Military Review

A few questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers

234

To fight without aviation difficult, sometimes impossible, and the only way to have it anywhere and exactly on time is an aircraft carrier. No others.

Photo: press service of the North fleet

Recently, a series of articles on the justification of the uselessness of aircraft-carrying ships in the fleet has been published on Voennoye Obozreniye.

The authors' argumentation usually boils 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. At the same time, absolutely any arguments by the authors are usually discarded as such wars do not shine for us, we must abandon interests outside our borders, but in any case, we will find an air base somewhere nearby ... In especially pathological cases, it is proposed to start a nuclear war in response to any shot, Moreover, even if the United States does not participate in the conflict, then immediately hit them, cause a retaliatory nuclear strike on its own, after all, America is definitely for any of our enemies, right? So, we all need nuclear suicide, it's not the same to build a fleet ...

We must clearly understand that the issues of creating a military fleet in general and aircraft carrier forces (without which the capabilities of the Navy are very severely slaughtered) in particular, in our country have long been turned into irrational, and in some especially neglected cases, in general, into medical ones.

The reason for this lies in the fact that the consciousness of a significant part of our citizens still bears distinct signs of that of the pre-industrial era, and such complex issues as the Navy simply do not fit into their heads. Potatoes in the garden - fit, the neighboring city where there is (or not) Ikea, unlike the city of residence - fits, the fleet - does not fit. The land for which you can fight in order to take it, dear land, (or, alternatively, not to give it) - fits, and the significance of open sea communications - does not fit. And really, what kind of fleet is in the taiga? There is no fleet there, which means that it does not exist, and cannot exist at all, and there is nothing to breed verbiage here.

This unpleasant and tough, but truthful conclusion is directly confirmed by the fact that none of the authors has ever illustrated the uselessness of an aircraft carrier with any even primitive tactical task simplified to an unacceptable level in military planning. With distances, combat radii and specific areas of the oceans. This means that the propaganda of the uselessness of aircraft-carrying ships among those who disseminate it is not worth understanding the process. They think in cliches, but they simply cannot imagine the reflection of the American "alpha-strike", as well as a lot of other things.

Most likely, the discussion will have to be returned to a rigid conceptual framework.
Let's ask the opponents of the aircraft carriers a number of questions, an attempt to answer which would make them start thinking not in clichés.

Question 1. How are you going to fight without aviation in principle?


One of the problems that hinder the understanding of aircraft carrier issues is a kind of fetishization of this word, it is perceived by some people in isolation from its content. Meanwhile, it is the content that is important.

The aircraft carrier is not a fetish, not a symbol or an instrument of world imperialism. This means to ensure the basing and combat use of aviation outside the combat radius of the basic (in "everyday" terminology - coastal) aviation, or - with the time of entry into battle, significantly less than that for basic aviation.

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

"Where our aircraft from the shore cannot be in the minimum necessary time, the interests of the Russian Federation should end, in this case, it should be abandoned to ensure its military security."

Let's look at a specific example.

As you know, the United States has made great efforts to create a terrorist group called the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - ISIS (banned in the Russian Federation). While the leaders of this group communicated with each other in the American concentration camp at Camp Bucca, generating creative ideas for the future, the American Green Berets trained Sunni militias in central Iraq, which (according to the American command's plan) would then have to fight al-Qaeda. ...

Then step by step: the future leaders of ISIS were released. "Berets" distributed all their equipment to their students and weapon (up to American-assembled Toyota-Tundra pickups with special forces "gadgets" such as boxes for grenade launchers and machine-gun brackets - the columns of these white "Toyota" quite often got into the frame in the first year of the existence of ISIS) and retreated. And the group, having gathered around the newly-minted leaders, immediately rebelled. Well, everyone who followed this war remembers the invasion of American-trained militants along the Euphrates into Syria from Jordan and Turkey along converging directions - by that time Assad had almost suppressed the Islamist uprising, peace was not far ...

The two terrorist armies joined together and announced that they are now also ISIS. Perhaps this is such a coincidence. The USA gradually even bombed their offspring later, denoting a fight against it, but very sluggishly. But the Syrian troops and Iranian troops, who were bleeding to death in the war with this monster, they did not touch.

Let us ask ourselves a question - what if the Americans were to clear the way for the militants with air strikes in the same way as their loyal henchmen, the Danes, did it later near Deir es-Zor, opening the way for ISIS fighters to the city? We are not talking about open intervention in the war on the side of terrorists, but about occasional rare strikes, but at critical moments for the Syrian defense? Could this have happened not from 2016 and later, but before our intervention? Quite. And in the United States there would be many supporters of such an intervention.

When our forces began to arrive in Syria, the fighting, as we remember, was already on the streets of Damascus.
But what if the militants, receiving occasional assistance from their creators, were too close to Khmeimim? To other airbases? How would we stop them then?
In reality, nothing. Because our only aircraft carrier and both naval air regiments were not capable of combat at that time.

But if the aircraft carrier were in a combat-ready form and if its aircraft were also combat-ready, then we simply would not have such a sharp dependence on Khmeimim. The first stage of the war, when the number of military sorties of the Aerospace Forces was measured by several dozen per day, we would have fully pulled out the "Kuznetsov" and episodic strikes from Mozdok.

Accordingly, opponents of aircraft carriers are asked to answer the question - how in the future in a similar situation to do without aircraft? What to do when there are tasks, but there are no air bases?

This is not an idle question - let's look at the scheme of Russia's economic presence in Africa.

A few questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers
Image: RBC

We look at the money invested and the turnover. So far, the security of these investments is provided by guys from non-state structures and a very small number of military advisers from the RF Armed Forces. But all these are "peacetime games".

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 what should we do then, how to save our money? The answer at all times lay in phrases such as "marines", "commandos", etc. And we will not be an exception. Should any such event happen in a significant region for us, and have to restore "constitutional order" there. 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.

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.

And how can this be done if there are no safe airfields in the region? What will the opponents of aircraft carriers say?

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.

The scenario, by the way, is quite real - as soon as we were there, the Americans immediately visited Port Sudan. And it's not just that, they will still try to survive us from there.

Well, how to get out without planes, dear opponents of aircraft carriers? After all, all of the above risks have a very specific link to the events taking place right now. And in Syria, the militants almost won. And we are present in Africa. These are all not fantasies, but the reality of today.

Despite the realism of all of the above, one can predict in advance what they will say: this will never happen, these are all inventions of the Moremans, well, they did it in Syria, we have nothing to do outside our borders, we are not Turks in order to have any interests in the world ...

But what if you think about it? After all, later, when it turns out that fighters and attack aircraft with red stars are needed, but they are not, it will be too late. You have to be prepared for war in advance.

