.
          And the Tu-22 was returned for beauty, and not to refuel.

          We have already figured out that only racially correct deck MIGs can refuel according to Timokhin.

          Other planes cannot use tankers, because then they will begin to fly where they should not fly along Timokhin.

          Please live in peace in Timokhin's way.

          And in my world, yes, I believe that the Aerospace Forces should practice taking off from a home airfield, refueling in the air and striking without using an operational airfield.


          Or how .... Will BC be waiting for you in Khmeimim (or somewhere else)?

          Who is this nonsense designed for?
          Yes, aviation should be able to relocate as soon as possible.
          This means, among other things, the relocation of all service personnel with their belongings.

          And imagine it will happen faster than 8 tons of fuel will be poured into an aircraft carrier.
          Due to the fact that in Timokhin's tales, he starts bombing after 10 hours.
          He spawns the fuel in the tanks and spawns whatever you want.

          And the engines have already been some .. "updated" ... screwed on ...?

          Well Timokhin twisted hypothetical rockets
          Moreover, such hypothetical missiles less warhead mass, which is a minus.

          Why can't I mention the significantly more real samples?

          It's about hypothetical aircraft carriers - I'm talking about real TU22s.
          They are hypothetical missiles - I am much less hypothetical missiles (they are being prepared).

          What's wrong?
          Are you accustomed to "fighting" with "bob and little kids" (with emptiness)?
          Honestly, it doesn’t work? Doesn't fit? Doesn't the stone flower come out?
          Did the planes start flying where you hadn't planned?

          It's not about airplanes. Do not throw off a sore head on a healthy one.
          1. KKND
            KKND April 22 2021 22: 54
            +9
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            He spawns the fuel in the tanks and spawns whatever you want.

            How old is the author? He uses the jargon of young people, respawns and spawns - the periodic appearance of enemies or objects at certain points on the map in video games.
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            What's wrong?
            Are you accustomed to "fighting" with "bob and little kids" (with emptiness)?
            Honestly, it doesn’t work? Doesn't fit? Doesn't the stone flower come out?
            Did the planes start flying where you hadn't planned?

            Why such adolescent aggressiveness towards an ancient man who actually flew in the Air Force?
          2. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 06
            +19
            This means, among other things, the relocation of all service personnel with their belongings.


            From our local air base, the guys from TEC went to Syria in July 2015, one group, in August the second, to an already equipped military town, which they began to collect from containers before their arrival. A month of preparation was needed for each team, an additional medical examination, vaccinations, etc. Several thousand more bombs were brought with them (they were then used up in three weeks), and only then the Sukhoi flew, and then they had to wait for big exercises in the neighboring region and fly "as if to an exercise" - without PTB, in the wrong direction, where is Syria.
            Otherwise, the surprise would not have happened.

            Alexander, the real world is much more complicated than you think.
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              April 22 2021 23: 39
              -12%
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              This means, among other things, the relocation of all service personnel with their belongings.


              From our local air base, the guys from TEC went to Syria in July 2015, one group, in August the second, to an already equipped military town, which they began to collect from containers before their arrival. A month of preparation was needed for each team, an additional medical examination, vaccinations, etc. Several thousand more bombs were brought with them (they were then used up in three weeks), and only then the Sukhoi flew, and then they had to wait for big exercises in the neighboring region and fly "as if to an exercise" - without PTB, in the wrong direction, where is Syria.
              Otherwise, the surprise would not have happened.
              Alexander, the real world is much more complicated than you think.

              It is really much more difficult than you think, trying to give one answer for all.
              Despite the fact that I am just for the variety of answers, because for each situation something of its own is best suited.

              Once again you do not understand what you are writing about. Vaccinations ... the operation in Syria was planned long before.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 23 2021 10: 17
                +5
                It was planned even before the Crimea, this is not the point, but the fact that it is so easy to take and transfer people and equipment is difficult. It is necessary to specially prepare for this, to select a special technique, etc.

                and then there will always be failures.

                You listen, so the bombers were raised, a transport with technicians was sent for them, and everything is ok.

                But no.
                1. Alexander Vorontsov
                  April 23 2021 22: 25
                  -4
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  You listen, so the bombers were raised, a transport with technicians was sent for them, and everything is ok.

                  Okay, write what else needs to be done? Hit the tambourine?

                  but the fact that it's so easy to take and transfer people and equipment is difficult

                  Can you describe the nature of the "difficulties"?
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 23 2021 23: 05
                    +4
                    To begin with, the technicians are attached to specific aircraft. That is, these are HP TECh universal soldiers, but specific people make a specific plane. Transferring the plane to the base, you must also take the technicians with it, who need to be provided with places to rest, a transport plane for transportation.

                    Intermediate landings for refueling along with long flights exhaust the personnel.
                    You want to lift a Tu-22M from somewhere in the Russian Federation, from Mozdok, the same, 2300 km, then fly on it to Khmeimim, from there, after refueling to strike, for example, in Sudan (there our guys are under fire, time is running out), that's 1800 km one way.

                    after all this, you need to fight. And then - on the way back. Do you have robots flying there or what?

                    And this does not consider the fact that the situation is changing rapidly, now we need to use cluster bombs at the enemy's near rear, and in 20 minutes - missiles at its front edge, how can we do this from Khmeimim?

                    Do you know how long was the reaction time of the aviation to the request of the ground forces in Vietnam? 5-15 minutes. Because right in the Gulf of Tonkin dangled an aircraft carrier formation at Dixie Station (google), which provided just such a flight time. How could this be done from the ground? The Americans didn’t achieve anything, only from aircraft carriers.

                    We will have the same in any hole, from Sudan to the West Fjord. One to one. From an aircraft carrier on request 15 minutes, because it is just over the horizon, from airfields for many hours, because they are 800-2000 km away.
                    1. Alexander Vorontsov
                      April 23 2021 23: 24
                      -5
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      From an aircraft carrier on request 15 minutes,

                      Explain why your aircraft carrier is always 15 minutes away?

                      What is the real situation that justifies this?
                      Kuznetsov sailed to Syria, I do not remember exactly how long, but roughly a week. De Gaulle spent the same week. You have it in 15 minutes. What is it like?

                      Do you know how long was the reaction time of the aviation to the request of the ground forces in Vietnam? 5-15 minutes

                      Did this help the United States win the war? A reference to the fact that he is not omnipotent at all. Absolutely not.


                      And this does not consider the fact that the situation is changing rapidly, now we need to use cluster bombs at the enemy's near rear, and in 20 minutes - missiles at its front edge, how can we do this from Khmeimim?

                      So why are you not satisfied with helicopter carriers? Drones taking off from them? Local airfields? 200 KR from submarines and the entire BC of ships based in Sudan.

                      Can you at least specify the level of conflict?
                      If something happened suddenly .. then it's probably something local.
                      Well, couldn’t ours have missed a group of 100 terrorists?
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 24 2021 11: 08
                      +3
                      Explain why your aircraft carrier is always 15 minutes away?

                      What is the real situation that justifies this?
                      Kuznetsov sailed to Syria, I do not remember exactly how long, but roughly a week. De Gaulle spent the same week. You have it in 15 minutes. What is it like?


                      Because smart people keep naval groups IN ADVANCE in the regions of interest. At the first sign of threat.

                      Did this help the United States win the war? A reference to the fact that he is not omnipotent at all. Absolutely not.


                      This is another question, for example, the bombers did not help us to win in Afghanistan, what, under their knife now, for this?
                      The question is how much it facilitated the actions of the troops at any given time.

                      So why are you not satisfied with helicopter carriers? Drones taking off from them?


                      What is the point of pouring money into almost the same ships, but without the opportunities that AB give? What is this fetishism?
                      It's not in vain that I wrote about medical problems, not in vain.

                      How will you provide the air defense of the ship group with a helicopter carrier? Air reconnaissance? Shackling enemy aircraft by combat while approaching his ships with a missile salvo?
                      Can you compare the combat load of the MiG-29K for a short radius with that of a helicopter? There, by the way, up to five tons from the third starting position of Kuznetsov, from the catapult will be no less.
                      Compare with the Ka-52?

                      200 CR from submarines


                      Such a salvo costs like a rather large rocket ship, no less than a corvette, and in terms of destructive power it is equivalent to 200 KAB-500 (and sometimes FAB-500) bombs, that is, 100 sorties of one MiG-29K, or 2,5 days of combat work 20 MiGs from the deck at a disproportionately lower price, while, after the defeat of all these targets, they will be able to continue bombing, the stock of ASP on board the ship will not even be close to being exhausted.

                      Local airfields?


                      In your opinion, we need to ask for an airfield in every Bantustan? Maybe still pay for it? What for? You can just adjust the ship, and that's it.
                      Well, for the hundredth time - aviation may be required where there are no airfields right now.

                      Can you at least specify the level of conflict?


                      Yes, any conflict farther than 1000 km from Khmeimim in any direction, and nothing really happens without an aircraft carrier.

                      Calm down already.
                    3. Alexander Vorontsov
                      April 24 2021 11: 12
                      -4
                      Because smart people keep naval groups IN ADVANCE in the regions of interest. At the first sign of threat.

                      Yes, but here's the problem.
                      When the ancient wrote me a comment about the fact that planes arrive and they are not expected there - what kind of people were there? Stupid?
                      All the smart ones went to the navy?
                      What is easier to send a BC for aircraft to an operational airfield in advance or to transfer an aircraft carrier from the ground forces to the region of interest?
                    4. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 24 2021 11: 43
                      +3
                      No need to demonstrate madness, study what an operational squadron is, where and when its forces are deployed and why.
                      The ancient wrote to you about something else, you just did not understand.
                    5. Alexander Vorontsov
                      April 24 2021 12: 22
                      -2
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      No need to demonstrate madness, study what an operational squadron is, where and when its forces are deployed and why.
                      The ancient wrote to you about something else, you just did not understand.

                      Do not once again stupidly merge the topic Alexander)))

                      The ancient one asked me whether they would wait at the operational airfield of the BC for aircraft.
                      Why are smart people able to place an IBM in the desired region in advance, but they cannot throw the "additional bk" on an operational airfield?

                      This is possible only if the smart ones are in the navy, and in the aviation are fools ... being much more mobile than the navy, they do not place anything in the desired region.
                    6. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 24 2021 20: 01
                      +1
                      Why are smart people able to place an IBM in the desired region in advance, but they cannot throw the "additional bk" on an operational airfield?


                      Because the KUG to the south of Crete closes the entire Mediterranean and the Red Sea, but how to choose at which operational airfield the BC is needed?
                    7. Alexander Vorontsov
                      9 June 2021 13: 06
                      +1
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Because the KUG to the south of Crete closes the entire Mediterranean and the Red Sea, but how to choose at which operational airfield the BC is needed?

                      Alexander, what is the meaning of your question? What does it mean how to choose?
                      Just like planning any other air operation - choose based on a combination of factors, YES planes with a refueling tanker cover the entire Middle-earth in the same way as the Tu-160.

                      It all boils down to taking the ASP, loading it onto a transporter and transferring them to the desired airfield.
                      Everything. Alexander No problem.

                      Only this will be done a week earlier than your AV will reach the heart of the earth.
                      For a week.
                    8. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 9 June 2021 15: 34
                      0
                      Just like planning any other air operation - choose based on a combination of factors, YES planes with a refueling tanker cover the entire Middle-earth in the same way as the Tu-160.


                      Any plan exists before the first shot, Alexander.
                      In the real world, of course.
                    9. Alexander Vorontsov
                      9 June 2021 15: 49
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Just like planning any other air operation - choose based on a combination of factors, YES planes with a refueling tanker cover the entire Middle-earth in the same way as the Tu-160.


                      Any plan exists before the first shot, Alexander.
                      In the real world, of course.

                      So you contradict yourself =))

                      I wrote about the strike from the base precisely for this reason (which you just voiced).

                      You are appealing "AUG deployed in advance."
                      Although I gave the example of the French, who needed a week to do this.

                      So what is faster Alexander? A blow from Engels? or sail for a week?

                      And when you write about those deployed in advance, why don't you tell yourself this is "any plan before the first shot"?
                    10. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 12 June 2021 20: 47
                      0
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      So what is faster Alexander? A blow from Engels? or sail for a week?

                      I am neither a pro-aircraft carrier nor an anti-aircraft carrier supporter, and you both "started for health, finished for peace" (if you count "Andrey from Chelyabinsk" then there are three of you)
                      Firstly) You both exchange false dichotomies
                      False dichotomy is an error in reasoning (for example, when making a decision), which consists in the omission of other opportunities, except for some two considered. As a rule, one of the possibilities is dismissed as logically false or unacceptable, after which the remaining one is taken as true, acceptable, in favor of which the choice is made. In this case, the statement about the existence of only two possibilities is not proved; the third opportunity (or more opportunities) is not sought

                      Secondly) Both of you don't agree. For example, in this thread of comments, do not lead to a common denominator: intelligence, tactical and technical training, production / maintenance costs, budgets, etc. etc. As a result, you get that "10/100 is more than 1/2 because 10 is more than 1" but from the course in mathematics about ordinary fractions, we know the opposite.
                    11. Alexander Vorontsov
                      13 June 2021 09: 21
                      0
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      I am neither a pro-aircraft carrier nor an anti-aircraft carrier supporter, and you both "started for health, finished for peace" (if you count "Andrey from Chelyabinsk" then there are three of you)
                      First) You both exchange false dichotomies

                      Sergey.
                      Completely fair remark.

                      But there is only one point - I also noticed this aspect in discussions on AB and therefore suggested comparing the absence / presence of AB with alternatives - with other tools. Including leading to a common denominator for the cost of these solutions.

                      But alas, my opponents did not get the approach.
                    12. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 17 June 2021 18: 41
                      0
                      And at the same time, you made a key mistake in bringing to a common denominator, you chose the wrong or, more precisely, an inferior / truncated denominator, you need to lead to "military-economic profitability" and not to separately military and separately economic, as a result, you "lost" a huge layer of tasks within the framework of the theater of operations \ LDP with a tie on the "reaction time to a change in the combat situation", this is not to mention the more ambitious tasks of the AUG \ KUG in the form
                      ensuring security through the implementation of the concept of "control of activities on the N-th territory and / or forces \ groups \ objects on it"
                      Actually because your article and "did not go".
  2. Alexander Vorontsov
    April 24 2021 11: 22
    -3
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    What is the point of pouring money into almost the same ships, but without the opportunities that AB give? What is this fetishism?

    There is no point in almost the same ships.
    But a helicopter carrier is 6-10 times cheaper and technically simpler.
    Any aspect of production is easier.

    In your opinion, we need to ask for an airfield in every Bantustan? Maybe still pay for it? What for?

    Do you think we need each bantustan based on your picture.
    In my opinion, it is necessary to prioritize and weigh the potential benefits and costs.


    You can just adjust the ship, and that's it.

    Do you ignore the "flight time" of the ship?
    But what about the fact that a ship cannot always be at sea?


    Yes, any conflict farther than 1000 km from Khmeimim in any direction, and nothing really happens without an aircraft carrier.
    Calm down already.

    I asked you a normal question - specify what you are trying to talk about.
    You write replies again hiding behind uncertainties.

    Experience is the best criterion for truth. How would you comment on what happened without an aircraft carrier in Syria? And you say it won't work?

    This is another question, for example, the bombers did not help us to win in Afghanistan, what, under their knife now, for this?

    But they are extremely important for us for another reason - Ukraine.
    How will an aircraft carrier help us in Ukraine?
  3. Alexander Vorontsov
    April 24 2021 11: 51
    -2
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Can you compare the combat load of the MiG-29K for a short radius with that of a helicopter? There, by the way, up to five tons from the third starting position of Kuznetsov, from the catapult will be no less.
    Compare with the Ka-52?


    Let's compare, taking into account the cost of constant duty in the region as a duty fire means.