From the question "how are you going to fight without aviation" a particular case of this question smoothly follows.

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


Relatively recently, relations between Russia and Turkey have seriously deteriorated due to the situation in the Syrian province of Idlib. These events are mentioned in the article "Will the frigates with" Calibers "be able to pacify Turkey?"as well as the related naval problems.

An important point - this war, in theory, was not needed by anyone: neither Russia nor Turkey. However, in the case of Turkey, Erdogan, apparently, was experiencing the strongest pressure within the country, especially after someone's (it is clear whose) bomb killed several dozen Turkish conscripts at the command post. The escalation could have occurred outside of connection with the decisions of the Turkish political leadership, and our response to it could have made the situation irreversible.

This is a very important point - sometimes wars start when no one wanted them. The First World War, for example, for all European participants, except England, was undesirable, and for England its course turned out to be extremely undesirable. In such conditions, a war with Turkey would be quite possible.

The question arises - how would our group in Syria keep up in such conditions? Do not think that she would be dumped. In the Black Sea direction, Russia could create enough problems for Turkey so that it could not throw all its power on Khmeimim and other air bases in Syria. Together with the Syrian troops, our group could hold there for some time. But it would need to be supplied and strengthened.

The supply could well be through the Baltic and Gibraltar and through Iran and the Red Sea. In the latter case, it would be possible to attract Iranian tonnage for transportation.
But how would we protect the convoys from Turkish air strikes? Even if the war lasted for a month or three weeks, this problem would have to be solved. After all, the Turks can operate from Libya. And they will find forces for a long-distance flight from Turkish territory against the convoy.

The answer is that it would be necessary to cover them with our own fighters. But Syria is far away, and the Turks in Libya have both airfields and airplanes. How and with what to deal with them?

Consider escorting a convoy on the “roughly” section of the route from Crete to Cyprus. Khmeimim is a thousand kilometers away. How to provide fighter cover from there? It is much closer to Turkey, even if we detect the takeoff of Turkish fighters immediately, then ours do not have time from Khmeimim, and even more so from other bases in Syria. Solution - look at the combat radius of the MiG-29K with air-to-air missiles from an aircraft carrier located south of Crete at the edge of the Territory. waters of Greece.


Greece is a state hostile to Turkey. They, too, were teetering on the brink of war quite recently, Crete is covered by an aircraft carrier from the north, and there are Greek S-300s there. At the same time, the aircraft carrier, as a mobile unit, can at any time make a dash to the southeast, moving towards Syria, but remaining at a distance from Turkey, while keeping the convoy inside the combat radius of the ship's fighters. And closer to Syria, the VKS aircraft from the coast will already cope.

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?

Question 3. How are you going to do without aerial reconnaissance?


Let's remember the Soviet era. The ICRC "Legend" system gave CU in about a third of the cases, the rest of the time this was hindered by various factors. Let us recall Admiral I.M.Kapitanets and the great exercises of the Northern Fleet:

Under the leadership of the commander of the 1st FLPL, Vice-Admiral E. Chernov, an experimental exercise of a tactical group on a detachment of warships was conducted in the Barents Sea, after which rocket firing at a target field was carried out. Target designation was planned from the Legend space system.

During a four-day exercise in the Barents Sea, it was possible to work out the joint navigation of a tactical group, to acquire skills in the management and organization of a missile strike.

Of course, two SSGNs of pr. 949, having 48 missiles, even in conventional equipment, are capable of independently incapacitating an aircraft carrier. This was a new direction in the fight against aircraft carriers - the use of SSGN pr. 949. In fact, a total of 12 SSGNs of this project were built, of which eight for the Northern Fleet and four for the Pacific Fleet.

The pilot exercise showed a low probability of target designation from the Legend spacecraft, therefore, to support the actions of the tactical group, the formation of a reconnaissance and shock curtain was required as part of three nuclear submarines of the project 705 or 671 RTM. Based on the results of the pilot exercise, it was planned to deploy an anti-aircraft division to the Norwegian Sea during the command and control of the fleet in July.

Now the Northern Fleet has the opportunity to effectively operate submarines independently or jointly with naval missile-carrying aviation on the US aircraft carrier-strike formation in the North-East Atlantic.

How was the issue of obtaining information about the enemy resolved?

Primary detection was carried out in the course of complex operations of all types of reconnaissance - space, aviation, radio reconnaissance, etc.

But it was the data for missile strikes that were mainly obtained using the "Success" system, the main means of which were Tu-95RTs reconnaissance target designation aircraft.


Tu-95RTs and the American carrier-based "Phantom" that intercepted it

How can we ensure the same now?

We must clearly understand that we will not be able to follow the Soviet path - we simply will not have enough money. How much will the same fleet of long-range targeting aircraft as in the USSR cost, that is, 52 new (we do not consider alteration) Tu-95RTs? You can safely imagine that the price will be comparable to the cost of a new bomber. In other words, about 15 billion rubles (like the Tu-160) per unit. That is, we are talking about about 780 billion rubles.

But the trouble is, these are just two brand new aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 40–45 kilotons, with a pair of catapults each, for 24–30 aircraft. Can naval fighters be used as reconnaissance aircraft? They can.

Quote:

As previously reported, the Russian MiG-29K carrier-based fighters have already received new information exchange systems, and in the near future they will also equip heavy carrier-based fighters Su-33, which will undergo modernization. It is also reported that thanks to this, Russian carrier-based aircraft will be able to issue target designations for anti-ship missiles, as well as in advance "notify" the ship's air defense systems about the enemy.

In fact, we are talking about the creation of a unified tactical data exchange system, similar to the well-known American information exchange system "Link-16". Within the framework of this system, each aircraft, a ship, is one of its "subscribers" and the information received by it is instantly transmitted to all other members of the network. As reported in open sources, the new system was named the Unified Management System (ESU) of the Navy.

Ships, aircraft and naval headquarters will be united into a single network.

In fact, we are talking about the fact that any fighter can become the "eyes" of a strike group, providing data for firing to all - surface ships, submarines with cruise missiles, if they are in touch, assault or other strike aircraft "on the shore", coastal missile systems " Bastion "and their future versions with a hypersonic missile, even units and formations of the Aerospace Forces.

A simple scheme is carried out - the detection of a contact "somewhere out there", using RTR or satellite reconnaissance, or a submarine's SAC, a search for a reconnaissance or reconnaissance-strike group from an aircraft carrier, a strike following the results of a RUG departure. Anywhere in the world. They can also search for the enemy themselves.

The fact that the project is proceeding very slowly and with a creak does not mean that it is unrealistic, the problems there are purely organizational. All that is needed is to bring the system described above to a working state, and equip ship aircraft with more powerful radars.

And, lo and behold - our ultra-long-range anti-ship missiles got a target! It is no longer necessary to push the missile cruiser towards the enemy, it can attack from many hundreds of kilometers, receiving target data from ship planes from an aircraft carrier located somewhere far away. At the same time, obviously, the combat stability of the four modern fighters is incomparably higher than that of the huge "pterodactyl", especially if it is a subsonic aircraft, as was the Tu-95RTs.

And if we go along the Soviet path, then with this money we will build only vulnerable reconnaissance and target designation aircraft, and after all, we also need to create strike forces and pay for them! An aircraft carrier with aircraft is both reconnaissance forces and sometimes strike forces: two in one. Amusingly, an aircraft carrier fleet may turn out to be cheaper than an "asymmetric" one.


The difference in the capabilities of the USSR Navy and the US Navy. The numbers are inaccurate, but their orders are correct. The reasons for this difference: the Americans could use aircraft anywhere. Thanks to aircraft carriers

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.

The naval aviation is able to almost completely "close" the issues of reconnaissance and target designation in naval warfare. Of course, if it is combat-ready and equipped with the necessary equipment. The satellites give a "picture" with insufficient frequency, moreover, they can evade detection. An example of a real satellite constellation is shown in the article “Sea warfare for beginners. We take the aircraft carrier to strike "... Basic aviation is "tied" to its bases. An aircraft carrier can operate anywhere, and therefore its aircraft too.

What in all this does not suit the opponents of the aircraft carrier?

Question 4. Why do you not want to use aviation even when it is vital?


Let us examine such a task that was once considered one of the main tasks for the Navy - disrupting an enemy nuclear missile strike from oceanic directions.

Active work by the United States on the creation of high-precision nuclear warheads of reduced power W76-2 for the Trident SLBM, a program for the creation of hypersonic weapons for submarines, a similar program for the army (medium-range missiles with a hypersonic glider) and a program for the creation of hypersonic missiles for aviation (for example , AGM-183 ARRW) say that within 7-8 years the United States will have the potential to deliver such a blow with serious chances of success. That is, the absence of a response from our side or a weak response with acceptable losses.

Politically, it will be very beneficial for the United States to show brutally knocking out the "Russian support" from under China. They do not consider us a significant enemy and are much less afraid than North Korea or Iran. It's hard to say why, but they very often feel contempt for us as an enemy. The combination of these factors is very explosive and potentially fraught with an attempt to remove us from the site in one move.

In such conditions, it will be extremely important to track in advance at least some of their submarines, without which they may not be able to count on the full success of the strike without deploying them near our territory - there is simply not enough time. And mutual nuclear suicide does not suit them.

These are the zones. Of course, the launch can be made not only from them. But the farther from the territory of the Russian Federation, the lower the chances of doing everything quickly, without running into at least some kind of retaliatory or retaliatory strike.


Red zones - the strike from which is delivered in less time than the launch command will pass through the combat control networks. In the case of the Pacific Ocean, the rocket flight is longer in time, but the early warning system is detected too late. Yellow zones - a strike from which in time is or slightly less than the time it takes for a command to respond to a counter strike, or "about" the same. The boundaries are approximate.

For the location of SSBNs in the Gulf of Alaska, see article "A blow against reality or about the fleet, Tu-160 and the cost of human error", in the final part there is a diagram of the launch corridor, which does not fall into the review sectors of our early warning radars.

What do we need to prevent the blow from taking place?

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.

What zones need to be controlled for this?

About these.


The Gibraltar area is not a launch area, but SSBNs can be intercepted there.

The question is - will the ship's search and strike groups, which will have to operate there, need at least some kind of protection from air strikes? Or would it be better without it?

What will the opponents of aircraft carriers say?

Probably they will say that this will never happen, because this will never happen.

But it is not.

This may well happen in 2028–2030. This, frankly, will happen with a high degree of probability. And what are we going to do with our "land thinking" then?

And don't think that enemy aircraft from the shore will quickly sink our ships. In 1973, when we almost collided with the United States in Mediterranean, even the Americans themselves did not expect any NATO to help them. Moreover, even during the general Western pressure on the USSR in the 80s, the United States always had plans in reserve in case the rest of NATO "dumped" them. There are no guarantees that the Europeans will voluntarily go into nuclear fire just like that, for no reason.

The influence of the United States on its vassals is of course. So, for example, Europe rolled the TTIP agreement that was deadly for it, and how the owners demanded to conclude it! Even the Russian threat was whipped down by fomenting the well-known events in Ukraine. But Europe played in Ukraine, as the owners asked, and sank the agreement. So the US allies may well not come to the war, this is a fact. And without them, it is not easy to deal with our ships, even in Mediterranean.

Moreover, at a number of points, geography begins to work against them, just as it works against us when trying to reach a surface target from the shore. And also any failure will lead to the loss of surprise.

Let's take a look at two examples. We are conducting an anti-submarine search operation west of the Strait of Gibraltar to prevent SSBNs from breaking through into the Mediterranean.
In theory, the United States can use its surface forces to secure a breakthrough - but this is a loss of surprise, they need us to think that the boat is not yet in Mediterranean.
The loss of surprise is unacceptable.

One could try to attack from Spanish airspace only with their own aircraft. With a sudden blow, kill all the ships of the KPUGs and go 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.

But the presence of air cover from our side breaks this scheme.

Now they will not be able to destroy our forces "in one move" and buy a little time to break through the SSBNs - the fighter cover will tie them seriously enough so that someone has time to inform Moscow about the start of hostilities. And without fighter cover, until ours establish that there is no connection with the ships, because they are not themselves, the enemy will act freely.

Let's take an example to the north, in the Norwegian Sea. Even professionals have the opinion that our aircraft carrier performing combat missions (for example, in the air defense of KPUGs searching for submarines) will be quickly destroyed by aircraft from Norway. But let's look at the distances. Obviously, the distance from bases in Norway to the patrol area of ​​an aircraft carrier near the edge of the pack ice is more than 1000 kilometers. A strike at such a distance simply cannot be sudden, and its failure is technically quite possible, and by a variety of different methods.

And, for example, from Keflavik, the Americans fly about 1400 kilometers, and a strike at such a range in a real war on a mobile target is really difficult. Especially if you capture Svalbard and deploy an anti-aircraft missile regiment on it. Then, in general, beauty, the attacking side first falls under the attack of fighters, then under the fire of the air defense missile system, and the aircraft carrier ... God knows where he is, you have to wait for the satellite overflight again or again drive the E-3 Sentry from England.


As a result, our anti-submarine forces will be able to operate quite confidently in a given area.