    A group of militants of 300 people moved forward, without air defense systems, with small splashes of equipment, infantry fighting vehicles, maybe a tank.
    Mirroring the situation with the Wagnerites.
    Or did the Americans not remain silent without carrier-based aircraft?
    Or, once again, experience suggests that they have kept quiet?
    And what about the cost?
  4. timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa April 24 2021 20: 03
    +1
    Let's compare, taking into account the cost of constant duty in the region as a duty fire means.


    This is non-aviation verbiage. Compare the combat load.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 22
    +10
    And in my world, yes, I believe that the Aerospace Forces should practice taking off from a home airfield, refueling in the air and striking without using an operational airfield.


    You have forgotten about the flight time, which is sometimes critical.

    Well Timokhin twisted hypothetical rockets


    Well, in general, we experienced such things in Syria, I was just too lazy to look for a link, and to move away from the topic I wrote that they were "hypothetical".
    And so they are pre-production.
    Since we're talking ...
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 22 2021 23: 33
      -12%
      You have forgotten about the flight time, which is sometimes critical.

      Dooo .. that's why I wrote in the article
      And it is obvious that the fastest "bombing" the territory of Sudan will be able to airplanes that took off from the airfield ... Sudan.

      But you have not forgotten when you propose to use an aircraft carrier as a means of delivering aircraft to the desired place, which will sail for a week)))
      Timokhin, what's wrong with you?)))) Well, you don't need to write so obvious nonsense.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 39
        +13
        But we do not have an airfield in Sudan.

        In addition, even if there was one, then with the appearance of tasks a little further from Sudan, the airfield could not be taken with you.

        Why don't you understand this?
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          April 22 2021 23: 40
          -12%
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          But we do not have an airfield in Sudan.

          In addition, even if there was one, then with the appearance of tasks a little further from Sudan, the airfield could not be taken with you.

          Why don't you understand this?

          There are no aircraft carriers either.

          You still don't get it right?

          The point is that the airfield in Sudan, Sudan, Ukraine ... this is also a "weapon" ... you know, no?
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 23 2021 10: 24
            +6
            There are no aircraft carriers either.




            You have an aberration of consciousness, Alexander.

            Everything else is from the same series.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 40
              0
              laughing by the way .. interestingly, for some reason, opponents believe that the same Kuzya after repairs will for some reason just as well be able to provide only 3 flights a day, and not 20 .. why then
            2. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 23 2021 23: 07
              +4
              Opponents do not understand at all that Kuzya is still alive. "Russia has no aircraft carriers" is that anyway? Perversion of consciousness.
            3. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 23 2021 23: 08
              +2
              laughing Well, this is at least not the anti-submarine Tu-160 ... although comparing the MIG-29K and Ka-52 is also ... something
            4. Alexander Vorontsov
              April 24 2021 12: 25
              -2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Opponents do not understand at all that Kuzya is still alive. "Russia has no aircraft carriers" is that anyway? Perversion of consciousness.

              We saw how he is alive in Syria.
              Do you disagree that experience is the best criterion of truth?

              You describe complex tactics in your topics, while Kuzya was unable to perform an elementary thing.

              You should be asked what is with your consciousness and why do you consider it to be alive?
              This is a completely unfit for action.
              Trusting him to play a key role in any operation is simply dangerous.
            5. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 24 2021 20: 05
              +2
              We saw how he is alive in Syria.
              Do you disagree that experience is the best criterion of truth?


              But this is fixable. It's like a soldier who doesn't know how to shoot yet. If desired, he can be taught.
            6. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 12 June 2021 23: 23
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Opponents do not understand at all that Kuzya is still alive.

              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              We saw how he is alive in Syria.
              Do you disagree that experience is the best criterion of truth?

              Quote: timokhin-aa
              But this is fixable. It's like a soldier who doesn't know how to shoot yet. If desired, he can be taught.

              1) Continuing your analogy, from the point of view of Vorontsov it will turn out "we can teach him to shoot, but not to run"
              2) Although the PMSM would be more accurate to say "we can teach him to shoot, but not to hit"
              But in any case, these are theses on the topic of "anti-Kuzi" and not "anti-aircraft carrier"
  • Pete mitchell
    Pete mitchell April 23 2021 21: 04
    +4
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    Are you accustomed to "fighting" with "bob and little kids" (with emptiness)?

    I am still wildly sorry, but you base your conclusions on the flyers, trying to prove your vision. Prove / Duskuss this is very commendable, no banter. But the basis of your conclusions, sorry - the real world is somewhat more complicated, and more real or something.
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    Honestly, it doesn't work? Do not throw off a sore head on a healthy one.

    Quote: timokhin-aa
    answer the Ancient on his comment please

    And show respect - not flirting like an adult. It will be right
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 23 2021 22: 35
      -4
      Quote: Pete Mitchell
      And show respect - not flirting like an adult. It will be right

      I respect all people by default.
      When a person (ancient) begins to be rude out of the blue - excuse me.

      I am wildly sorry, but you base your conclusions on the flyers, trying to prove your vision.

      The promotional brochure is called
      Study guide "TACTICS OF THE AIR FORCES"
      What exactly did I write wrong?



      The fact that relocation is the most important element taken into account when planning the entire aerodrome network?
      That any country wishing to have strong aviation MUST attend to the issues of relocation?
      In what air tankers are needed? Is it because they allow aircraft to increase their combat radius?
      1. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell April 23 2021 23: 51
        +4
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        The fact that relocation is the most important element taken into account when planning the entire aerodrome network?
        That you MUST attend to the issues of relocation ... That you need air tankers? Is it because they allow aircraft to increase their combat radius?

        Without a doubt, the questions are posed correctly, but what is there in real life? The presented document simply brilliantly reflects the theory, but in practice? Is the number of tankers adequate for the size of the Country and its interests? Are all 22m3 ready for this? Is their application to the destruction of AUG provided with information?
        And by the way, Ancient capitalized
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          April 24 2021 10: 31
          -3
          Quote: Pete Mitchell
          Without a doubt, the questions are posed correctly, but what is there in real life? The presented document simply brilliantly reflects the theory, but in practice?

          So about that and speech.

          Comrade Timokhin asks a question about aviation - is the lack of tankers not aviation?
          I propose to consider the issues of alternatives and convey the idea that money is in MIN. defense needs "everywhere" and needs to be prioritized.

          Ground-based aviation has a LOT of holes.
          Moreover, when I started this dispute, I wrote that there is an imbalance of opinions on the VO - there are authors who regularly write about the fleet about its problems, etc.

          No other branch of the military is so represented.
          Doesn't this create an imbalance in perception?

          The presented document simply brilliantly reflects the theory, but in practice?

          But in practice, a huge hole - that's what we are talking about.
          1 - let's update the problems of aviation. Real.
          2- let's look at the priorities. Maybe, before asking the question of Indian Ocean intelligence, it is worth putting your own airfield network in order?
          1. Pete mitchell
            Pete mitchell April 24 2021 11: 25
            +2
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            But in practice, a huge hole - that's what we are talking about.
            1 - let's update the problems of aviation. Real.
            2- let's look at the priorities.

            Questions of priorities are to the policy of the State, more precisely to geopolitics: if it is clearly formulated, there will be an answer. It is desirable that the position of the State be formulated for fifty years ahead.
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            Maybe, before asking the question of Indian Ocean intelligence, it is worth putting your own airfield network in order?

            The need for current reconnaissance has not been canceled, regardless of the airfield network: any AUG poses a threat anywhere in the world. Of course, I would like to see its expansion and modernization, but this is again for the State.
            Quote: Pete Mitchell
            And by the way, Ancient capitalized
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              April 24 2021 11: 28
              0
              Quote: Pete Mitchell
              And by the way, Ancient is capitalized

              The nickname on the forum is written with a little.

              Priority issues are related to the policy of the State,

              Any questions discussed at VO are related to the policy of the State.
              What do you mean by that?
            2. Liam
              Liam April 24 2021 11: 31
              0
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Any questions discussed at VO are related to the policy of the State.
              What do you mean by that?

              Nothing. Comrade just as usual pours from empty to empty, knocking gigabytes of meaningless words
            3. Pete mitchell
              Pete mitchell April 24 2021 11: 47
              +1
              Oh recourse Senor Liam is not responsible for his words, you get off the pedestal and pass by, where can we, who do not know how to draw "wisdom" from the wiki
              Quote: Pete Mitchell
              25.11.2020
              Quote: Pete Mitchell
              Did you find your statement about the Carcass? Or, as always, "merge"?
              You either present or do as it should
          2. Pete mitchell
            Pete mitchell April 24 2021 11: 58
            +1
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            Any questions discussed at VO are related to the policy of the State.
            What do you mean by that?

            There will be a clearly formulated task, with the prospect of about fifty years, there will be a response from the military and industry. Sorry, but I will not continue - I just do not understand the vision of the State. Have a nice day.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 23 2021 10: 57
    +10
    Quote: ancient
    Your quote- "..... Something tells me that Tu-22 will fly from Engels to an operational airfield (for example, Khmeimim) and strike much earlier."
    But to me "something" tells me that you are writing another "urya-patriotic noodles" .. because from Engels your Tu-22M ... can only fly ... in short, you can count yourself .... but you you also want with a full bookmaker ...

    There is one more subtle point - will there be a corridor for this flight? Otherwise, it can turn out like with Yugoslavia, when all the neighbors abruptly closed the airspace.
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 22: 22
      +2
      There is one more subtle point - will there be a corridor for this flight? Otherwise, it can turn out like with Yugoslavia, when all the neighbors abruptly closed the airspace.

      That you sho, Alexey, it was a long time ago wassat Right now, it can't be like that wassat We need to conduct our policy this way, they gave us the Shobs. Give, and then catch up and give isho once drinks

      I sincerely don't understand why Vorontsov ignores this moment, that's why he joked. However, we have forgotten with you: it will fly in such a way as to avoid closed airspace and refuel aviation in the air. True, it is not clear where the tankers will take off from in this case. But these are little things, let's not find fault repeat
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 23 2021 23: 14
        +3
        winked especially if you remember that the same Iran, having only buns from the basing of our missile carriers at home, after a hint that "someone else is Russian, have you lost your independence" immediately asked to leave the base and no longer raise the question of placement ..
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 37
    +2
    hi interesting by the way, another such moment .. I wrote that aviks are needed where other means cannot be used .. but let's say one flight of a ship fighter with 4 cab-250 is a replacement for 2-4 calibers .. a question .. how much will it cost to support allies or my own expeditionary force, if in order to ensure the deployment of its ground airfield base, you need to first destroy about 200-250 targets? the difference in the price of ammunition, say 30 million rubles ... therefore, you need to spend an additional 7,5 billion rubles ... even like a lamprey ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 23 2021 23: 14
      +5
      You would be surprised if you knew how much the Caliber costs. There is a 6-digit amount, if that.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 23 2021 23: 15
        +2
        sad here you are right away .. I still hope that they have fallen in price .. and then from the last digits half a multiply Baku apiece was
      2. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 24 2021 00: 12
        +2
        laughing By the way .. it became interesting, but is it possible to put a radar with a su-35, say, on a ka-31?
      3. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin April 24 2021 18: 31
        0
        That is, even if you hit from an airplane not with bombs, but with missiles, is it cheaper?
  • Anzhey V.
    Anzhey V. April 22 2021 18: 21
    0
    Wow, the continuation of the aircraft carrier battles!

    Thanks for the article, Alexander)
    1. Anzhey V.
      Anzhey V. April 22 2021 18: 39
      +6
      Alexander Vorontsov once again made an insanely important emphasis, from which, in fact, the very need for an aircraft carrier is repelled - on the foreign policy operations of the state and its immediate goals.

      If we have a really brisk foreign policy, we know what we want, we have a developed arsenal of political, economic and military pressure, then this provides opportunities of a completely different kind - we will have military bases, and allies, and airfields at the first request.

      Without all this, no "investment protection" with an aircraft carrier is possible. Maximum evacuation of citizens.

      Priorities must be set correctly, and then, perhaps, the need for carrier-based aircraft will arise on its own and will not require fierce disputes.
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin April 22 2021 19: 11
        +15
        Quote: Anjay V.
        Priorities must be set correctly, and then, perhaps, the need for carrier-based aircraft will arise on its own and will not require fierce disputes.

        Very subtly noticed, but I will make an adjustment. Alexander (who is Timokhin) in his materials focuses on the same thing: in order to build a fleet, the necessary intelligible strategy for the development of the state is understood by the majority of society. Which, by the way, is a comprehensive view of both internal development and the promotion of their interests abroad.

        As for aircraft carriers, a question for the author of the article: the Americans have an incomparably greater number of air and other bases around the planet, a bunch of allies, developed soft power tools, and so on and so forth. Why don't they refuse to build weapons as expensive and difficult to operate as AB? If we proceed from the logic of Alexander Vorontsov, then they do not even need them. However, well ...

        This is not a rhetorical question, it would be nice to hear a comment on this matter.
        1. Anzhey V.
          Anzhey V. April 22 2021 19: 28
          +8
          Why don't they refuse to build weapons as expensive and difficult to operate as AB? If we proceed from the logic of Alexander Vorontsov, then they do not even need them. However, well ...

          This is not a rhetorical question, it would be nice to hear a comment on this matter.


          Good day, Artem! I think there are a number of quite objective reasons for this.

          1. Aircraft carriers are still powerful, effective weapons. Moreover, they already have the Americans, and they, in fact, have a complete monopoly in this area. I personally doubt that anyone will ever be able to surpass them, or even catch up in the construction of carriers of carrier-based aircraft.
          2. If the aircraft carriers are removed, a complete reorganization of the fleet will be required. Such a large-scale process will not only give no benefit - it will probably cost several times more than maintaining AUG.
          3. The interests of the military lobby should never be discarded. Aircraft carriers are a great cash infusion. This is beneficial to everyone - and the military power is intact, and the grandchildren are full, and the fathers in the Bahamas can rest))

          Roughly speaking, the abandonment of aircraft carriers will kill an entire branch of the economy and industry.
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin April 22 2021 21: 39
            +3
            The arguments are strong, I agree. For many decades, all the tactics of naval combat have been sharpened under the AV. To change all this, even if more effective tools for achieving victory are found, is to start a revolution.

            But personally, this does not convince me that Russia does not need aircraft carriers. True, it is worth making a couple of reservations: a) before building them, you need to clearly know WHY they are needed, that is, to define tasks for them; b) it is necessary to first close the issues on the protection of our shores (there is, after all, pay attention to sho).

            And, nevertheless, one, in my opinion, important aspect should be noted: opponents of the construction of AB agree that the current state of Russia is forever. At least that seems to be the case. But nothing ever happens forever. This does not yet indicate that we will once again return to its former power, but no one can deny the possibility of such a development of events. Who in the 90s thought that we would get out of that pit? But the country has really changed a lot over the past time. Although there is no more to be done.

            But Mr. Vorontsov did not answer the questions asked by Timokhin. All his arguments against the tactical schemes that the latter brought up, he neatly skirted, referring to what he did not understand, and from what suddenly, and by what forces, etc. That is, if until now we have not encountered this, then we will not continue to face it.

            Last thing. We recently discussed with you Turkish "soft power" and its effectiveness. So the Turks, despite what we agreed on, are building Anadolu, which, as you know, has a springboard. If this is a pure helicopter carrier, then he does not need it, this is obvious. Consequently, the Turks want to have an aircraft carrier, despite the fact that they make a serious bet on "soft power" and know how to use it like few others in this world (although they are at the beginning of their journey in this regard). Why, according to Vorontsov's logic? Answer: because they understand that "soft power" does not always and not always help - once, and that the strength becomes stronger when the soft is wrapped in hard - two. An aircraft carrier is the toughest thing that can be in this regard, except for nuclear weapons, of course.

            Conclusion: when (if) Russia truly regains the title of a world power in the full sense of the word, aircraft carriers will be needed without a doubt. Now - yes, many other tasks need to be solved. It is necessary to build them in the near future so as not to completely lose the competence and the school of carrier-based aviation. This approach is defended by Timokhin, saying that for the time being it is possible to get by with the conditional "Vikrant".
            1. Anzhey V.
              Anzhey V. April 22 2021 22: 16
              +1
              opponents of building AV agree that the current state of Russia is forever. At least that seems to be the case.