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 if you ensure the disruption of the deployment of SSBNs for a strike, then nuclear weapons from the enemy will not be used - unlike domestic charms who are ready to turn into dust not only the whole world, but also themselves and their families (we will immediately "glass"!) , Americans are rational people and will not commit mass suicide.
But we will have the opportunity solvewhen it should appear "on stage".
By the way, with air refueling, MiGs from an aircraft carrier east of Svalbard fully reach the Thule airbase in Greenland.


Refueling is within our reach right now.

It is quite possible to deliver a neat non-nuclear strike against it, which will then allow you to capture it and use it for your own purposes (therefore, non-nuclear) from an aircraft carrier.

And here we ask the opponents of aircraft carriers one more question.

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


Today, the main instrument of the Navy for delivering non-nuclear strikes on the coast is the Kalibr cruise missiles. This is an expensive weapon with an eight-figure unit price tag. In this case, a ship that has used up its stock of cruise missiles must go to the base to reload the launchers.

At the same time, in terms of its destructive effect on the enemy, the 3M14 Caliber SLCM roughly corresponds to the KAB-500 bomb.

Let's compare the strike capabilities of "Kuznetsov", and, for example, the ship's strike group.

The group consists of:

Fr. Project 22350 - 4 units. Number of missiles: 16 + 16 + 24 + 24 = 80 CR
Frigate (former BOD) pr. 1155 with 2xUVP 3C-14 - 1 unit. Number of missiles: 16 CR.
In total, there are 96 cruise missiles in the KUG. Please pay attention to the fact that in reality it is impossible to occupy all the launchers only with missiles for strikes on the coast, it is necessary to place both anti-ship missiles and PLUR there, and in reality there will be fewer missiles. But let's give the non-aircraft carriers a head start.

For comparison, we take Kuznetsov with an air group of 22 MiG-29Ks, of which 8 attack vehicles, and the rest are fighters (reconnaissance aircraft and, when necessary, also tankers with an UPAZ). Their weapon will be a hypothetical modification of the Kh-35 guided missile designed for strikes against ground targets. The MiG-29K can easily carry two such missiles.


MiG-29KUB with two such missiles. Surprise!

We will not come up with what kind of war we have, we will limit ourselves to the following. The strike is delivered from a line 1000 kilometers from the nearest base, where ships can replenish ammunition. The blow is delivered at a distance of 1000 km - this is how much we have from the line to the target. We believe that reloading all launchers on all ships takes two days (actually - more for such a group, but oh well).

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. Over the next 10 hours, MiGs with missiles (two for each departure), strike their blows - 8 machines, 2 CR each. Total - 16. Then after 5 hours - they are the same.

In total, in 20 hours our URO ships are on the march 260 km from the base, they fired 96 missiles, the aircraft carrier fired 32 missiles in the area of ​​combat use.
Another 5 hours have passed since the start of the operation - 25. The aircraft carrier dealt another blow with eight MiGs, bringing the number of missiles used to 48 units. URO ships are almost at the base. To facilitate the calculations, we will assume that they, having added speed, entered it at that moment.

Now the ships will have 48 hours to reload the launchers (actually more), the aircraft carrier during this time will raise eight MiGs to strike 9 times and use up another 144 missiles, bringing their total consumption to 192. But the URO ships leave the base. 1000 km at 20 knots will take them 27 hours, we again give them a head start and assume that 24.

By the time they reach the launch line and complete this launch, the number of missiles used by MiGs from an aircraft carrier will increase by 64 units, reaching only 256 missiles. Moreover, the planes will be ready for the next flight, and, in truth, if we had not given a head start to the missile ships, this flight would have already taken place.

We consider.

Aircraft - 256 missiles + 16 "in progress", 272 in total.
URO ships - 96 missiles in a salvo * 2 salvo = 192 missiles.
The difference in favor of aircraft is 80 missiles.

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! And the reload time of ships in the base is understated to the point of impossibility!

Moreover, such hypothetical missiles have less warhead mass, which is a minus. But this is not important for all types of goals. In most cases, up to 200 kg is quite enough, and they can really be placed in the X-35, if you remove the complex anti-ship seeker and replace it with a simpler system for flying over the ground.

Actually, this example shows that cruise missiles are just niche weapons for special tasks. You can read about the use of long-range cruise missiles in the interests of fleet operations in the article “Sea power and cruise missiles. How to use the Gauges for the Navy.

If, returning to our strike operations along the coast, the risk for the aircraft is reduced, then they will be able to work on targets with bombs, which is hundreds of times cheaper than strikes with cruise missiles. If necessary, the aircraft will be able to use weapons to destroy dispersed targets - cluster bombs, incendiary tanks, unguided rockets. The cruise missile is highly specialized.

And even the range does not give any particular advantages - in a day the ship will easily run 1000 km, and the combat radius of the carrier-based fighter plus the flight range of the guided missile with such an approach to the target will just allow hitting the same target that the CD would have "got" from 1700-1800 kilometers.

At the same time, if takeoff with a pair of rockets for an airplane requires too much fuel, then you can use the old western focus and, taking off with a small supply of fuel, and, consequently, a low takeoff weight, refuel in the air “under the throat”.

So what counter-argument will the opponents of the aircraft carriers have on all this?

At the request of the audience


I would also like to give an answer to a number of questions posed by A. Voznesensky in the article "Inconvenient Questions for Supporters of the Aircraft Carrier Lobby"... Alas, the article contains a lot of factual inaccuracies and errors. Nevertheless, in the "anti-aircraft" materials, which have recently become frequent on the "Military Review", this one, at least, contains logically coherent argumentation and does not contain deranged ideas. And therefore the author considers it necessary to give an answer to the "inconvenient" questions.

In order.

Where to build?

The answer is on the A berth of the Baltic Shipyard after the completion of the construction of icebreakers. From a technical point of view, the issue of building aircraft carriers at Balt. the plant was discussed in the article "Our aircraft carrier is real" in "VPK-Courier", right up to the drawings of the ship's hull on the slipway "A" that were actually carried out earlier by specialists. Take 10 minutes.

Further A. Voznesensky writes:

Here I would like to draw your attention to the fact that at the time of those works, a significant part of Soviet specialists were still "in the ranks" - it was banal for them not so many years, and the United Shipbuilding Corporation had experienced and efficient personnel at the disposal of the United Shipbuilding Corporation. Now another decade has passed - and it is reasonable to ask, how many of those who participated in the work on Vikramaditya are still “in the saddle”?

Those who came to this job young are quite in the saddle. The aircraft carrier left for India 8,5 years ago, someone probably survived over the years. Moreover, if we ignore Sevmash, we can see that the Nevskoe Design Bureau took an active part in the development of the Indian aircraft carrier Vikrant and in the maintenance of a number of systems of this ship. Well, or more simply, Russia even now participates in the creation of aircraft carriers, but not its own. And although we have not built such ships for a long time, and in the USSR there were personnel in Nikolaev, it is a gross mistake to think that we have no specialists for these ships at all. "Vikramaditya" was passed not so long ago, if anything.