              The problem here is rather that in order to change this “forever” we need to finally cure the “superpower syndrome” and step aside for a certain period of time.

              China, Britain, Turkey - they all took breaks of varying lengths before returning to the arena of world politics. We are trying to go against history and tear the elastic from the panties out of strain, trying to prove our coolness.

              We need to deal with civil production, economics, education, demography. Reorganize the government in accordance with modern realities. Determine the area of ​​interest. Build a number of consistent strategies for the near and far abroad.

              This is all a question of at least 50 years, which in no case should be spent on an arms race.

              So the Turks, despite what we agreed on, are building Anadolu, which, as you know, has a springboard. If this is a pure helicopter carrier, then he does not need it, this is obvious. Consequently, the Turks want to have an aircraft carrier.


              Initially, the Turks wanted a flagship a la the Spanish Juan Carlos. He was supposed to carry 8 F-35Bs and anti-submarine helicopters.

              Then the priorities changed - the Americans refused to provide fighters, and Turkey suddenly had overseas "colonies" and a conflict with Greece emerged. They made UAV carriers out of "Anadolu" and "Trakia" - each will carry 40-50 pieces. Why, I think, is clear - for strikes along the coast. Roughly speaking, they have clearly defined targets that require a floating airfield. They also have colonies and allies.

              In general, Luttwak has very small, but there are good quotes about aircraft carriers. And this, for a minute, is the man who was the military strategy adviser to the Reagan apparatus.
              1. Artyom Karagodin
                Artyom Karagodin April 22 2021 23: 06
                +4
                And this, for a minute, is the man who was the military strategy adviser to the Reagan apparatus.

                And another person from his team was working just to ensure that the United States had 15 AB. Ie, John Lehmann.
                The problem here is rather that in order to change this “forever” we need to finally cure the “superpower syndrome” and step aside for a certain period of time.

                Rational grain seems to be available, especially since we have something to do in the post-Soviet space. Here is the field for testing the technology of "soft power". Exercise - I don't want to. However, the whole trouble is that the United States will not give us peace in this case either: for too long they have been convincing themselves that we are an "empire of evil." They will certainly take advantage of the fact that we have moved away from world affairs to increase the pressure on us, because they will regard this as weakness.

                And I disagree with the fact that China, Britain and Turkey took such "breaks".

                Ever since Elizabeth Tudor, Britain has not stopped on its way to becoming the world's leading power, even during the revolution. It was not for nothing that Cromwell was called the strongest man in Europe at that time. And then, after the Second World War, they simply could not resist on the podium. And they realized that the time of their leadership had passed. If they began to cling, they would get snot from the strengthened United States. The latter offered the British an honorable surrender, making them their main ally. This is not a break, they will not take back the leadership, the wrong resources. And they understand this.

                China did not step aside, but simply lost the scientific and technological race. It is better not to mention what sacrifices this "step aside" cost them. And how long did they regain their power - too.

                Turkey lost in about the same scenario. And now, with all the ambitiousness of Erdogan and the attractiveness of the world project put forward by him, he is likely to lose. He began to walk too wide. And, most likely, we will have to fight the Turks. The war will be difficult, but the Turks will not win it: we still have different weight categories. We absolutely do not need this conflict, but no one asked us either in 1812, or in 1853, or in 1914, or in 1941.
                1. Anzhey V.
                  Anzhey V. April 22 2021 23: 21
                  +1
                  However, the whole trouble is that the United States will not give us rest in this case either: for too long they have been convincing themselves that we are an "empire of evil." They will certainly take advantage of the fact that we have moved away from world affairs to increase the pressure on us, since they will regard this as weakness.


                  Artem, USA already knows that we are weak)

                  Believe me, if the West wanted to really strangle us, it would do it without firing a single shot - we are completely dependent on them in absolutely everything. The "sanctions" they impose are zilch in vegetable oil. After the end of the Cold War, no one really pressed on us - in fact, all restrictions relate exclusively to the military sphere.

                  If the evil USA wants to destroy us, then we will simply stop selling equipment for the oil and gas industry and will be prohibited from purchasing breeding and seed stock. Note that we introduced food sanctions against ourselves)

                  Britain did not stop on its way to the status of the leading world power, even during the revolution


                  Read more about Shackleton's 1966 report and about post-war British history in general)

                  At the state level, they abandoned any political ambitions and began to systematically engage in the development of other areas.

                  This is not a break, they will not take back the leadership, the wrong resources. And they understand this.


                  Leadership in the world? Not. Leadership in Europe? Quite.

                  The British now have huge resources, we simply misjudge their position, again dividing war, politics and economics.

                  He began to walk too wide. And, most likely, we will have to fight the Turks. The war will be difficult, but the Turks will not win it: we still have different weight categories.


                  Turks are not fools, they do not need to fight with us. 50 years of current politics, and most of Russia's regions will fall to them like overripe fruit.

                  Soon my material on Georgia should come out - you will understand why I say this.

                  By the way, we already have a number of regions where Turkish humanitarian and religious organizations operate. There are even entire communities in the Volga region, which they founded. So while we dream of a great empire with a joyful smile, looking at the African distances, the Turks bite off pieces of our territories under our noses)
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 25
                    +2
                    If the evil USA wants to destroy us, then they will simply stop selling equipment for the oil and gas industry and will be prohibited from purchasing breeding and seed stock.


                    The oil equipment is already there, and the breeding stock and seeds will be shot in the foot, because we are forced to create our own.
                    Everything is not so simple. They remember how we bypassed KOCOM, it was, frankly, an ambiguous experience for them.
                    1. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik April 22 2021 23: 34
                      +9
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      and the breeding stock and seeds will be shot in the foot, because we are forced to create our own.

                      We will not create. There will be no equipment and consumables... As it is not easy brought in the enterprise for the production of ahem ... seed. Studied their processes for automation. In critical areas, solid western (mainly French) high-tech equipment and consumables for them. Even close without Russian counterparts. If there are real sanctions, all this production will stop in half a year. And we'll have to go back to, um ... to natural livestock reproduction.
                      Surprisingly technological production actually, it would seem ...
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 41
                        +6
                        This is understandable, but the fact is that any equipment can be copied, stolen, bought through a bunch of gaskets and intermediaries, etc.
                        Well, here's a trivial example - military electronics. They don't kind of sell it to us, but is it there? And why? But because there are strikebreakers in the western camp.

                        Not so simple, in short.
                      2. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik April 22 2021 23: 47
                        +5
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Not so simple, in short.

                        That's for sure. There is no task to stifle us completely, even our retaliatory sanctions are more harmful to us than their sanctions. They work more for their constituents. Real politics is far from ideological.
                    2. Anzhey V.
                      Anzhey V. April 22 2021 23: 42
                      +1
                      We will not create. There will be no equipment and consumables. As it is not easy brought in the enterprise for the production of ahem ... seed.


                      What kind of cattle and poultry can we talk about, if even puppies of purebred service dogs are bought from us in nurseries in Europe?)
                  2. Anzhey V.
                    Anzhey V. April 22 2021 23: 39
                    +2
                    Oil equipment already


                    They are so pressured that we have already organized partial licensed production)

                    we will have to create our own


                    Duc need has always been, only his own does not work, although many times tried.

                    We can arrange a food crisis and they know about it.

                    Quite frankly, all our eccentricities do not meet with any serious resistance. No one is inflicting truly painful blows on our economy; from the point of view of political influence, we are midgets and do not bear danger. Culturally, Russia, although lagging behind, is keeping pace with the West (15-20 years and gay marriages are also allowed here), here we don't even need to be touched.

                    We are not leading for a long time, but led, just very proud and do not admit it. As soon as a new "Thaw" starts in Russia and normalization of relations begins (and, in general, everything is going towards it), the West will generally lose interest in us.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 23 2021 10: 25
                      +4
                      The West will lose interest in us altogether.


                      No, it won't work. You will see.
                    2. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 23 2021 23: 42
                      -1
                      crying but do not tell us how they will arrange a "food crisis" for us .. well, very interesting)
                    3. Drugov
                      Drugov April 24 2021 18: 16
                      +1
                      Very simple. Seed material from corn with seeds to potatoes with seedlings is bourgeois. Hatching eggs, pigs, cows, breeding, sprouting, medicines, slaughter, processing, all critically depend on Western suppliers. Greenhouses, drip, ventilation, management, agricultural machinery, spare parts and the list is endless. Any modern poultry farm is 80 percent foreign, our only concrete from Chinese mixers and European pumps and rolled metal, bent, cut, painted again on bourgeois equipment.
                    4. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 24 2021 19: 54
                      -1
                      bye? and that's all? forward and with a song .. for six months of problems, after which they will move on to our base. And yes. I'd like to see the same Europeans who agree to cancel supplies to Russia .. But you can dream of a "food crisis" in your fantasies
                    5. Drugov
                      Drugov April 24 2021 20: 45
                      +1
                      The hopes of young men are nourished, joy is given to the old ...
                      These are not dreams, but one of the possible options for the further development of sanctions.
                    6. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 24 2021 20: 57
                      -1
                      Therefore, new breeds have already been selected for chickens and pigs .. Work is underway on cows .. It is possible to introduce sanctions .. and they will hit the market for a year or two .. the problem is that after returning to the market it will NOT work, but ours due to scaling the problem will be solved.
          2. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 23 2021 23: 41
            0
            lol I remember how, after the ban on the supply of oil equipment in our country, which television plant began to make it, and said that they had previously turned to Gazprom with an offer, but they turned it down ... they say we will buy the best in Europe .. And after the sanctions we came running ourselves ..
        2. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 00: 07
          -5
          Turks are not fools, they don't need to fight with us

          Erdogan, apparently, did not want our officers to shoot down his Su-24, but they did. Later, of course, we also "accidentally" dropped bombs a couple of times in Idlib at the bases of the Turkish military (in those places where they stood together with the militants), so Putin, in principle, did not throw words to the wind when he promised that for the plane "not just tomatoes ...".

          But that's not what I mean. And that wars sometimes happen against the will of the rulers. Alexander II in 1877 did not want to fight the Turks, since the military reform began only three years ago, but he had to - under the pressure of public opinion. And how many wars began when the powers specifically pitted against each other? Until the middle of the century, England's main strategy was to play off countries on the continent so that they would not even potentially threaten them.

          Now about overripe fruits. I live in the Caucasus, in the Stavropol Territory, more than once I have been to the republics that are much closer to Turkey than the Volga region. They will not fall into the hands of the Turks, like overripe fruits. This can be assumed about Chechnya, but Kadyrov is there, who is sitting on a tight hook near the Kremlin, and will not twitch, otherwise he will be quickly killed by his own people. Too many have a grudge against him. And the rest of the republics - and even more so. It takes a long time to explain the local realities, but the Turks are strangers to them. Trust PERSONAL experience. Example (not the only one): In the Caucasus, Sufism is very common among Muslims, and the Turks have a very so-so attitude towards it. Let them just try to tell somewhere in Akhchoy-Martan that dhikr is bad. The overripe fruit will fall so that it does not seem small.

          And the Volga region is too far to fall to the Turks. Georgia - yes, after they quarreled with Russia, the Turks privatized them almost completely. Just go and live in Tbilisi for a week, you can hear enough from the locals about how much of everything belongs to the Turks there. Itself, however, was not, but it is near, I heard it more than once.

          With regard to seed and breeding material, issues are also being resolved, albeit slowly, especially in animal husbandry. But we have had wheat for a long time ONLY of its own varieties, at least we, in the south, oats, barley - about half, we have our own peas, and so on. So Alexander is right that if the West presses, we will be able, albeit not immediately, to substitute import. It will be more difficult with animal husbandry, but, again, it is not impossible to solve.

          Of course, we have a lot of problems, but we have not lost anything anywhere. We would have to fix the organizational issues, and then a lot would have gone differently.
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 01: 13
            0
            Two amendments: 1) "and the rest of the republics - and even more so." I mean, they won't fall. 2) "Have not lost" their potential.

            The touch mouse on the laptop does not turn off. Sometimes such byaks come out.
        3. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 08: 52
          0
          Quote: Anjay V.
          Read more about Shackleton's 1966 report and about post-war British history in general)
          At the state level, they abandoned any political ambitions and began to systematically engage in the development of other areas.

          Andrey, you do not understand what I mean. I mean, they stepped aside for the wrong time, they realized that their time had passed. This is NOT a temporary departure in the style of "Britain is focusing", but the understanding that we will not be able to pull off world leadership as we did before. ALREADY NEVER in any foreseeable future. There are no prerequisites for this.

          And about leadership in Europe - perhaps, but also not a fact, especially after Brexit. They will compete with the Germans, and their economy will be more powerful.
          1. Anzhey V.
            Anzhey V. April 23 2021 09: 25
            +3
            I mean, they stepped aside for the wrong time, they realized that their time had passed


            And you can familiarize yourself with their new state strategy, including defense. You will be unpleasantly surprised)

            The world is moving away from existence in a unipolar model, even the United States understands this. The future is moving towards the formation of several superpowers - and one of them will be Britain. And I will say more, the USA is actively helping them in this.

            And about leadership in Europe - perhaps, but also not a fact, especially after Brexit


            You misunderstand the root cause of Brexit)

            This is an abandoned glove, a complete scrapping of the concept of a "single European state". London has set the stage for a new round of geopolitical confrontation between France and Germany. Many people here think that, for example, Libya is a showdown between Turkey and Russia, although in fact it is a showdown between London, Paris and Rome.

            And that wars sometimes happen against the will of the rulers


            There are no accidents. There are some interests that we do not see.

            Again, why do you think that "our time has not passed"? We have an absolutely dependent economy, there is no national culture. We also have political leverage and sphere of influence ... out of the way, to put it mildly. The state apparatus is not guided by the current realities, the country is absolutely unattractive for external investments and qualified emigrants. Depressive demography, which officials are trying to hide with all their might.

            In Russia, the emigration of scientists has been growing 2012 times since 5 (from 14 to 70 thousand per year)

            2014 - 310 thousand
            2015 - 350 thousand
            2016 - 313 thousand
            2017 - 377 thousand
            2020 - 380 thousand

            Here's a drop of statistics. 380 thousand who left the country last year, 70 thousand of whom are research workers. This is somehow not like the Renaissance of the Russian statehood, and the statistics are only growing ...
            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 10: 20
              0
              There are no accidents. There are some interests that we do not see.

              That's exactly what I mean. It's just that the interests of the belligerent parties do not always exist. They can be knocked head-ons. The brightest, but far from the only example - Russia and France after the assassination of Paul I.

              Again, why do you think that "our time has not passed"?

              It may well happen that our time will finally pass. However, this has not happened YET. In 10-15 years, in my opinion, it will become clear whether the trend will be reversed or not. There are chances (again YET), but serious changes are needed. I agree, it is far from the fact that they will happen. But in 1922, everything was an order of magnitude worse: devastation, international isolation. However, in the end we managed. We will not talk about the price now, but we managed. And in comparison with the 90s, the situation has changed a lot, no matter who says anything.

              Depressive demography, which officials are trying to hide with all their might.

              Where did you get this from? Natural decline in our country has been going on for a long time, and no one hides it in general. In official reports, figures are combed, of course, but you can't hide an sewn in a sack. The general picture can be drawn using other data.

              The future is moving towards the formation of several superpowers - and one of them will be Britain. And I will say more, the United States is actively helping them in this.

              Without the help of the United States, they would not have dared to formulate a new strategy, they would not have had enough strength. Considering that the demography of Britain is no better than that of Russia (Birmingham is 50 percent a Muslim city), the fact that they cannot produce a lot on their own, although they can do a lot, it cannot and does not mean that Britain will become a player equal to the United States and China. However, the strategy does not even talk about this. It is about the need to grow politically and so on, but not about competing EQUALLY with the world powers. From their current state, they are not able to jump so high.
            2. Anzhey V.
              Anzhey V. April 23 2021 11: 00
              -1
              Without the help of the United States, they would not have dared to formulate a new strategy, they would not have had enough strength


              Politics is primarily about how to find common interests together with the powerful, and not about how to challenge them)

              Considering Britain's demographics are no better than those of Russia


              The British are pragmatic guys in this regard - so honestly they say: we will solve the problem at the expense of emigrants. Moreover, qualified, educated - from our country as well.

              EQUAL to compete with world powers


              To be honest, at the moment, even the United States is not a superpower in the sense of the Cold War era. Here, everything is far from so simple.

              And where did you get this?


              Well, we have out of the blue hide the numbers of those who left, for example - it is constantly revealed. It is clear that they cannot falsify all of them, but they are trying to somehow brighten up the pill.

              In 10-15 years, in my opinion, it will become clear whether the trend will be reversed or not.


              You are a very smart and educated person, Artem. One of those who can be called "the color of the nation."

              And you, too, know that it is already obvious that we will not reverse the trend. The tops are reminiscent of an old blind boxer who can still kick but hit mainly on the walls and shop windows, being fooled by provocations. Priorities have been set incorrectly for decades, the zone of influence has almost completely collapsed.

              Everything is difficult, very difficult. Too complicated to be solved with a simple rattling of weapons ...
            3. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 11: 41
              +1
              And you, too, know that it is already obvious that we will not reverse the trend.

              Personally, this is not yet obvious to me, precisely because everything is very difficult. So no, I don’t know. And I am not dissembling here one iota, what you began to suspect me of, as it seems to me))).

              In general, it seems that we have already moved on to argumentation in the "I believe - I do not believe" style. I don't see anything wrong with that, by the way. For example, I believe in the possibilities of Russia. This belief did not come from the ceiling, but it takes a long time to talk on this topic. Moreover, I can hardly convince you. However, I have no such goal.

              Returning to the first paragraph and the complexity of the world situation, I will say that if we take this aspect into account, then yes, in principle, Britain can try to become one of the poles of the new world order. But, in my opinion, only if they manage to switch places with the United States and lead the Anglo-Saxon world. But it is still very early to talk about it. And it's not at all a fact that this will happen. The States, of course, if they do not sort out the internal political mess, risk losing their place as the leader of the West, with a high degree of probability, but this is precisely a probability, not a fact.

              Too complicated to be solved with a simple rattling of weapons ...
              I agree. It is for this reason that the stake is placed on import substitution (and in some places there are significant successes), that is why amendments to the Basic Law were adopted. There is reason to believe that this is just the beginning. Even if it is timid, in need of a powerful impulse.
            4. The comment was deleted.
            5. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 17: 42
              0
              I also have doubts. And, yes, this is not about military power. But times are changing, and there is reason to believe that the top understands this. Some little things speak convincingly about this. So wait and see. You may well be right. But time will tell.
            6. Anzhey V.
              Anzhey V. April 23 2021 17: 46
              0
              But times are changing, and there is reason to believe that the top understands this.


              I myself really hope so. We need a sensible policy, the people need a respite - they need to live well, as in the 30s, for at least XNUMX years.

              Fertility corrected, business pricing. Then we will be able to assert ourselves again without teetering on the brink of a foul.

              If only it were so ...
            7. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 17: 55
              +1
              It took a long time to reach a consensus laughing ... But it was worth it. It came out meaningfully. Thanks for the ability to conduct a dialogue good
            8. Anzhey V.
              Anzhey V. April 23 2021 17: 56
              +1
              And thank you, Artem)
              It's nice to have a conversation with you)
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 43
    0
    wassat such pragmatists that when building aircraft carriers, half of the fleet was put to rest.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 42
    -1
    Interesting ... is the entire Russian Academy of Sciences coming out in full force or has it left? Or are we "scientists" who are all with a tower?
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik April 22 2021 19: 31
    +5
    Quote: Artyom Karagodin
    Why don't they refuse to build weapons as expensive and difficult to operate as AB?

    In karate there is a rule: "Hard on soft and soft on hard." But even for a palm strike, a rigid structure of the whole body is needed.
    Likewise, here hard military structures protect soft forces. There is already another saying: With the help of a kind word and a gun, you can achieve much more than just one kind word.
  • Anzhey V.
    Anzhey V. April 22 2021 19: 38
    0
    Alexander (who is Timokhin) in his materials focuses on the same thing: in order to build a fleet, the necessary intelligible strategy for the development of the state is understood by the majority of society. Which, by the way, is a comprehensive view of both internal development and the promotion of their interests abroad.


    Again, if we have a competent strategy, it is far from the fact that there will be a need for aircraft carriers.

    Frankly, it may not exist at all)
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 22 2021 22: 12
      +8
      The strategy is carried out by the armed forces.
      No strategy can compensate for their inability to act as intended, and without aviation, they are just as incapable (not always, but mostly) to act as intended.
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        April 22 2021 22: 13
        -8
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The strategy is carried out by the armed forces.
        No strategy can compensate for their inability to act as intended, and without aviation, they are just as incapable (not always, but mostly) to act as intended.

        It remains only to understand where you have put all our aviation.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 08
          +11
          In the under-deck hangar for the time being. laughing
      2. Anzhey V.
        Anzhey V. April 22 2021 22: 25
        +1
        The strategy is carried out by the armed forces.


        Here I fundamentally disagree with you. The problem is that the line between war, economics and politics has simply been blurred.

        Now the tasks inherent in the armed forces can be performed by officials, teachers and businessmen, and the armed forces can solve the tasks of humanitarian organizations, and all this will give a deafening success, exceeding that in the case of a forceful resolution of this or that situation.

        The strategy of the state is largely implemented by non-military methods - although, however, it is now difficult to call them such, because even logistics and television broadcasting play the role of weapons of hybrid war.
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          April 22 2021 22: 51
          -5
          Quote: Anjay V.
          Here I fundamentally disagree with you. The problem is that the line between war, economics and politics has simply been blurred.

          Yes. In fact, it all became a "war". The term "hybrid war" cannot be coined.
          And even the classic war (with shooting and corpses) has become much more diverse and specific.
          1. Anzhey V.
            Anzhey V. April 22 2021 23: 00
            +2
            The term "hybrid war" cannot be coined.
            And even the classic war (with shooting and corpses) has become much more diverse and specific.


            Actually, yes.

            Let's return, again, to Turkey and its version of the Syrian campaign. I recently made a material about this - https://topwar.ru/182025-stalnaja-hvatka-mjagkoj-sily-turcija-v-sirii.html

            In fact, there is generally no line between the actions of the Turkish army and, for example, Turkish charitable organizations. Training courses, battles for Idlib, construction of small towns, clashes for outposts, organizing hot meals for refugees, aerial drone campaign - all this is one indissoluble process, the elements of which should never be separated from each other.

            Roughly speaking, Turkish investments in northern Syria would not be justified without the protection of the army, but the army's successes would be useless without the work of officials, doctors, analysts and teachers.

            In our country, in turn, these processes are still perceived separately, and on the example of “our” Syria, one can be convinced of how deplorable results such thinking leads.
        2. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 11
          +6
          The problem is that the line between war, economics and politics has simply been blurred.


          Do you remember who Zhou Enlai is? It was also he who formulated in the 60s that in the modern world Clausewitz's formulation should be read the other way around - politics is a war conducted by other, non-violent means.

          Nothing new and aircraft-carrying ships fit into this movement like nothing else.
    2. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 08: 58
      0
      Only if it will be either a flawed strategy, or by that time they will come up with something more effective than aviation. And so - "trough" has no alternative, if we want to be able to reach anywhere with aviation.
  • Roman070280
    Roman070280 April 23 2021 11: 28
    -6
    the Americans have an incomparably larger number of air and other bases around the planet, a bunch of allies, developed soft power tools, and so on and so forth. Why don't they refuse to build weapons as expensive and difficult to operate as AB?


    So the Americans also have completely different tasks.
    They then need to "teach" Kim, then scare China, then bring "democracy" to Africa .. For all this, essno, you need to "be near" ..
    And there is no need for us to be close to Brazil / Mexico / South Africa ..
    Well, the question of finances, again .. it is not even serious to compare the capabilities of the United States and ours .. Otherwise, we will again come to a retirement age increase that has set the teeth on edge ..
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 12: 28
      +1
      You have a little misunderstood the essence of our conversation with Andrey. As a result, it turned out that they unwittingly took the phrase out of context. To start explaining everything all over again - have pity on me)))).
      1. Roman070280
        Roman070280 April 23 2021 12: 42
        -6
        No need to explain anything ..))
        My answers, albeit in a "torn" form, are inherently correct ..
        1. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 12: 58
          +1
          It is only important to remember one dialogue from one talented Soviet film. I will replace only one word there: "Chudra, tell me, who knows more - a sage or or? - Or. A sage doubts everything." Good day, Roman.
          1. Roman070280
            Roman070280 April 23 2021 13: 19
            -6
            The sage doubts everything

            Even if someone decides to doubt that "it is not serious to compare the financial capabilities of the United States and ours .. Otherwise, we will again come to an increase in the retirement age that has set the teeth on edge .." - then he will not become wiser from this ..))
            Good !!
            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 13: 33
              +1
              I'm not talking about that. But it doesn't matter.
  • Serg4545
    Serg4545 April 22 2021 19: 41
    +2
    There is a certain amount of manipulation in Timokhin's articles. He describes theoretical situations invented by him. And then he says: but in this situation, an aircraft carrier would be useful to us. So we have to build it.
    Unfortunately, many are led to this manipulation. What is it? Even if some tool can be useful to us, it DOES NOT AT ALL FROM THIS AT ALL THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THIS TOOL.
    If you don't understand, I will give you a simple example. I have a dacha. The most common. Can an excavator be useful to me at this dacha (well, for example, Doosan DX)? Of course, sometimes an excavator can make some work easier for me. Buy it? We find out that this excavator is several times more expensive than my dacha and say: nafig-nafig!
    And any work in the country can be done with other tools. Yes, perhaps some tasks will take longer and hemorrhoids than using an excavator. But buying an excavator is not an option!
    Here's a specific example: a tool can be useful, but you don't need to have it.
    So Timokhin's reasoning about aircraft carriers can be safely put on this shelf:
    Will 1000 multipurpose nuclear submarines be useful to our Navy? They certainly will. Do we need to build a thousand nuclear submarines? Certainly not.
    Will our Navy benefit from 10 SU-34 aircraft in naval modification? They certainly will. Do we need to build 10 thousand of these aircraft? Certainly not.
    Will aircraft carriers be useful to our Navy? They certainly will. Do we need to build them? Certainly not.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 22 2021 21: 21
      -6
      Quote: Serg4545
      Unfortunately, many are led to this manipulation.

      He has more than one manipulation. Many of his articles are based on manipulations.
      For example, when he wrote a series of several about "sea battles" and, as if nothing had happened, shifted the battle in the ocean, for example, to the realities of the Black Sea.

      Or on the subject of Africa - just look at the poster he brought up. Diamonds are drawn. All sorts of badges.
      But in fact, the conversation can be serious about 3-5 countries. Egypt, Algeria, Morocco and 2 more to choose from.

      The same is about intercepting submarines.

      A couple of days ago I sent an article for moderation. And regarding
      And from that moment on, any small ship or a cheap drone sticks to AB. And 24/7 in SuperHD broadcasts everything that happens on the deck.


      Iranians posted a video today

      1. 971
        971 April 24 2021 17: 50
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        Iranians posted a video today

        So what?
        I can upload an Iranian video from a SSGN at shallow depth
        What does this mean?
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        He has more than one manipulation. Many of his articles are based on manipulations.

        Yes, in fact, YOU are mired in manipulations.
        And even in this opus YOU "modestly" allegedly "did not notice" the air defense factors and the reaction time to the threat
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 45
      +3
      and the rest are not manipulating? Or will we not work more than 500 km from our coast?
    3. 971
      971 April 24 2021 17: 52
      -1
      Quote: Serg4545
      There is a certain amount of manipulation in Timokhin's articles. He describes theoretical situations invented by him. And then he says: but in this situation, an aircraft carrier would be useful to us. So we have to build it.
      Unfortunately, many are led to this manipulation. What is it? Even if some tool can be useful to us, it DOES NOT AT ALL FROM THIS AT ALL THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THIS TOOL.
      If you don't understand, I will give you a simple example. I have a dacha. The most common. Can an excavator be useful to me at this dacha (well, for example, Doosan DX)? Of course, sometimes an excavator can make some work easier for me. Buy it? We find out that this excavator is several times more expensive than my dacha and say: nafig-nafig!

      Another verbiage.
      An extremely simple question - provide escort escort to the Kaliningrad enclave without an aircraft carrier, the enemy - with "weapons" Poland, intelligence and electronic warfare "NATO and others."
      We are waiting
      1. Serg4545
        Serg4545 April 24 2021 19: 29
        -1
        Quote: 971
        Another verbiage.
        An extremely simple question - provide escort escort to the Kaliningrad enclave without an aircraft carrier, the enemy - with "weapons" Poland, intelligence and electronic warfare "NATO and others."
        We are waiting

        You know, I will not even ask why we are at war with Poland (a NATO country), and NATO itself is not directly involved. I will not hear a reasonable answer from you. Why?
        Because you offered to drive the aircraft carrier into the Baltic puddle! And for what? For escorting the convoy !!!! () (!
        General information:
        Large aircraft carriers have been around for over 80 years. During this time, more than 100 large aircraft carriers were built by different countries (mainly, of course, the USA).
        So, NONE of these ships have ever entered the Baltic Sea. And the reason is obvious. The Baltic Sea is too small a body of water, for any ship larger than a destroyer to operate in it. Or even a frigate.
        A more stupid idea (albeit not by much) would be to suggest using an aircraft carrier for epic battles on the Moskva River. With the use of, of course, electronic warfare and the rest of the body kit)
        How seriously can you discuss this?
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 24 2021 20: 23
          0
          You know, I won't even ask why we are at war with Poland (a NATO country), and NATO itself is not directly involved.


          Why should it participate?
          For you for self-education
          https://vz.ru/world/2020/1/20/1018910.html
        2. 971
          971 April 28 2021 09: 24
          -1
          Quote: Serg4545
          You know, I will not even ask why we are at war with Poland (a NATO country), and NATO itself is not directly involved. I will not hear a reasonable answer from you. Why?

          probably because you are not very good at thinking
          google the article 5 scandal of the NATO charter
          Quote: Serg4545
          more than 100 large aircraft carriers.
          So, NONE of these ships have ever entered the Baltic Sea. And the reason is obvious. The Baltic Sea is too small a body of water, for any ship larger than a destroyer to operate in it. Or even a frigate.

          yes YOU are monsieur just Nelson (couch) lol
          and now a bit realities -
          Once the aircraft carrier Intrepid even entered the Baltic Sea, which was an extraordinary event, and at the time of extreme military tension and simply dangerous.
          The weather was disgusting. It was raining, it was windy, and the clouds dropped below 200 meters. The ship was seen from the shore in the German Democratic Republic and immediately "reported where it should be." The information got to the headquarters of the USSR Air Force and Long-Range Aviation, as well as the Baltic Fleet, but neither Il-28R front-line reconnaissance aircraft nor Tu-16 aircraft of the Navy and Long-Range Aviation could find it. Then one Tu-95MR from the 409th TBAP was sent to the search area.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 41
    0
    tongue and if there is no airfield .. how will you protect your investments?
    1. Serg4545
      Serg4545 April 25 2021 06: 00
      -1
      Quote: Barberry25
      and if there is no airfield .. how will you protect your investments?