On the deck of the Vikramaditya. Such a ship of the Russian Federation can afford, in general, without creating any new technologies and equipment, completely on the existing reserve, it is even easier than the hypothetical "Russian" Vikrant ".

Further, we will again quote A. Voznesensky.

There is another point that is rarely mentioned in discussions: before there is even a grain of steel on the stocks, it will be necessary to carry out hundreds of R&D, which will cost billions of rubles.

For example? Catapult? But the steam room was built even in the USSR, the reference catapults are on the "Threads" in the Crimea and Yeisk, the electromagnetic ones have already passed the stage of research and development. There is also a big backlog. GEM? Also no, nuclear power plants are mass-produced for icebreakers, gas turbine ones are not, but all we need for a 40-tonnage unit is a cruise turbine based on M-90 (serial), a waste heat recovery boiler, an afterburner steam turbine powered by a waste-heat boiler, and a reducer-combiner for two gas and one steam turbines. We need large screws with a reversible pitch, but there is a reserve for them, now we need to scale it. In fact, you will have to strain only to create an aviation control complex, but even here we, at least, have the documentation for the old complexes.


This is roughly what we can now afford to the maximum. 40-45 thousand tons, approximately up to 22 aircraft, two catapults, about 30 knots of speed, seaworthiness and roll restrictions, like the Kuznetsov.

But with the infrastructure, something really needs to be done, but, in truth, the issue of complexity is not very different from the new Novorossiysk naval base, you can build it. It would be under that.

The author's conclusion about the unsuitability of the MiG-29K for military operations is unfounded - this aircraft only needs a new radar and weapons. After that, only a high landing speed and time-consuming inter-flight maintenance will remain a problem, but these problems can be partially solved on the next modifications of this aircraft.


He's not that bad either. Attempt to land with unused weapons.

Of course, this is not an F / A-18, but it is deeply wrong to consider this aircraft infinitely obsolete, the potential of this platform is far from being exhausted. Although the development of a new aircraft in the future should not be ruled out. But the fact is that for the time being we will get by with MiGs, only slightly modernized.

I would like to remind you that we already have two naval air regiments. And you just need to raise their combat readiness to the required level, nothing needs to be created, there are planes, pilots, and training infrastructure.

Why are there regiments - we also have an aircraft carrier! It is only necessary to repair it in some way, but there is nothing to be done about it - there are still organizers at the USC ...

And anti-submarine helicopters will have to be done anyway. Out of touch with an aircraft carrier.

Further, A. Voznesensky gives such an argument that we cannot assemble an aircraft carrier strike group in the image and likeness of the US Navy, but let's honestly say that the US Navy became what it became, because it was preparing to repel the strikes of missile carriers. divisions Soviet naval aviation!

Whose divisions will attack us? Since A. Voskresensky recalled the Falklands in his text, it would be nice to study how the Britons provided protection for their aircraft carriers in that very real war. Very interesting, by the way. And this experience is much more useful for us than dwelling on the American scheme.

This is, if someone does not understand, to the question of the "retinue", escort ships, etc.

To the barrier!


Actually, that's all.

The author will be very happy if the opponents of the aircraft carriers answer the above five questions in the comments.... Naturally, with examples, pictures and diagrams. And even better with radio horizons, the flight time of aircraft from the shore, comparing it with the flight time of ship aircraft, etc. Not unfounded, in short.

It's so easy to come up with such an environment in the sea, so that the destruction of a target or the protection of one's forces at a considerable distance from their territory would be clearly and visibly better obtained without aircraftthan with planes.


Photo: press service of the Northern Fleet

You guys can do it. Show the class.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
234 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sling cutter
    Sling cutter April 9 2021 05: 03
    +24
    Another one year article and by the way, I do not see any fundamental disagreements
    with articles from Andrey Ch. The main question is not whether we need AUG or not, but that in this situation in the country we can only build massively coastal zone ships.
    To all authors who are not afraid to cover the real state of affairs in the country, great respect!
    1. Stas157
      Stas157 April 9 2021 06: 42
      +4
      The USSR did not have any questions about whether an aircraft carrier was needed! But in modern Russia we are constantly convinced of the uselessness of AUG.

      It is clear that this is only due to lack of money. The superpower has no funds for such "trinkets". Although they always find money for palaces. There are no questions here. Do not bum our masters on the street!

      It's all about priorities. This is the highest stratum in our country - the authorities and the oligarchs. They have as much money for their own needs as from a bottomless barrel. Everything else is a leftover principle, aptly formulated by the former president of the Russian Federation - there is no money, but you are holding on!
      1. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter April 9 2021 06: 51
        +3
        Quote: Stas157
        Although they always find money for palaces. It's all about priorities. This is the highest stratum in our country - the authorities and the oligarchs.

        And the turboskakuas do not realize that the fleet of oligarchs' yachts, comparable in price to all the aggregate fleets of the Russian Federation, cannot perform "combat missions", but only the tasks of deripasok and nastya fish, therefore they rejoice in Putin's coastal fleet, on the principle of fishlessness and cancer.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 9 2021 07: 07
          +6
          Quote: Stroporez
          ... a flotilla of yachts of oligarchs, comparable in price to all the aggregate fleets of the Russian Federation, cannot perform "combat missions", but only the tasks of Deripasok and Nastya Rybok ...

          As always, not an eyebrow, but an eye hi

          As for aircraft carriers, this is the long arm of the Navy, a hand with a weighty fist.
          For some reason, no one doubts the need to have a "long arm of the Strategic Missile Forces" (ICBM), a long arm of aviation (Tu-160), a long arm of a platoon (SVD), etc. ..., but the long arm of the Navy raises doubts .. ...
          Thanks to Alexander for another logical article.
          1. SVD68
            SVD68 April 9 2021 07: 32
            .
            Quote: Doccor18
            but the long arm of the Fleet raises doubts ...

            Yes, it does. Because the navy may have another long arm - cruise missiles. And the opinion that a cruise missile is the best attack aircraft is no worse justified.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 April 9 2021 07: 41
              +8
              Quote: SVD68
              ... maybe the other long arm is cruise missiles. And the opinion that a cruise missile is the best attack aircraft is no worse justified.

              What is the maximum range of a cruise missile and
              who will provide target designation?
              So much has been written on this topic that I don't want to repeat myself ...
              1. SVD68
                SVD68 April 9 2021 07: 45
                .
                Quote: Doccor18
                What is the maximum range of a cruise missile and
                who will provide target designation?