      Goodness, what kind of investment !?
      Here's the reality:
      The United States has had large aircraft carriers (in large numbers) for over 80 years. All this time, the United States has been the largest economy in the world and the largest investor in the world, and in almost all countries of the world.
      During this time, things often happened:
      American investments have often been at risk. There have been cases when the property of large American companies was simply taken away (and without any compensation!).
      In this regard, of course, it won't be difficult for you to give an example when, in such situations, the Americans drove up their aircraft carrier and decided the issue in their favor?
      And if you cannot give such an example, then why?
      A closer example to us:
      Not so long ago, by military means, we toughly bent Georgia and Ukraine. And we can do it now at any time. This fact, in NO way prevents these countries from taking Russian investments in their favor.
      And naturally, the presence / absence of aircraft carriers is not able to influence the situation.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 25 2021 09: 49
        +1
        laughing Well, following your logic .. we do not need aircraft carriers .. and frigates .. and corvettes ... and the fleet as a whole .. or "well, others have and will be taken away anyway" ... In general, tell me straight ... I do not like aircraft carriers, and even though you can give 256 convincing reasons ... I will still be against it .. It's so economical in time ..
  • Alien From
    Alien From April 22 2021 20: 34
    0
    I already broke my whole head with these battles)))
  • Mitroha
    Mitroha April 22 2021 18: 40
    +2
    The intrigue continues as long as Vorontsov's arguments are closer to me than Timokhin's. But in a dispute, truth is born
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 22 2021 21: 54
      +5
      Vorontsov has no "arguments", these are not arguments, but sheer juggling.
      1. Drugov
        Drugov April 24 2021 18: 41
        +2
        Let me explain why Vorontsov's arguments are still arguments. Very short. At the moment, Russia has the competence for the production of Tu, there are very serious results in the production of missiles of various types, we are able to build not bad submarines, space, whoever hajal it, but we can fill the orbital group with reconnaissance and surveillance equipment, and it seems UAVs with decent characteristics began to be obtained. And with the surface fleet, everything is simply disgusting and dreams of aircraft carriers, and there should be at least 4 of them with all their retinue and air wing, an outright utopia.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 25 2021 09: 58
          +1
          well, as if at one time they said the same thing about satellites and about missiles, that everyone is terrible, that launches fail and the missiles do not fly ... But for some reason, after solving the issue, everything became normal ... As with UAVs, a similar situation, although in In 2008, everyone declared in the same way about "everything, forever behind" .. So maybe it's worth it to put things in order in the industry?
          1. Drugov
            Drugov April 28 2021 01: 10
            0
            Order needs to be established not in the industry, but in the country. As a well-known character used to say, devastation is not in the closets, it is in the heads.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 28 2021 09: 29
              -2
              laughing it is difficult to direct everywhere and immediately, but we are interested in a specific industry
              1. Drugov
                Drugov April 28 2021 09: 45
                0
                If the head does not know what the hands are doing, then the result will not be obtained. So here, too, until there is a coherent and understandable and fully synchronized state policy for the country's development, none of the industries will be able to boast of order and breakthrough indicators apart from such a structure.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 April 28 2021 10: 02
                  -1
                  laughing again shootings and the Gulag? Can it be easier?
  • antivirus
    antivirus April 22 2021 18: 47
    0
    and the resources allocated for the construction of the AB can be used more efficiently.

    land power - do not build fortresses. build a railway - this is a priority - to link different theaters on the outskirts of the country with high-speed roads
    ... in 17th place AB
  • knn54
    knn54 April 22 2021 18: 47
    0
    I would like to ask the lobbyists of the aircraft carriers - when was the last time a new destroyer was launched?
    And then there was just such a ship, no coastal infrastructure, no escort, etc.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart April 22 2021 18: 50
    +12
    To play the way we want to play (in spite of a powerful military bloc), we do not have the strength and capabilities of our economy. Whether someone likes it or not, we are now in a rigidly defensive configuration and it is high time for us to outline more distinct boundaries of our zone of influence in it, and to take up this zone, until, behind our Syrian-Sudanese-Venezuelan voyages, we lost, for example, Belarus or that The aircraft carrier will help us little in all this. Our opponents now use sanctions and political instruments much more competently than saber rattling - by consistently introducing sanctions and expanding the rules of their national jurisdictions outside, they step by step cut off our sales markets and the possibility of acquiring high-tech products. For this they do not need aircraft carriers at all, and ours would not help us here. In terms of a defensive concept, the idea of ​​1-2 aircraft carriers POSSIBLY would take place, but definitely NOT NOW. Now our attention is riveted to land and more and more to the nearest borders.
    1. Drugov
      Drugov April 24 2021 18: 44
      0
      Absolutely correct remark. You can't see the forest behind the trees. It is necessary to strengthen the borders at home, and not on distant, foreign shores.
  • KKND
    KKND April 22 2021 18: 56
    +9
    Well, the site is finally reaching a new informational level. Articles with rudiments of "memes" appear on it. Keep it up! soldier
    And according to the article, as a whole, some kind of unstructured stream of thought where ships, planes, UAVs, helicopters, "Solntsepeks", trade relations are mixed.
    1. max702
      max702 April 22 2021 19: 21
      +6
      Yes, it started well with important questions, and then somehow it poured out .. An important question for what? It seems to be considered, but it is immediately blurred, as well as the question of cost .. What are 280billion? If we are talking about a combat-ready product, then 500-750billion per piece without an air wing is at least the same, one does not make sense, two, too, because only as training, 4? Well, with a stretch, the effect will be from 5-6 at least .. But we are opposed by about 20 AUG already now, a total of 4-4.5 trillion at least for one aircraft carrier and this is for a construction site, and we still did not calculate the price of escort ships .. Multiply by three for the air wing, escort ships, and forgot the infrastructure such as for training sailors, bases for entih AUG, construction yards, repair facilities, townships for living, the sailors themselves .. How fast has it already run over 20-30 trillion rubles? Etoges what should be in these Africa to recoup such expenses? they will tell me Duc money will go to the economy, to ours! I agree, but only such money in our economy can be spent much more efficiently, such as two trillion in Yamal LNG ..
    2. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin April 22 2021 19: 25
      +2
      Well, I disagree with you, although I definitely support Timokhin, not Vorontsov. Not such a non-constructive stream of thought here. There are many questions asked competently, but the author did not understand what Timokhin was talking about. And the first thing he said: without a clearly formulated strategy, the conversation about what we should build - "land" aircraft or deck aircraft with their carrier - is AT ALL irrelevant. Because military construction is not just saturating the troops with modern technology, but saturating it with the technology that is necessary to solve the tasks assigned to the Armed Forces.

      According to Timokhin, when (if) we have the aforementioned strategy, the question of building AV will be reduced only to how many of them to build to solve the assigned tasks and what size. And if we start from the current situation, citing Ukraine as an example, then the dispute does not make sense at all. Since with what we have in foreign and domestic policy now, we will NEVER have not only aircraft carriers, but also those instruments of influence that, according to Vorontsov, could replace them.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 22 2021 23: 19
      +18
      Quote: KKND
      And according to the article, as a whole, some kind of unstructured stream of thought where ships, planes, UAVs, helicopters, "Solntsepeks", trade relations are mixed.

      A very correct observation.
      Still, I would like to send a couple of remarks about it to Mr. Vorontsov.
      1. KNS is a suicide bomber attached to the AUG. Before letting it go to the bottom, the enemy will seal the ether so that no RDO will pass. Therefore, tracking with weapons is good until the moment when the hot phase of the conflict begins.
      2. About the high-speed capabilities of AVMA. Yes, he will be able to jerk to the side by 30 knots, but the escort ships and military supplies (tanker, integrated supply ship) will not keep up with him ... Atomic AUGs of the Enterprise and K * type for 25 knots have made a round-the-world cruise, today the Yankees do not ...
      3. AWM in the World Cup ?! What a wild fantasy? The Brits are sending 2 NKs, and they are going to cover them with aviation from Lizka, plying in Mediterranean ...
      4. Syria and Kuzya-trough ... The first pancake is lumpy. It was necessary to train more often and more intensively, to follow the mate partly, and not puffing out puffing cheeks to go to war ... far away.
      5. AVM is needed not only along the coast and not so much along the coast, as against the forces of the fleet at sea. But the author diligently avoids this question. Let me remind you: the Yankees are practicing an oncoming battle with the forces of our fleet at D = 1700 km or 1000 miles. The main striking force is the F-18, the latest modifications ... The Penguin (?) Is a separate conversation.
      6. Base Aviation Poseidon R-3 is a very strong enemy of our submarines. Coastal aviation will not be able to do anything with it, tk. it is covered by an aircraft carrier IA. Therefore, the trick: we will cover them with land-based Su-35s - in this case, it is not dancing. And naval pilots are naval pilots! But you can't drag a landlocked into the sea on a lasso! Communicated - I know.
      7. There is no doubt that naval aviation will develop. This is evidenced by the order 25 Yak-130 UBK, the development of the Su-30 SM2, the design of a new VTOL aircraft for aircraft-carrying ships (complexes). Who said that in the future we will not have an atomic 70-capacity unit? Yes, not now. But it will be if we go to the Ocean. But we'll go.
      8. Troubles with calling Tu-22M3M to cover the forces of the fleet at D = 1800 km - nonsense!
      If NATO countries close the passage corridors, then what roundabout route will they get, for example, to Khmeimim? Didn't it occur to the author?
      9. About the fact that the ship's air defense will not have time to work out. The author is very far from the naval iron, so he does not know that the old SAM "Dagger" (GRAU index - 3K95) in automatic mode shot down everything that went with a parameter less than 2 km to the ship. He's from the glorious Thor breed. Tor M2 is now on its way. So, comrade - not right!
      10. That the AVM in Sredismka has nowhere to evade ... Laughter! Apparently the author has never been to the sea, since he writes this ...
      11. Passage about the construction of 100 aircraft and the cost of their maintenance. And where did you go to the technicians and all the personnel of the BAO? And where is the maintenance of the airfield infrastructure?
      12. The irony about air reconnaissance at TO / IO is incomprehensible. Is it okay that there are SSBN patrol areas !? Or does it not count?
      13. AVM is an instrument of foreign policy ... For the Yankees, yes. And we need it to cover the forces in the DMZ. What are we going to do there? - And what will be ordered, we will do: sink the military KON and DesO at the crossing by the sea, until they arrive at the ports of NATO ...
      However, everyone! hi
      1. KKND
        KKND April 22 2021 23: 32
        +13
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        AVM is needed not only along the coast and not so much along the coast, but against the forces of the fleet at sea. But the author diligently avoids this question. Let me remind you: the Yankees are practicing an oncoming battle with the forces of our fleet at D = 1700 km or 1000 miles. The main striking force is the F-18, the latest modifications ... The Penguin (?) Is a separate conversation.

        The people do not understand the danger of the Hornet flock against our ships. So I will open their eyes a little, at the old Hornet radar (the new ones have 120 miles) can see our ships from 80 nautical miles, he can launch a Harpoon from 70 miles, after capturing the radar, he can carry as many as 4 Harpoons. So a flock of Hornets will fly into our ship connection and it will be very bad for our ships. Then someone naive will say, but what about the S-300 on Peter the Great? They can fly 150 km away. Yes, they can use airships. Yes, only Shershen without suspensions by some afterburner maneuvers can easily exhaust S-300 missiles from 70 kilometers. That is, they simply do not have enough energy to reach Shershen. From 70 nautical miles, the Hornet will not even need to spin especially strongly so that the missiles do not reach. So it remains for our ships to try to shoot down the Harpoons.
        This was the meaning of Kuznetsov, not in work on ships or land, but to shoot down these damn Hornets up to 70 nautical miles with his fighters.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 22 2021 23: 39
          +11
          Quote: KKND
          This was the meaning of Kuznetsov, not in work on ships or land, but to shoot down these damn Hornets up to 70 nautical miles with his fighters.

          I agree.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 23 2021 11: 31
          +5
          Quote: KKND
          This was the meaning of Kuznetsov, not in work on ships or land, but to shoot down these damn Hornets up to 70 nautical miles with his fighters.

          The task of AB is to deal with the causes (carriers), and not with the consequences (RCC). smile
          The second task of "Kuznetsov" is to provide an opportunity to look beyond the horizon. At least somehow, at least by AWACS helicopters - but look. Because exactly the "hornets" are hiding behind him.
          1. KKND
            KKND April 23 2021 12: 05
            +3
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The task of AB is to deal with the causes (carriers), and not with the consequences (RCC).

            Yes, I wrote crookedly up to 70 km. Of course, it was meant to shoot down the Hornets before they approach the launch line.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Because exactly the "hornets" are hiding behind him.

            Yes, they don't really need to hide behind the horizon, the higher the air defense systems will lose more energy, the greater the launch range of Harpoons, the less fuel consumption, etc.
            It was possible to look beyond the horizon by helicopter from many ships, and an AWACS aircraft similar to Hokaiu would not take off from Kuzi.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 23 2021 12: 34
              +5
              Quote: KKND
              Yes, they don't really need to hide behind the horizon, the higher the air defense systems will lose more energy, the greater the launch range of Harpoons, the less fuel consumption, etc.

              I am guided by the flight profiles of the Cold War times (from the Western Military District) - there, when approaching the target, there was always a decrease in MV and PMA. For there is nothing to spoil the enemy with data on the course, speed and launch time - let him see targets only from 35-40 km. smile
              Quote: KKND
              It was possible to look beyond the horizon by helicopter from many ships, and an AWACS aircraft similar to Hokaiu would not take off from Kuzi.

              On many ships, the Ka-31 only got up instead of the much more needed PLO helicopter.
              In addition, "Kuznetsov" at the very least, but could depict shift duty of AWACS helicopters in the air.
              1. KKND
                KKND April 23 2021 13: 57
                +2
                Quote: Alexey RA
                For there is nothing to spoil the enemy with data on the course, speed and launch time - let him see targets only from 35-40 km.

                I do not know what who wrote there, until you capture the radar station, you will not start up the Harpoon with all that it implies.
                Low-altitude breakthrough tactics were mainly used when it was necessary to break through the super-powerful air defense systems of the S-75 or S-200 type in the 60s and 70s, and from the far hand, at best, the Shrike. Here at the position then cast iron or NARs had to be poured.
                Or if you are a B-1 type bomber, then you can forget about maneuvers.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 36
        +2
        KNS is a suicide bomber attached to the AUG. Before letting it go to the bottom, the enemy will seal the ether so that no RDO will pass.


        Is there a disconnect signal?

        design of a new VTOL aircraft for aircraft carriers


        This is not reinforcement, this is another sawmill, and behind it there is a banal organized criminal group that has found a sensible lobbyist in the Moscow region. Fortunately, so far this project is being sabotaged and very successful. And thank God.

        what went with a parameter less than 2 km per ship


        He doesn't know what the parameter is laughing
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 22 2021 23: 45
          +4
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Is there a disconnect signal?

          AA, hi
          No, because it is solid milk. And it is not clear what is there and how.
          To get out of this "ambiguity" there is a KSBU system, with a set of signals in microseconds. duration. But you can't stick the EDC into them. So now everything is through space. But not everyone has an UGDSH ... and a QS system.
          Then, all KNS will go into oblivion with the appearance of Liana.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 23 2021 10: 33
            +2
            No, because it is solid milk. And it is not clear what is there and how.


            But there is also a DKM-Morse code sensor, namesake. Morse code is also being crushed or what? Or am I behind the times?

            KNS will go into oblivion with the appearance of Liana.


            No, it won't. Liana is planning only two radar reconnaissance satellites, which they have not been able to do for many years already.
            Not take off.
            It's just that the CNS mutates into a carrier for UAV reconnaissance aircraft and helicopters, tracking will be discrete - looked-dumped-looked-dumped, etc.
        2. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 09: 07
          0
          Ummm ... Enlighten what the term "parameter" means in this context what
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 23 2021 10: 33
            +4
            Google the target exchange rate parameter
            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 11: 41
              +1
              Thank you)).
      3. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 00: 29
        +6
        Mr. Boa, bravo! Bravo good... Powerfully put everything on the shelves.
      4. ancient
        ancient April 23 2021 10: 49
        +5
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        However, everyone!

        good good good fellow laughing drinks soldier
      5. Avior
        Avior April 23 2021 11: 30
        +1
        1. KNS is a suicide bomber attached to the AUG.

        it only makes sense if you are going to attack first.
        If the enemy plans to attack first, he will shake off his tail in no time, he will announce a closed shooting area, narrow and long and cross it across, and the KNS will have to be bypassed with the inevitable loss of contact. Look - fistulas then into the sea where he went.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 23 2021 12: 41
          +2
          No, a break in communication is a signal for launching, the target will not have time to leave in three or four minutes.
          1. Avior
            Avior April 23 2021 13: 30
            +3
            And who said about the disconnection? The enemy simply closes off a sufficiently long area for shooting practice and passes across it. And your KNS will go around this section, having lost an aircraft carrier. The second option is the passage of the enemy through the ally's terrorists, and you will bypass it again, losing Aug from observation.
            The third option - at night the group will split into three groups with large ships - and it is not known which of them is aug
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 23 2021 18: 25
              +3
              The enemy simply closes off a sufficiently long area for shooting practice and passes across it. And your KNS will go around this section, having lost an aircraft carrier.