                The maximum range is not less than that of a carrier-based attack aircraft. Target designation will be provided by the same one who provides for carrier-based aircraft.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA April 9 2021 14: 28
                  +11
                  Quote: SVD68
                  Target designation will be provided by the same one who provides for carrier-based aircraft.

                  Target designation for carrier-based aircraft is provided by carrier-based aircraft. That is, in a pair to the carrier of the CD, AB will be required. smile
                  1. SVD68
                    SVD68 April 9 2021 16: 35
                    -2
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Target designation for carrier-based aircraft is provided by carrier-based aircraft. That is, in a pair to the carrier of the CD, AB will be required.

                    I have never opposed this. I am against shock AV and for AV reconnaissance / air defense / anti-aircraft defense.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA April 9 2021 17: 14
                      +3
                      Quote: SVD68
                      I am against shock AV and for AV reconnaissance / air defense / anti-aircraft defense.

                      The best air defense is the strike aircraft carrier. smile
                      Seriously, the best way to avoid hitting an enemy carrier-based air group is to be the first to spot and strike at its floating airfield, destroying or damaging it. The same Yankees, when they had an enemy with AB, have been practicing this technique since the 30s of the last century: the best way to combat enemy reconnaissance aircraft was considered to be the first to find and destroy the enemy's AB (in those days, AB were considered reconnaissance and counterintelligence officers in a line squadron ).
                      In addition, the presence of strikers in the air group of our AV reduces the number of strike vehicles in the detachment of the enemy forces - due to the need to separate part of its air group into a full-fledged air defense AUG. For well, how, instead of going into a blind air defense, will our AV decide to eliminate the source of the oncoming aircraft? smile
                      1. SVD68
                        SVD68 April 9 2021 17: 25
                        -4
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        The best air defense is the strike aircraft carrier.
                        Seriously, the best way to avoid hitting an enemy carrier-based air group is to be the first to spot and strike at its floating airfield, destroying or damaging it.

                        Here is just an intermediary between the ship and the rocket in the form of an airplane is superfluous here.

                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        In addition, the presence of strikers in the air group of our AV reduces the number of strike vehicles in the detachment of the enemy forces - due to the need to separate part of its air group into a full-fledged air defense AUG. For well, how, instead of going into a blind air defense, will our AV decide to eliminate the source of the oncoming aircraft?

                        But at the same time, our air defense is being reduced. I don't know how many fighters are required against attack aircraft according to modern standards, but it seems to me that the ratio is in favor of fighters.
            2. Sling cutter
              Sling cutter April 9 2021 07: 56
              +5
              Quote: SVD68
              And the opinion that a cruise missile is the best attack aircraft is no worse justified.

              It remains only to find out what exactly will be the carrier of the CD and what force will provide the slightest invulnerability of this carrier.
              A specific question for you, what can we oppose to this: AUG can conduct hostilities without replenishment for up to 14 days, strike ships at sea to a depth of 925 km, and on coastal targets - about 1600 km. The ability of the AUG to move over a distance of 1100-1300 km per day provides relative secrecy, and, consequently, the surprise of actions, which makes it possible to quickly arrive at the designated area.
              The main tasks of the AUG in wartime are: - striking targets located on the sea coast and in the depths of the enemy's territory; - air cover and support for the landing forces and ground forces operating in the coastal zone; - gaining and maintaining air superiority in the area of ​​operation, - providing air defense for ships, amphibious troops, large convoys in transit by sea, - blockade of the enemy's coast, - conducting tactical aviation reconnaissance.
              1. SVD68
                SVD68 April 9 2021 08: 17
                .
                Quote: Stroporez
                A specific question for you, what can we oppose to this: AUG can conduct hostilities without replenishment for up to 14 days, strike ships at sea to a depth of 925 km, and on coastal targets - about 1600 km. The ability of the AUG to move over a distance of 1100-1300 km per day provides relative secrecy, and, consequently, the surprise of actions, which makes it possible to quickly arrive at the designated area.

                Reconnaissance aircraft AWACS and UAVs. The AWACS aircraft covers the ship with the Redoubt with long-range missiles. The AUG attack is carried out by base aviation with cover of base fighters.
            3. Lannan Shi
              Lannan Shi April 9 2021 08: 59
              +13
              Quote: SVD68
              And the opinion that a cruise missile is the best attack aircraft is no worse justified.
              You will use arguments against aircraft carriers against conventional airfields. They are essentially twins and brothers. The only difference is that some swim, others do not. And under the sauce, from the stories about mega-missiles, call for abandoning aviation in general, and not just aircraft carrier.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion April 9 2021 12: 31
                -5
                A land airfield has nothing in common with an aircraft carrier, do not write nonsense, otherwise there would not be thousands of airfields around the world.
                1. Lannan Shi
                  Lannan Shi April 9 2021 13: 44
                  +10
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  A land airfield has nothing in common with an aircraft carrier,

                  Chu? Truth? The main function of an aircraft carrier is to support the activities of aircraft based on it. What is your vision of the functions of a fixed airfield? Growing zucchini probably? laughing
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  do not write nonsense

                  Exactly. yes
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion April 9 2021 14: 09
                    -6
                    Then the task of the lunar rover is indistinguishable from the task of the car. Both of them ride on the surface.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      April 9 2021 22: 03
                      +8
                      No, one drives a remote control on the surface of another celestial body, and the second on public roads on our planet.
                      Different tasks.

                      And the aircraft carrier has the same task as the airfield - to ensure the basing of aviation.
                      This is his purpose; he is no longer needed for anything and can do nothing.
                      1. EvilLion
                        EvilLion April 10 2021 20: 20
                        +1
                        That is, the limited space, environment, organizational structures, the specificity of the application do not play a role. Well, then it is strange that there are airfields even in Mongolia, but there are no aircraft carriers.
              2. SVD68
                SVD68 April 9 2021 16: 54
                -6
                Quote: Lannan Shi
                You will use arguments against aircraft carriers against conventional airfields. They are essentially twins and brothers. The only difference is that some swim, others do not.