              I would latch on and walk next to the warrant.

              The second option is the passage of the enemy through the ally's terrorists, and you will go around again, losing Aug from observation.


              Well, that's only if so. But even here you can walk along the edge of the tervod.

              The third option - at night the group will split into three groups with large ships - and it is not known which of them is aug


              Just like in my article about Gorshkov, right? Tracking "Worthy" for "America". But the fact is that now there are night optics.
              1. Avior
                Avior April 23 2021 19: 53
                +2
                I would latch on and walk next to the warrant.

                Get a missile or a projectile on board?
                You don’t know in advance why the area was closed — they are really shooting or they are breaking off to start hostilities. Somehow your own chief officer will put you under lock and key and report that it is time for you to appoint an extraordinary medical board.
                If they want to come off, they will come off. Any supply vessel will be substituted for the extreme.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 23 2021 21: 44
                  +1
                  No, you are wrong - just in such situations they kept their teeth for the amers - simply because the very fact that the CNS did not get in touch, in some cases, started a war. And the nature of such an event as tracking a weapon with a machine gun in this case meant the first salvo won, with all that it implies.
                  So anyone would go without options. All KNS were suicide bombers, always, no one there harbored any illusions.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior April 23 2021 22: 09
                    +1
                    No, you are wrong - just in such situations they kept their teeth for the amers - simply because the very fact that the CNS did not get in touch, in some cases, started a war.

                    And do you know really such cases - the tracking ship did not get in touch, and in response they hit the Americans?
                    I strongly doubt that this was the question. a blow to one AUG did not solve anything in a situation where, due to the loss of communication, you would decide to start a war with the United States.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 23 2021 22: 13
                      +1
                      And do you know really such cases - the tracking ship did not get in touch, and in response they hit the Americans?


                      No, but our relations with them have never worsened to such an extent. And technically it was quite possible to organize such a thing. And even to warn the Americans about this.
                      1. Avior
                        Avior April 23 2021 22: 18
                        +1
                        It is difficult to believe in a situation in which, due to the loss of communication, a war would start, it is difficult to believe, even if communication with a boat with nuclear weapons was lost.
                        And because of one ship ...
                        Moreover, on the scale of the war between the USA and the USSR, this did not solve anything.
                        The purpose of the KNS is the ability to be the first to strike at the AUG, if such a decision is made overwhelmingly. But not to start a war over the loss of communications.
      6. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 23 2021 23: 37
        0
        but why go to the bottom ... if a civilian ship is banal for boarding ..
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 24 2021 09: 59
          +1
          Quote: Barberry25
          Why go to the bottom ... if a civilian ship is banal for boarding ...
          The abbreviation "KNS" means "direct tracking ship" and not "sewer tanker" laughing
          This is a combat ship of the EM-SKR-Corvette_frigate class ... Usually it clung to the main target at D = 20 kbt at KU = 120-150 * (pr / l of the side) in readiness with the receipt of a signal
          deliver an artillery strike at the target in the shortest possible time.
          What boarding of a "civilian ship" are you talking about?
          Where did you see him? (The Flying Dutchman doesn't count! bully )
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 24 2021 10: 10
            +1
            laughing well ... then the KNS is a suicide bomber) yes ... recourse
  • forty-eighth
    forty-eighth April 22 2021 19: 12
    +3
    An entertaining polemic format has been chosen. Reading is interesting and informative. My respect and respect to both sides. I look forward to continuing this series of articles.
    1. Anzhey V.
      Anzhey V. April 22 2021 19: 31
      0
      I support it, it's great that the authors discuss with each other)

      I really like to take part in this, especially since the opponents have a good argumentation base.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 22 2021 23: 18
      +3
      One is already under moderation)))
  • Israel
    Israel April 22 2021 19: 15
    +1
    Everything, as usual, comes down to money, while Russia’s exports are not much more than those of Poland and the Czech Republic, any construction of aircraft carriers is an undermining of defense capabilities. Plus, if you look at the United States, they have 3-4 constantly being repaired.
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette April 22 2021 19: 22
    +1
    I do not agree that aircraft carriers should be at least 4. In my opinion, at least 6. 1 - in repair and preparation for the BS, one at the BS, one at the BP in the base. And if 2 for each area of ​​application - then 8. Talk about one aircraft carrier - in favor of the poor in mind.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 22 2021 21: 11
      -4
      Quote: Silhouette
      I do not agree that aircraft carriers should be at least 4. In my opinion, at least 6. 1 - in repair and preparation for the BS, one at the BS, one at the BP in the base. And if 2 for each area of ​​application - then 8. Talk about one aircraft carrier - in favor of the poor in mind.

      4 only for the scenario that was described - to cover 2 areas.
      And if you add up everything you need, including the expeditionary forces, then of course more.
    2. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst April 22 2021 21: 59
      +5
      According to this logic, you want to turn the aircraft carrier into a patrol ship for the protection of the water area. The Russian aircraft carrier should be a versatile aircraft with an air defense priority, under the air defense umbrella an SSBN or an SSBN bastion is being carried out in the far sea zone, and only in the third place is the strike by manned and unmanned aircraft against the enemy ACG / AUG or forcing the barmaley and skakuas to peace.
  • Avior
    Avior April 22 2021 20: 01
    +9
    With regret, I have to state that the opponents of aircraft carriers are shrinking.
    In the old days, from the threshold, they would have fired at the enemy with a yadren loaf, but now, the Tu-22M3M is just, yes, Caliber with a submarine! There is no such scope that it used to be!
    smile
    Combat radius of Tu-22 (hereinafter I will simply write Tu-22: it is clear what is at stake) with a load of 12 tons ... * drum roll * 000 + missile range 2400.

    And where will the bullet be? Carpet rocket launches in the desert? It is something that can always be found in a global war, but what if the war is not global, but local? No matter how you find a big goal, and even look at the hospital, you will get a string, you will not end up with a headache later.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      April 22 2021 21: 08
      -7
      Quote: Avior
      And where will the bullet be?

      There, where the carrier-based aircraft will shoot.
      If this question is about concretization, then I support you in this, it was not I who described the abstract conditions of "exacerbation".

      I touched on the availability of different tools, including those for applying more precise punches.
      There may be enough drones, there may be enough helicopters, artillery with high-precision ammunition.
      1. Anzhey V.
        Anzhey V. April 22 2021 21: 35
        -1
        Here, in my opinion, the problem is also in the total lack of understanding that military operations do not happen right off the bat.

        The presence of an aircraft carrier ≠ lack of preparation for the operation.

        Accordingly, almost any impromptu is not viable here, as with any other weapon. And if we start to take into account all the factors (allies in the region, mission, preliminary reconnaissance, our contingent in the place of conflict, etc.), then the value of the aircraft carrier will not be absolutely one hundred percent. Yes, there are tasks that are more convenient for them to perform, but whether it is worth developing an entire industry for this is an open question.
      2. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin April 22 2021 22: 06
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        May be enough

        And if not enough?
      3. Avior
        Avior April 22 2021 23: 37
        +6
        There, where the carrier-based aircraft will shoot.

        Deck aircraft will shoot at targets detected by it, essno. She, unlike the Tu22, is quite capable of conducting reconnaissance or organizing patrols in the air, to isolate the area of ​​hostilities for the duration of the operation, for example. Or for blockade purposes.
        There may be enough drones, there may be enough helicopters, artillery with high-precision ammunition.

        Oh, this "may"! Sounds just like "maybe" :) ...
        The presence of aviation in the combat zone fundamentally expands the possibilities for this very "can" - both at sea and on land.
        For example, Sudan, which you cited as an example, something from its air force, even in the event of unrest and aggravation of the situation, will remain
        Or simply imagine the aggravation of the situation in Sudan, fraught with attacks on our PMTO in Port Sudan.

        And your helicopters with artillery will not look very good, even if the Air Force is not the most modern there, but they are. And it is quite possible that your UDCs, undisguised by aviation, will never reach the coast - thanks to one dad, they have a Su-24 in their arsenal, not like fighters with attack aircraft.
        1. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 00: 33
          +1
          Put +, Sergey!
        2. Alexander Vorontsov
          April 23 2021 06: 58
          -8
          Quote: Avior
          Deck aircraft will shoot at targets detected by it, essno.


          It turns out this is a deck pilot.

          She, unlike the Tu22, is quite capable of conducting reconnaissance

          The guys will stop thoughtlessly repeating blatant nonsense after others.


          to organize patrols in the air - to isolate the combat area for the duration of the operation, for example

          Isolation like in Syria, right? You probably haven't read the article? The question was asked - why was it not isolated in Syria and how do you imagine it?
          Shoot down French planes? Israeli?
          First answer it and then write about isolation.
          But something tells me that the supporters of aircraft carriers will simply bypass 50% of the questions, shyly hiding their eyes. And to create the illusion of discussion, they will continue to write nonsense about reconnaissance by carrier-based fighters.
          1. Avior
            Avior April 23 2021 07: 25
            +7
            ... The guys will stop thoughtlessly repeating blatant nonsense after others.

            This and the above part of your post is completely incomprehensible. I prefer to write on the merits of the issue
            Isolation like in Syria, right?

            Of course not. In Syria, in your article, it is assumed for a long time to fully provide air defense of a large country, it is obvious that it is very difficult to cope with such a task. Not to mention the fact that in order to shoot down Israeli and NATO planes, you first need to make a political decision about this, the consequences will be serious.
            But if in some Sudan, in the event of unrest, it will be necessary to prevent for a certain time in a limited area of ​​the operation to protect the support point, or the evacuation of personnel or material values, or during the restoration of the airfield for the actions of land aviation and the landing of transport aircraft and stop the converging to Columns of gantrucks and other shahidmobiles in this area, and at the same time, to cover the area from possible individual attempts of air raids that fell into the hands of regular rebels of serviceable aircraft - this is the task that will be within the reach of completely carrier-based aviation.
            hi
            1. Drugov
              Drugov April 24 2021 19: 14
              0
              Just one question! Do you really think that a conditional AB should be sent there to settle the riots in the conditional Sudan? Here we return to the goals and objectives of the AV as part of the Russian fleet.
              1. Avior
                Avior April 24 2021 19: 58
                +1
                The presence of an aircraft carrier - not necessarily an attack aircraft carrier - as part of the expeditionary forces will significantly untie the hands in the forms and methods of influence outside the range of coastal tactical aviation. This applies to the conflict on land and at sea.
                The presence of such a ship is a natural and logical significant expansion of the capabilities of the fleet in the DMZ.
                1. Drugov
                  Drugov April 24 2021 20: 41
                  0
                  Ideally, this is absolutely indisputable, but based on our real capabilities, can or even should we look towards new ABs? I'm not sure.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Avior
                    Avior April 25 2021 01: 35
                    +1
                    The price of a light aircraft carrier or udk in the West approximately corresponds to the cost of a destroyer, one and a half times more expensive than a frigate
                    And the capabilities of such a ship will be fundamentally higher than that of any frigate.
                    Technically, udk is quite capable
                    1. Drugov
                      Drugov April 28 2021 01: 08
                      0
                      And here we will again return to our starting positions, which say that today we have neither the competencies, nor the slipways, nor the quay wall, nor the air wing, nor the AWACS aircraft to implement this idea, and so on along the endless list. In the West, there may and may be some similar figures, but over the past 20 years, not a single DMZ destroyer, udk, or cruiser class ship has been launched into the water.
          2. 971
            971 April 24 2021 17: 46
            0
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            It turns out this is a deck pilot.

            it turns out YOU are verbiage
            what would happen to Khmemim in the conflict with Turkey - an unnecessary question - "a lot of bonfires"
            and in the very first minutes of the conflict
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            You probably haven't read the article?

            And what to read in it?
            How do YOU ​​run from very simple questions like response time to threat?
            Or YOUR nonsense (there will be no other word here) about "readiness for serial production of Tu-22M3" wassat ?
        3. 2 Level Advisor
          2 Level Advisor April 23 2021 08: 48
          +1
          for me - the two positions are not so different .. realists today (RS) and realists tomorrow (RZ) ..
          1) do we need AB at all?
          RZ - yes, of course .. otherwise how can we, a powerful sea power, in the future will control the oceans? and in general - there will be a lot of tasks for them ..
          RS - no, of course ... no money, no opportunities, no goals for them today ... and then, if everything goes well, of course you need ..
          the dispute is strange .. since some about the need and opportunity for today, the second about the future (which, God forbid, will be as they want)

          The bottom line for me: BOTH sides are right, just:
          one today (RS) - right now, they are not what they are not needed, we simply will not do it today .. besides them, there is also an escort, AWACS, targets, bases, supplies in the end, for today, nothing of this is .. and it may appear with total tension, to the detriment of the same nuclear submarine, etc. and 15 years later .. if there are no shifts to the right, which is doubtful .. and these 15+ years, the rest of the army will give resources to AV .. and in general they are needed when everything is in order with the rest .. that is, the RS side is right in its own way. ...
          the other (RZ) is a force that is needed by a great power with a powerful fleet, army and economy .. and here, too, you can't argue, of course, a great power will need AB .. goals and objectives in this situation, the sea will be ..
          1. Avior
            Avior April 23 2021 09: 05
            +4
            I'm a third party :)))
            I believe that the construction of combat-ready large strike aircraft carriers in the present and foreseeable future is unrealistic both from a technical and economic point of view, but carrier-based aircraft itself fundamentally and significantly expands the possibilities for operations in the DMZ. UDC or light aircraft carriers, in my opinion, is a realistic solution to this issue.
            1. 2 Level Advisor
              2 Level Advisor April 23 2021 09: 10
              0
              well then i'm a third party too hi
            2. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 23 2021 23: 32
              0
              our you with a brush hi
          2. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 23 2021 23: 32
            +1
            so the whole joke is that RZ they say so, yes, Aviks are needed, but they will not be made earlier in the 30s ... and today they say that RZ cannot build, so it is not worth thinking about it
  • faterdom
    faterdom April 22 2021 21: 03
    -2
    Space must be taken seriously. This is inevitable, and no "Nonproliferation Treaties" will help, as in the case of nuclear weapons: there is a treaty, it seems, but there is no real nonproliferation.
    And from space any AUG is like flies on a plate.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 22 2021 21: 56
      +4
      And from space any AUG is like flies on a plate.


      No.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 22 2021 21: 32
    -7
    I fully support the balanced opinion of the respected Alexander Vorontsov
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 22 2021 21: 56
      +6
      So good boots, you must take (c) laughing
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst April 22 2021 22: 38
    +3
    I agree with the author on the cost of the proposed types of weapons.
    I propose in the future to compare the effectiveness of two aircraft carriers with what can be built for the same amount. For example, with the same money, you can make 8 submarines, built like Borei, but with Caliber tactical missiles in the mines. Each such boat will carry 14 * 7 = 98 Caliber, which will make this ship the most powerful strike weapon in the fleet. Or you can also build as many as 8 helicopter carriers with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons.