                No, there is still a difference in the nature of the goals. At sea, they are solitary, large and moving. There are no such targets on land.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 9 2021 22: 04
                  +6
                  There may be group targets at sea.
                  Basic (ground) aviation can attack naval targets - there are examples.
                  Ship (deck) aircraft can also attack ground targets - there are examples.
                  Your comparison is meaningless.
                  1. bayard
                    bayard April 11 2021 01: 33
                    +4
                    Yes, there will be no reasoned arguments, except for the cost and "we are a land power."
                    Another thing is that if you start building aircraft carriers, you need a series of about 6 pieces at once. to ensure the possibility of a continuous presence at sea, one for each fleet (Pacific Fleet, Northern Fleet). And you need to build this series quickly. To do this, you need to organize construction at two shipyards at the same time. This is not as difficult as it might seem, if we are not talking about atomic monsters, but about 45 ton average. It is better not to offer Severodvinsk - it will interfere with the work on the construction of the nuclear submarine, but Peter and Kerch are quite suitable. And the logistics are much better there. But in St. Petersburg it is necessary to complete a series of icebreakers, and in Kerch the UDC. This means that in 000 - 4 years, you can start bookmarking.
                    1. Artemion3
                      Artemion3 April 11 2021 21: 11
                      0
                      A series of 6 aviks is, of course, cool, but possible only in a very long perspective.
                      1. bayard
                        bayard April 11 2021 22: 25
                        +1
                        It is possible from a technical point of view in 4 - 5 years - the beginning of the bookmarks. The implementation of the entire program - the construction of six AB at two shipyards, will take about 15 - 17 years.
                        The cost of six ABs, excluding the wing and basic infrastructure, will be approximately $ 15 billion. (the ruble is unstable, but in dollars the price is approximately unchanged).
                        The cost of an air wing per AB will be approximately US $ 1,5 billion.
                        1,5 x 6 = 9. Let's round up to $ 10 billion.
                        The cost of creating bases - berths, power plants and boiler houses (it is cold here, but the ships at the stop need to be supplied with electricity and steam), barracks, warehouses, workshops, training centers, airfields for air wings, training of crews and pilots (LTH), etc. it will cost about 10-15 billion dollars.
                        15 + 10 + 15 = 40 billion dollars.
                        What else ?
                        Escort. 4 destroyers of type 22350M = 24 destroyers.
                        600 - 650 million dollars each.
                        In total, the destroyers are about another 15 billion dollars.
                        40 + 15 = 55 billion USD
                        For the ENTIRE program!
                        Only 10% of the modern gold reserves of the Russian Federation - for the acquisition of the mighty ocean-going fleet.
                        All other programs are already in the plans, ships and support vessels are under construction.
                        And this 55 billion should be spent not at a time, but within 15 - 17 years.
                        This is approximately $ 3,5 billion. in year .
                        Only .
                        This is 270 billion rubles.
                        The whole program is like the cost of the Sochi Olympics.
                        And the embezzlement of the (established) budget per year exceeds the amount required for the program at times.
                        Look at Gazprom's pipeline projects and their costs.
                        And compare.
                        In addition, all these sums will be spent inside (!) The country and will pour into a life-giving stream into the national economy along the chains of production cooperation.
                        This program can be financed with only one grain export tax.
                        Quote: Artemion3
                        but possible only in a very distant perspective

                        Not . Possibly only when the industry is ready.
                        Namely - in 4 - 5 years.
                        Everything else requires ONLY state WILL.
                      2. clerk
                        clerk April 11 2021 22: 50
                        +2
                        The cost of six ABs, excluding the wing and basic infrastructure, will be approximately $ 15 billion. (the ruble is unstable, but in dollars the price is approximately unchanged).
                        British CEs cost $ 4 billion apiece.
                      3. bayard
                        bayard April 11 2021 23: 14
                        0
                        I calculated the cost of AVVI 45 - 000 tons on gas turbines on the basis that the developers estimated the cost of AV "Varan" 50 billion dollars. , I on my own put another 000 billion for a slightly larger VI (1,5 - 1 thousand tons instead of 45 - 50 thousand tons) and other unforeseen expenses.
                        So everything is fair and without kinks.
                        And it is this type of AB that is optimal for our Navy.
    2. Stas157
      Stas157 April 9 2021 07: 28
      -2
      Quote: Stroporez
      a flotilla of yachts of oligarchs, comparable in price to all aggregate fleets of the Russian Federation, cannot perform "combat missions", but only the tasks of Deripasok and Nastya Rybok

      But the oligarchs' yacht flotilla, built in western shipyards (for our main patriots), performs the most important task without which everything else loses all meaning. Meeting insatiable elite needs.

      We moved away from the principle of collectivism with the disappearance of the USSR, and now the opposite principle is operating. The principle of an egoist and an ideal consumer is, first of all, to love oneself beloved, and to the rest (the rest) - to spit from a high tower. And our powers that be brilliantly demonstrate this.
  2. antivirus
    antivirus April 9 2021 07: 35
    -5
    They think in cliches, but they simply cannot imagine the reflection of the American "alpha-strike", as well as a lot of other things.

    --On priorities - the protection of the oligarchs' assets is underway and AB is not needed yet .. not GDP - but the "collective Deripaska" calls the tune. indices will not grow from 2 AB to 100 VI.
  3. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 9 2021 12: 30
    +1
    In the USSR, there were other questions, where, for example, to buy diapers, and where commonplace buckwheat disappeared. And for any nonsense, resources were flown into the pipe no less than the oligarchs stole on yachts.
  4. Niko
    Niko April 9 2021 13: 16
    -2
    Quote: Stas157
    The USSR did not have any questions about whether an aircraft carrier was needed! But in modern Russia we are constantly convinced of the uselessness of AUG.

    It is clear that this is only due to lack of money. The superpower has no funds for such "trinkets". Although they always find money for palaces. There are no questions here. Do not bum our masters on the street!

    It's all about priorities. This is the highest stratum in our country - the authorities and the oligarchs. They have as much money for their own needs as from a bottomless barrel. Everything else is a leftover principle, aptly formulated by the former president of the Russian Federation - there is no money, but you are holding on!

    Vladimir Ilyich wake up !!!!! Your way out
  5. lazy
    lazy April 9 2021 15: 54
    -5
    And in the USSR, questions arose, so there were no normal aircraft carriers, either helicopter carriers or aircraft carrying cruisers, with the Yak-38 which, by and large, could not defend itself
  6. Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev April 10 2021 14: 37
    +2
    Here you get a quality jump or a transition to a new level. The fleet will no longer be a "green zone". Expensive, but what a round for the development of industry, shipbuilding and aircraft construction. Development of a material-repair base and bases, development or resurrection of supply vessels, and at the end, the construction of ships of rank 1 and 2, as an AUG order. In the meantime, the gunboats at the price of a frigate and not unified, but unique and stupid are stamped.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 9 2021 10: 41
    +10
    Quote: Stroporez
    Another one year article and by the way, I do not see any fundamental disagreements
    with articles from Andrey Ch.