    But in a confrontation with the United States, and not with Poland or Ukraine, these ships are useless without aircraft carriers. Russian submarines with "Caliber" will not be able to approach the launch range on the continental United States without cover from an aircraft carrier, but their counterparts "Ohio" with "Tomahawks" are doing just that against us. It will be even worse with the defense in the ocean crossing or in the combat service of 8 pcs / 15 kt helicopter carriers without the cover of our full-fledged air defense aircraft carrier. The construction of a series of universal or specialized warships is useless for the DMZ until we bring them into a single combat mechanism with a base (foundation) from an aircraft carrier. These will be individually broken twigs until we tie them with a broom. In the Union, similar types of missile boats and more were built, helicopter carriers of the indicated VI were also built, but they did not manage to finish building the Varyag and lay down the Ulyanovsk to the top of the union and stability of the fleet in the ocean. And strategic calculations for their justification were carried out by more serious and more competent people than you and me in the comments and the authors of articles on VO ...
    1. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor April 23 2021 08: 58
      -2
      Do you think it is possible to bomb the USA / RF from the AB? after the RNA, there will be nothing to bomb there ..
  • EMMM
    EMMM April 22 2021 23: 29
    -3
    I apologize, my friends, but all this chatter is completely meaningless.
    Why are AUGs created (the speed of which, by the way, is determined by the slowest ship or escort ship, usually with a discount of 10-20%, the secrecy of such a connection is zero). - ensuring airspace control in a certain tactical region. That is, for a war with the banana republics. The vulnerability of such a compound to autonomous weapons of destruction of a serious enemy is extremely high.
    Question: Does Russia have plans for a war with the banana republics?
    Another class - the KUG is designed to cover the means of deterrence, counter the AUG and control the limited waters of the world ocean in important regions. It has the same disadvantages in terms of speed and visibility.
    The next class is the OUG, as a rule, a small number of ships with sufficient autonomy and a good supply of strike weapons. We saw the results of the application in Syria.
    I will not talk about the submarine forces.
    Aviation is an additional (more expensive) opportunity for the fastest possible solution of OAG tasks.
    Yours faithfully,
    Evgeny Moshkov
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 26 2021 18: 36
      0
      yes, yes, and that is why TNW carriers are based on board the AUG))
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 23 2021 00: 07
    +5
    It's simple. It's not that the aircraft carrier is not needed at all ... It's just that you first need to put things in order in the smaller ships. When we can build at least a corvette a year without a single shift to the right and without a single excess of the estimate, then we can start working on frigates, then destroyers, cruisers ... In general, we will not be able to master the aircraft carrier right now. Not with the current chaos in shipbuilding.
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 00: 31
      +3
      Quite right in my opinion. But we will close BMZ from submarines and mines (I mean not the class of ships, but the task) - it will be possible to think further. Even necessary!
  • shinobi
    shinobi April 23 2021 01: 32
    -5
    The age-old dispute, and absolutely useless. What is good for us, is useless for the Yankees. And vice versa. The future belongs to multipurpose nuclear submarines, frigates and destroyers. The time of big ships is over.
  • parusnik
    parusnik April 23 2021 07: 19
    -2
    A submarine is sailing in the Mediterranean
    Ships and ships are sailing; sailing is different. hi smile
    1. Per se.
      Per se. April 23 2021 08: 09
      +3
      Quote: parusnik
      Floats different.
      You just don’t tell the combat swimmers, and those who are going to sail around the world. In general, the topic "walks and floats", like "ship-ship", is inexhaustible, just like what happened before, a chicken or an egg, whether the general needs an aircraft carrier, and the admiral needs a tank. From the point of view of linguistics, objects float in water, and they fly in the sky. "Aki on dry land" only Christ walked on the water, but the salags liked to rub the most stubborn "Moremans", teaching naval life.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik April 23 2021 08: 27
        +3
        Sorry, we have no combat swimmers. 16 years connected with the sea. Towboats and ferries run with us. Unfortunately, the stuffing of the one that walks is not Russian, except for iron. I will not talk about sad things.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. April 23 2021 08: 41
          +5
          Quote: parusnik
          I will not talk about sad things.
          No need to talk about sad things, on May 5 the professional holiday is celebrated by the elite of the Russian Navy - combat swimmers. I really hope that the combat swimmers of the MTR of the Russian Federation have been and will be. Have a nice day!
          1. Per se.
            Per se. April 23 2021 08: 59
            +3
            More, a little to the topic.


    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 23 2021 11: 34
      +6
      Quote: parusnik
      Ships and ships are sailing; sailing is different.

      Submarines are just floating. smile
  • Per se.
    Per se. April 23 2021 07: 25
    +1
    It is difficult to understand who and why is so stuck, whether Russia will have an aircraft carrier or not, almost according to the number of saved half liters, we are ready to consider the costs. Come on, guys, democrats, let's just swing, but do we need a Russian fleet at all, as well as a priori costly armed forces. Indeed, nuclear weapons are very expensive, both development, production and maintenance, these missiles cost themselves in mines for decades without work, and may never be needed at all.

    Of course, if you get into demagogy, you can immediately prove that this is a completely different matter, let the enemy know about the apocalypse. So it will be for everyone, but one show of force, all the more preventive measures against a relapse to the apocalypse, just can provide a full-fledged fleet, including aircraft carriers. And, as Zadornov used to say, "you don't have to shaggy your grandmother." It is clear that today's bad boys think oil and gas are more reliable than the army and the navy, but, as Napoleon said, -

    People who do not want to feed their army will soon be forced to feed someone else’s


    Or maybe we already feed the alien fleet in this way, through our, not our Central Bank? Better persuade all other countries of the world with developed fleets to abandon aircraft carriers. Or, at least change the "plate", friends of the State Department and "guardians of the people's penny", why do we need a "destroyer" (destroyer) with torpedoes when there is aviation with missiles.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2021 07: 32
    +9
    Let me explain. As soon as Andrey "starts" building ships one more than there is now, the calculated percentage for construction will begin to decline. Due to the fact that the built "over" will start to eat the budget for maintenance. And the more ships “over”, the lower the percentage: 30%, then 28%, then 26%, etc. And since we are already close to that very equilibrium point, the limit will come very quickly.
    Therefore, in my opinion, the calculation is absolutely wrong.

    The calculation is quite correct, the author just does not understand a little one simple thing.
    The GDP of the Russian Federation is still growing slightly, and therefore the percentage that the country will be able to allocate for the maintenance of its armed forces will also grow. I did not take this aspect into account in the calculations at all, by default setting it to increase operating costs.
    Secondly, at the proposed pace of construction, it will take place very gradually, since at the first stages the number of the Navy will not grow, but the old ships will be replaced by new ones. An example is the same Kuznetsov, if we lay down the first ship in the late 20s, then by 2040 the existing aircraft carrier will be replaced with a new one, but their number will not increase. And the second aircraft carrier should be expected sometime in the 50s.
    By this time, if we plan to increase the GDP and budget of the RF Ministry of Defense by only 1% compared to the previous year, then by 2050 it will grow by almost 35% of the current one, and this is without the influence of inflation, of course, At the SAME level of expenses on the fleet ... So there will be more than enough money for maintenance and combat training.
    About the rest ... I have nothing to add to the comments. The author's tactical calculations, alas, do not stand up to criticism.
    1. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor April 23 2021 09: 02
      -3
      The cruiser Nakhimov has been modernized for 22 years and they have allocated enough money, Kuzyu how much is being repaired, why is it certain that AV will be BUILT in 20 years? really just wondering what confidence is based on? on faith in all good things?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2021 10: 31
        +4
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        the cruiser Nakhimov has been modernizing for 22 years and they allocate enough money

        They began to modernize Nakhimov in 2016. In 2015, equipment dismantling and defect detection were in progress there. Well, even if we assume that the modernization began when the cruiser was brought into the Sevmash loading basin, that is, on October 24, 2014, then even then it has been in modernization for roughly 6,5 years. It is difficult to reach this figure up to 7,5 years, since the modernization contract was signed in mid-2013, but it is wrong to think so, because at the time of the contract there was not even a modernization project - it was created within the framework of the contract.
        How did you manage to stretch 22 years - this is a great mystery. However, if you count from the date of the withdrawal of the TARKR from the fleet, then yes. You just need to remember that until 2013, no work was carried out on the ship and it was just idle awaiting modernization.
        1. 2 Level Advisor
          2 Level Advisor April 23 2021 12: 08
          -4
          Well, let it be handed over next - 8 years for the modernization of the finished one! ship with the "insertion" of the finished! and not "still need to develop" equipment and weapons ... and at the same time 20 years for "escort, AWACS, targets, bases, supplies" + new AB - everything from scratch .. why do you think that is this term real? because in theory it is possible? Well, in theory, Nakhimov could have been modernized in a couple of years, practice so far proves otherwise, and by the way, not only in Russia, this will be a completely new aircraft carrier complex ("escort, AWACS, targets, bases, supply" + new AB from scratch) 99% that they will not deliver on time, and it is good if "to the right" is not for a couple of decades, and all this time he will pull resources from other needs of the fleet.
          but if you are about theoretical calculations, then I do not argue, everything is possible ..
          in general, I wrote above, I'm not against AV, I'm for it, but everything has its time .. otherwise the enemies have already tried to create a super tank to the detriment of the mass scale, but in the end the T-34 won ..
          By the way, what is the belief in time based on - you still did not answer, starting to point out the wrong time for calculating Nakhimov's repairs .. hi
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2021 13: 57
            +4
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            8 years to modernize the finished product! ship with the "insertion" of the finished! and not "still need to develop" equipment and weapons ... and at the same time 20 years for "escort, AWACS, targets, bases, supplies" + new AB - everything from scratch .. why do you think that is this term real?

            This "finished" ship has 18 new R&D projects, which are being implemented on it for the first time.
            The escort has nothing to do with the case - it can be made up of both 22350 and 22350M, and all this will be built anyway, with or without AB. For the creation of AWACS 20 years is an acceptable period, we brought the PAK FA to the series in less time. "base / supply" in our case is a normal berth, and the expansion of existing power plants (and even the construction of new ones) to supply water, steam, electricity - all this is done within five years at most, but much faster.
            What confuses you? :)))
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            well, in theory, Nakhimov could have been modernized in a couple of years

            Could not. The volume of work there is colossal, with a catastrophic shortage of labor.
            Do not forget that by 2013 Sevmash was in the deepest ... eghkm ... well, you understand. Since the mid-90s, he sat on one and a half orders, and then, starting in 2012, they tumbled like a cornucopia - here both Project 955 SSBNs and Yaseny. And where can we find workers and shop specialists for this?
            And by the end of the 20s, just at Sevmash, a lot of workers will be freed up, since the series "Boreyev" will end
            You will understand that those dates are the recovery period for the industry. In the USSR in 1927-32 we built patrol boats weighing 600 tons for five years. And in 1937-41 they built "sevens" in three years, light cruisers of the 26-bis project - in 4 years.
            Quote: Level 2 Advisor
            By the way, what is the belief in the timing based on - you still did not answer, starting to point out the wrong time for calculating the repair of Nakhimov.

            So you argue on the merits, I will answer. The example with Nakhimov, as we see, does not fit at all.
            And if we select more or less similar examples, then we will see that Vikramaditya was rebuilt and handed over to the Indians in 8 years (and there the scope of work was close to the construction of a new ship). And this was done at the very "bottom", where Sevmash failed, while today and by the end of the 20s it will be at the peak of its capabilities.
    2. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin April 23 2021 09: 14
      +2
      The author's tactical calculations, alas, do not stand up to criticism.

      I disagree with you, Andrey, fundamentally disagree. Not "alas" laughing
  • prior
    prior April 23 2021 08: 17
    -4
    There are a lot of bukav, but the result is the same.
    We need an aircraft carrier, like a flight to the Sun ...
    There are a lot of costs - as a result, some show-off.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 23 2021 10: 50
    +6
    Well, in conclusion: helicopters, not airplanes, will be engaged in the detection of submarines (oh, it turns out, what Kuzya was doing in Syria ... he opened the underwater situation with fighters). This means that the same helicopter carriers will cope with the task.

    Who will cover these helicopter carriers from the air? Shipborne SAMs with their radio horizon problem? Or coastal aviation, which will bring up reserves already when the enemy is unloading anti-ship missiles?
    The task of AB is to provide air cover for anti-submarine groups in areas remote from the nearest airfield by more than 400 km. And cover for the base patrol aircraft in the same place. It is better to leave anti-submarine missions covered - otherwise we will get a universal wing, which is equally bad in everything.
  • Roman070280
    Roman070280 April 23 2021 11: 14
    -10%
    Yes, how much can you chew on this topic ..
    An aircraft carrier is needed by those who wish to send aircraft to places where it cannot get by itself .. Do we need to bomb Mexico, or South Africa ?? Are we ready to throw hundreds of billions into the void ??
    Obviously, this is bullshit.
    Even the half-aircraft carrier Kuznetsov already shows a whole bunch of problems with its presence .. and the lack of the need for its use and maintenance ..
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 23 2021 11: 42
      +4
      Quote: Roman070280
      Yes, how much can you chew on this topic ..
      An aircraft carrier is needed for those who wish to send aircraft to places where it cannot get by itself ..

      The aircraft carrier is needed by those who wish to carry the PLO line further than 400 km from the nearest airfield and provide air cover for ship groups.
      1. Roman070280
        Roman070280 April 23 2021 11: 45
        -10%
        more than 400 km from the nearest airfield

        Open the map of Russia .. arrange the aircraft carriers .. and you will have time to count them before morning ..))
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 23 2021 11: 47
          +4
          Quote: Roman070280
          Open the map of Russia .. arrange the aircraft carriers .. and you will have time to count them before morning ..))

          It is better to mark the SSBN bases and the proposed positioning areas. And figure out how to ensure the safety of SSBNs on the way from the bases and in the areas themselves.
          1. Roman070280
            Roman070280 April 23 2021 11: 55
            -11%
            That airfields were, now SSBNs ..
            AUG floats behind each SSBN for safety (and stealth) ..))

            Shl .. in general, why are AVs needed so far, but I really want to ..))
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 23 2021 12: 53
              +6
              Quote: Roman070280
              That airfields were, now SSBNs ..

              So for SSBNs, it is necessary to build ASW lines on the approaches to the positional areas. Involving surface ships and base patrol aircraft for this. And covering it all from the air.
              And it just so happened with our geography that in the North the right flank of this line is 600 km from the land and the nearest airfield. And when the fighters from the shore come to the aid of the ships on this flank, they will find only wreckage.
              Quote: Roman070280
              AUG floats behind each SSBN for safety (and stealth) ..))

              Take it higher - AB accepts SSBNs on deck. smile
              Seriously, no one is following anyone. Covering by the method of direct escort for submarines is used only when entering or exiting the base.
              Surface ships and base aircraft line up a line that intercepts the maximum that flies or goes to the positioning area. The task of the AB is to cover from the air that part of the forces of the line that is outside the effective range of coastal aviation.
              1. Roman070280
                Roman070280 April 23 2021 13: 22
                -3
                The task of the AB is to cover from the air that part of the forces of the line that is outside the effective range of coastal aviation.
                It is necessary for amers to throw the idea .. otherwise they use their AVs not at all according to their tasks ..))
                1. 2 Level Advisor
                  2 Level Advisor April 23 2021 13: 42
                  -3
                  I just wanted to say, well, then the Americans do not engage in such a cover, they seem to have everything ready even for this ... maybe because if the boat is 200-300 km away from the base - - you go nuts to look for it at least something stupid area search huge ..
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA April 23 2021 19: 20
                  +4
                  Quote: Roman070280
                  It is necessary for amers to throw the idea .. otherwise they use their AVs not at all according to their tasks ..))

                  It's just that they don't need to do this now - there is no longer the USSR with its crowds of SSGNs, SSNNs and maritime ships.
                  But in the Cold War, work on the anti-aircraft defense / air defense line and covering the transatlantic routes was one of the standard tasks of their AUG.
                  1. 2 Level Advisor
                    2 Level Advisor April 24 2021 18: 09
                    0
                    Alexey, I looked and did not find such a task AUG - do not tell me where the information comes from? but somehow it turns out ugly with unfounded evidence, I looked, I did not find it anywhere ...
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA April 26 2021 10: 13
                      0
                      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                      Alexey, I looked and did not find such a task AUG - do not tell me where the information comes from?

                      From the rationale for the formation of universal air wings on the attack aircraft, which included the Viking squadron. Then the AUG was entrusted with the tasks previously performed by the anti-submarine groups with the Essex that had left for decommissioning.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 23 2021 12: 29
    +3
    How successful would the militants' offensive be if their equipment were destroyed in the same way as the Azerbaijanis did in Karabakh? And what would happen to Karabakh if ​​the Armenians had not disproportionately expensive planes, but export versions of Orion?


    In fact, expensive Armenian aircraft did not participate in the war at all. Like Armenia as a whole, as a state. But what would happen in Syria, if there were analogs of the Bayraktar, there would be almost nothing fundamentally different, because, unlike the Bayraktar, even the old Su-24M, on which a new sighting system was installed, carries dozens of times more combat load and is capable of hitting not only more targets, but orders of magnitude more protected targets and area targets, while the "bayraktar" has only a couple of 1 kg bombs. That is, where KAB-70 is needed, or even 500, or a pack of FAB-1500-250, even 270 light UAVs will not replace one full-fledged bomber. They will not replace this bomber in terms of speed, if we are talking about distances of hundreds of kilometers.

    At the same time, all these UAVs were to be located on the territory of Khmeinim, which means that any large vehicles would compete with all other aircraft for the runway. The small ones fly too far, and taking their operators out of the base would make them potential targets for attack, that is, we would lose dozens of personnel, the barmaley are excellent at fighting at their partisan level.

    And the Su-25 of the Azerbaijani Air Force made more than 600 sorties, that is, nothing would depend on the presence or absence of light attack UAVs. Hundreds of guns and tanks, plus the Su-25, as it were, a more important factor.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 23 2021 12: 50
    +1
    Let's imagine an abstract example - we have nothing and we start building 100 aircraft. Maintenance costs 0. There is also nothing to repair. What percentage of the total budget is available for construction? 100 percent.


    By the way, this factor is clear to any person who at least played a strategy game, where the units have content and starting from some point it becomes difficult to build up an army. Either the capture of new sources of resources, or the elimination of lower quality troops and replacing them with more efficient ones.
  • Slippery
    Slippery April 23 2021 13: 45
    0
    Again, news flashed about the cover of Iranian tankers of the Russian Navy. Here is an example not in a vacuum, but here and now. I would like to hear the opinion of Aleksandrov and Vorontsov and Timokhin. If it doesn't make it difficult
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 23 2021 18: 30
      +3
      Without these tankers, Syria will end. And Iran itself cannot protect them.

      So our fleet is doing what fleets exist for, in principle.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 23 2021 22: 28
    +1
    1) You are bored.
    2) you got bored
    3) You are bored.
    ...
    99) You are bored.
    100) You can always watch how the opponents of aircraft carriers adjust the options for the options convenient for themselves ... Missile carriers are a good thing, especially when you know what to bomb, and even better, when you were allowed to fly through your territory, and if you need exactly that air support, then the missile carriers are so-so things.
    101) About "attack by helicopters" ... Ka-52 has a combat radius of 230 km .. I repeat, combat radius, ie. real combat use is about 150-200 km.
    102) Who said that Sudan will allow you to rent an airfield?

    and a bunch of different reasons .. Well, really, do not take seriously the words about "it is better to seize Ukraine than your Africa to be engaged" ... The decision to build an aircraft carrier has been made .. They will build in the 30s .. point ... Stop procrastinating on this topic ... At least 256 articles write-reality will not change
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 24 2021 13: 40
      0
      Who told you then that Sudan would allow your trough to launch airplanes into its airspace at all.

      You have already pulled up to invent 100500 million of ridiculous scenarios that, upon closer examination, do not require any plane-dumper.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 24 2021 19: 52
        0
        laughing those. He will not allow airplanes to launch, but a military airfield will give you ... your logic is not very good ... and most importantly ... but who said that an aircraft carrier must be near Sudan? it was Vorontsov who suggested that Sudan would give us a base and it could be used for local operations, and if the DB theater is not in Sudan itself, but somewhere else, then the aircraft carrier can work next to this theater from international waters ...
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    April 23 2021 23: 56
    -1
    Quote: Pete Mitchell
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    The fact that relocation is the most important element taken into account when planning the entire aerodrome network?
    That you MUST attend to the issues of relocation ... That you need air tankers? Is it because they allow aircraft to increase their combat radius?

    Without a doubt, the questions are posed correctly, but what is there in real life? The presented document simply brilliantly reflects the theory, but in practice? Is the number of tankers adequate for the size of the Country and its interests? Are all 22m3 ready for this? Is their application to the destruction of AUG provided with information?
    And by the way, Ancient capitalized

    No, that's the point.
    That is why I proposed to consider alternatives and prioritize - how else can we spend the sums on which they plan to build an aircraft carrier.
    And do it carefully, considering each senarius.

    Supporters of aircraft carriers think differently - we will build it and will substitute it in solving any situation.
    To which I asked to try to substitute him in solving the most important situation for us - in Ukraine.
    To which Timokhin received a direct refusal to do this (for obvious reasons). As if what was required to prove.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 24 2021 11: 17
      +2
      To which I asked to try to substitute him in solving the most important situation for us - in Ukraine.
      To which Timokhin received a direct refusal to do this (for obvious reasons). As if what was required to prove.


      Ukraine will end after the cancellation of gas transit.
      Ukraine is not forever.
      What will you do then, after Ukraine.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 24 2021 13: 47
        0
        The same as before. Engage in politics, equip military bases where we seriously visit. It is only in your fevered brain that we have interests in Sudan, and Sudan does not allow us to build a base there. You generally understand that by signing contracts with us for billions, the local president will also expect that our thugs will guard his ass. And then, what if he was overthrown and included the regime of rejection of the agreements concluded by the transferees? Given that we have less income from all over Africa than one AUG will cost. And a war to occupy someone in Africa, given the current cost of waging it, is simply devoid of economic sense.
      2. Alexander Vorontsov
        April 24 2021 17: 58
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Ukraine will end after the cancellation of gas transit.
        Ukraine is not forever.
        What will you do then, after Ukraine.

        Do I understand correctly that AB will not solve the problem in any way?

        Did you invent planetary theroforming?

        Of course the SAME Ukraine is FOREVER. Just like the Caucasus.
        We will always have to spend resources to influence these regions. Pay money to any Kadyrovs so that they keep their Jegits in a passive state.
        If we don't buy Chechen and Ukrainian politicians ... or Georgian ... other guys will gladly buy them. With the Stars and Stripes across the shoulder. I don’t need to explain what will come of it.

        Until a technology has been invented that allows us to cut off a piece of land and send it to another planet, we are forced to sit on this barrel of gunpowder called the Caucasus. And we are forced to border on all states with which we border.
        1. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin April 24 2021 18: 38
          0
          Alexander, I am from the Caucasus, and have been to Chechnya and other republics more than once, so I can openly say that what you write has NOTHING to do with reality. Money was poured into Chechnya not only in order to calm down the situation there, but also in order to restore it from the ruins after long years of war. Since then, the situation there has changed dramatically in terms of calmness, loyalty to Moscow, and so on.

          I will not prove anything and write, it will take a long time. Just go there for a week somehow, walk around Grozny, and talk to people. You will be surprised.
          1. Avior
            Avior April 24 2021 20: 09
            0
            Forgive me, please, how many Russians are there in percentage terms in this republic loyal to Moscow?
            Are they there at all?
            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin April 25 2021 19: 42
              0
              Are they there at all?

              They are, although there are few of them. Memories are too fresh. But the Chechens would really be glad for the Russians to return. And if they find out that someone lived there before the war, then he generally becomes his own. I never lived there, I only visited, but I saw how the residents of Grozny communicated with my former teacher, who headed the House of Pioneers in Gudermes for 20 years. Then she took excursions there more than once (the daughters had a travel agency in Kavminvody, she periodically helps them), so she was so persistently called to return that she no longer knew how to excuse herself so as not to offend. And this is not the only case.

              However, now Chechnya is not so much a region of Russia as a state under a Russian protectorate with broad autonomy. There is a very peculiar way of life, in which not every Russian will feel comfortable. This, plus in memory, as I said, is the reason that the Russians are in no hurry to go there for permanent residence.
    2. 971
      971 April 24 2021 17: 41
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      That is why I proposed to consider alternatives and prioritize - how else can we spend the amounts,

      the problem is that YOU have these "sums" like a "thimble-maker"
      and have nothing to do with reality
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      Supporters of aircraft carriers think differently - we will build it and will substitute it in solving any situation.
      To which I asked to try to substitute him in solving the most important situation for us - in Ukraine.
      To which Timokhin received a direct refusal to do this (for obvious reasons). As if what was required to prove.

      Yes, YOU are corny lying.
      For the "404 solution" is not in the Donbass, but in a completely different region.
      And in which the possibility of "if something" "add" there by an aircraft carrier is very important
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        April 24 2021 17: 59
        -3
        Quote: 971
        the problem is that YOU have these "sums" like a "thimble-maker"
        and have nothing to do with reality

        So you can write an alternative, I kind of made it clear that the question is open - suggest it! And I took the amounts for AB from the calculations of Andrey from Chelyabinsk, who is a supporter of AB. By the way, the cost of the submarine is from the same place.

        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 09: 26
          -1
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          I kind of made it clear that the question is open - suggest

          about YOUR "techniques of JACOB discussion" will be in continuation of the first part of the answer https://topwar.ru/182281-na-puti-k-cusime-nash-flot-bez-avianoscev.html
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            April 28 2021 20: 02
            0
            Quote: 971
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            I kind of made it clear that the question is open - suggest

            about YOUR "techniques of JACOB discussion" will be in continuation of the first part of the answer https://topwar.ru/182281-na-puti-k-cusime-nash-flot-bez-avianoscev.html

            The most important question is the ratio of price and efficiency of comparing AB and helicopter carriers.
            Taking into account the real possibilities for the rotation of ships.
            Those. it is advisable not to consider the option - to build 1 aircraft carrier and then write that it is always ready and always in the right place.
            I hope you understand that 8 helicopter carriers can cover 3-4 areas on a permanent basis (90% of the time).
            And 1 AB (the equivalent in terms of money, taking into account Andrey's calculations) cannot cover only 1, and then only 60% of the time.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                April 28 2021 20: 40
                0
                Quote: 971
                don't bullshit hurt her
                they do not "cover" but act there as TARGETS



                Can helicopters aboard URF ships and landing ships available to the Russian Navy take on some of the tasks that are supposed to be accomplished in a comprehensive manner by forces based on full-fledged aircraft carrier ships - both ship planes and helicopters?

                The answer is yes, they can.

                https://topwar.ru/161373-vozdushnye-bojcy-nad-okeanskimi-volnami-o-roli-vertoletov-v-vojne-na-more.html


                therefore they need SEVERAL

                It's good that at least you understand that.
                A few is how much?
                If you touch the Kuril Islands, then you already need 4 at least.


                And when you argue, you also have the feeling that only in the navy there is something to spend money on, and in other branches of the military, everything is gorgeous and chocolatey, everything is there in the right quantities.


                The Americans, for example, train aviation operations with 4 air refuelings.

                I wrote about 1-2 refueling when hitting with Engels, they already began to write to me that this game is unreal.
                Just like in your torpedo shooting topics
                By the same logic, we can say 1 torpedo was fired and that's enough for us.

                The problem is that there are many holes and money is needed everywhere.
                1. 971
                  971 April 28 2021 20: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  The Americans, for example, train aviation operations with 4 air refuelings.

                  No problem
                  only here you have a stake on your head for a long time already amused by real pilots with vast experience on the issue of the RESOURCE of flight personnel
                  the rest later
  • Vladimir Vitalin
    Vladimir Vitalin April 24 2021 15: 37
    +1
    Yes ... I read and understood - the author "bit the bit" to the fullest. I'm tired of writing a lot - I will be brief. Dear AUTHOR - YOU are just a strategic genius of the 21st century, a prophet of the development of shipbuilding ... But there is one question - WHY in Italy, France, England, USA, Japan, China, India, etc. there was no one equal to YOU ​​in understanding your own fatal mistake with the construction of aircraft-carrying ships. ANYONE and they stupidly continue to give birth to new projects in agony and build ships WITHOUT LOOKING AT YOUR AUTHORITY OPINION ... Apparently their innate natural stupidity is many times greater than your genius, but they have not yet understood this. For this I finish ... Article - order 100%.
    1. 971
      971 April 24 2021 17: 37
      0
      Quote: Vladimir Vitalin
      Yes ... I read and understood - the author "bit the bit" to the fullest. I'm already tired of writing a lot - I will be brief. Dear AUTHOR - YOU are just a strategic genius of the 21st century, a prophet of the development of shipbuilding ..

      You are somehow humble about him lol YksepErto-stratEg lol well, just a vololazo-bucephalus instead of a Macedonian loser laughing
      Only here is one "small but" how place given volosazoYkspeerd lol I thought when I was counting the time working on Nyrox (!!!!) wassat near the Kerch bridgeа lol in his "YkspArt conclusion wassat Online"
      There is an expression "stupid military". Not in the sense of stupid, but in the sense of co common sense .
      And with this sense, Nyrox, who proposes YksperD, for those conditions, will make fool
      after which they will fill the cylinders with air through the purification blocks and will calmly dive without any decompression restrictions (for those conditions, the depth units meters)
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        April 28 2021 20: 13
        0
        Quote: 971
        Quote: Vladimir Vitalin
        Yes ... I read and understood - the author "bit the bit" to the fullest. I'm already tired of writing a lot - I will be brief. Dear AUTHOR - YOU are just a strategic genius of the 21st century, a prophet of the development of shipbuilding ..

        You are somehow humble about him lol YksepErto-stratEg lol well, just a vololazo-bucephalus instead of a Macedonian loser laughing
        Only here is one "small but" how place given volosazoYkspeerd lol I thought when I was counting the time working on Nyrox (!!!!) wassat near the Kerch bridgeа lol in his "YkspArt conclusion wassat Online"
        There is an expression "stupid military". Not in the sense of stupid, but in the sense of co common sense .
        And with this sense, Nyrox, who proposes YksperD, for those conditions, will make fool
        after which they will fill the cylinders with air through the purification blocks and will calmly dive without any decompression restrictions (for those conditions, the depth units meters)

        1) Equipment is not picked up under the "minimum conditions".
        2) N32 - has long been considered a recreational gas in all developed communities and there are many explanations for this.
        Oxygen in general has a positive effect on our body, increases tolerance to stress, both physical and mental. And the longer a person is under water, the more the difference is felt.








        3) The main thing is that when needed they have at hand the equipment for the preparation of the mixture.
        And then bravado, bravado, but as with Kursk, not a single hero was found who could go down 100 meters to the submariners in the clogged air through filters - they could not do an elementary thing.

        And so yes you are right, rather my mentions about the 32nd stupid dreams divorced from reality. I understand this myself very well, including from the experience of communicating with Russian divers - they will hang themselves for 5 bucks.
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 20: 34
          -1
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Oxygen in general has a positive effect on our body

          with your pontorezs YOU missed
          I also went on oxygen (IDA-71)
          ESSENCE I wrote clearly
          and all sane people understand this
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey April 26 2021 10: 06
    0
    "... By driving AV into a" puddle ", we deprive it of its operational space. And those tactical advantages that it could have in this very space, including the main thing - the ability to attack enemy ships with aircraft, being outside the retaliatory strike zone ..."
    You would explain this to amers a genius you are not recognized, otherwise they "fools" did not hear your arguments and keep two AUGs in the Mediterranean Sea, but still imagine, there are two SSBNs on duty, but now the rumor has passed that after reading your, mm creativity, they realized the depth of their delusions, because who they are are just people who have been holding dominion at sea for 70 years, and you, you are the brain, the cerebrum, so to speak, is really not of high quality, but still ...
    Then what do you want there .. and face you came out to want something from other people, in my opinion not.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey April 26 2021 10: 08
    +1
    The article is nonsense - the author is not competent.