    And they are not. For example, the fact that we can build an aircraft carrier on the Sevmash slipway, as I wrote about, does not disprove the fact that a medium-sized aircraft carrier may well turn out on slipway A in the Baltic, as Alexander writes about. In fact, in terms of aircraft carriers, if our positions differ in some way, then only in some particulars, or trifles, and even then, we still need to look for them. hi
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter April 9 2021 11: 09
      +5
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In essence, in terms of aircraft carriers, if our positions differ in some way, then only in some particulars, or trifles, and even then, we still need to look for them

      Hi Andrew! hi drinks So I re-read the articles, but I did not find any disagreements, although you present the material in different ways, which makes it more interesting to read.
      Good luck in your work! fellow drinks
    2. timokhin-aa
      April 9 2021 22: 07
      +5
      Where does the disagreement come from? This is not a philosophical question, this is how to drive a bicycle, there is not much freedom for an alternative opinion - the speed is picked up by pedals, damped by the brakes, the course is changed by the steering wheel and tilt, everyone also keeps the balance the same, nothing really can be thought of here.

      There is simply no room for alternative opinions.
  • Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 April 9 2021 05: 06
    -2
    At the moment, Russia cannot build itself a modern UDC of the Mistral type, what aircraft carriers are you talking about? First you need to build a UDC, work out the technology for the production of such ships, and then, if you have the funds and specialists, you can try to build an aircraft carrier.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 9 2021 05: 16
      +10
      Quote: Pessimist22
      At the moment, Russia cannot build itself a modern UDC of the Mistral type, which aircraft carriers are you talking about

      Here's a paradox, UDC without aircraft carriers and nafig is not needed, but in its tonnage, AB is quite possible.
      1. Pessimist22
        Pessimist22 April 9 2021 05: 46
        -4
        I am sure that even by the end of the decade, there will be no aircraft carriers, because desires do not coincide with capabilities. smile
        1. antivirus
          antivirus April 9 2021 10: 44
          -6
          it's not about desires - all lobbyists have a lot of them - the military are preparing for a big war AND THE HAND IN THE COUNTRY TO INSTABILITY AND NATISK WITH THE SOUTH CONTROL OF EURASIA. SUPPORT OF ALLIES-all land routes .. the perimeter of the Russian Federation is such. geography of Eurasia. in place from 1 to 16 is the control of Eurasia (this is a secret for Timokhin and others). No. 17 - to build an AB in 70 thousand tons.
          "stupid" non-technical teachers - they know: apart from the Yad. blow or the CD, the exploitation of the vanquished is also necessary. the confrontation will not end with a simple disarming blow.
          There are a lot of 5 questions - it is necessary to understand the "soul" of the hands of the country and the Moscow region.
          And for the seventh time - why carry missiles different to PKamchatsk and Murman for installation in cells? - IF THERE IS A START POSITION FOR THEM IN THE KIROV AND ORENBURG REGION or not ?? there is also cement with stewed meat + mattresses with milk and grain bread. geography (transportation tariffs) is not for "exciting" seafarers

          and 9 times - through the "collective ODeripaska" it is necessary to enter.
          and it’s not clear why public opinion should be agitated by “build AV”? - these are not pensions and prices for herring with vodka. Decisions are not made at a village gathering.

          and 10 and 11, the question is silent.
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl April 11 2021 00: 22
        +1
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Here is a paradox, UDC without aircraft carriers and nafig is not needed
        and what is it? recourse
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        and in its tonnage, AB is quite possible.
        in what tonnage is it? belay Have you imagined "such a masterpiece", in 14000 tons or 25000 tons ?! lol
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U April 11 2021 04: 47
          -1
          Quote: Vl Nemchinov
          Here is a paradox, UDC without aircraft carriers and nafig is not needed
          and what is it?
          What do you think? Can a lot of UDCs, even in a warrant without air cover, fight at a small distance from their coast?

          Quote: Vl Nemchinov
          Have you imagined "such a masterpiece", at 14000 tons or 25000 tons.

          What's wrong? 14 CT is not enough, but 25 is already quite, for an air defense aircraft carrier with MiGs. Well, the UDCs are not only limited to Mistrals, and there are also Taravas.
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 April 9 2021 07: 15
      +10
      Quote: Pessimist22
      At the moment, Russia cannot build itself a modern UDC of the Mistral type ...

      Already building.
      And not according to the project of the 80s.
      How to get competencies without construction?
  • IC
    IC April 9 2021 05: 25
    +3
    The author forgot to mention the main thing, where to get a lot of money in a country where 20 million are poor and the economy has stagnated for 10 years.
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 April 9 2021 05: 48
      -4
      Patriots urgently need to surf the seas and oceans on aircraft carriers, they are not up to the problems of the people, the main thing is to threaten the enemy with aircraft carriers smile
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 9 2021 07: 55
        +8
        Don't confuse patriots with idiots
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 April 9 2021 07: 18
      +9
      Quote: IMS
      The author forgot to mention the main thing, where to get a lot of money in a country where 20 million are poor and the economy has stagnated for 10 years.

      Believe me, the implementation of the aircraft carrier program will be launched, or not, little will change in the wallet of "Uncle Vasya" from the vast Russian hinterland ...
      1. Ryusey
        Ryusey April 9 2021 08: 52
        -9
        If it doesn't work, then yes, it won't change.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 9 2021 10: 01
          +4
          If he does not work, he will die of hunger ...
    3. Ka-52
      Ka-52 April 9 2021 08: 34
      +7
      The author forgot to mention the main thing, where to get a lot of money in a country where 20 million are poor and the economy has stagnated for 10 years.

      in 1941 the Germans were not particularly worried about the number of beggars in the USSR.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock April 9 2021 10: 19
        +2
        Quote: Ka-52
        in 1941 the Germans were not particularly worried about the number of beggars in the USSR.

        But I was very interested in the number of those who were dissatisfied with the Soviet regime. And it was significant. More than a million enrolled in the troops alone.
    4. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 9 2021 08: 41
      -7
      Poor thing, you probably live in Africa, so return to Russia.
    5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 9 2021 11: 18
      +2
      Quote: IMS
      The author forgot to mention the main thing, where to get a lot of money in the country

      The answer is here https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
    6. Niko
      Niko April 9 2021 13: 26
      0
      Quote: IMS
      The author forgot to mention the main thing, where to get a lot of money in a country where 20 million are poor and the economy has stagnated for 10 years.

      Everything is simple here, either, either, or Russia is a country with 20 million poor, and then it is necessary to appoint DIPLOMATS in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and try, if not to be friends, then at least negotiate, or continue the existing course (this cannot be called diplomacy or politics), and then without aircraft carriers nowhere
    7. Galleon
      Galleon April 9 2021 14: 05
      +4
      IMS, be realistic: no matter how much money there is in the country, those who have this money in their hands will never spend it on the poor and on the economy. Do they need it, the economy? Money - here it is, out of the pipe!
    8. timokhin-aa
      April 9 2021 22: 08
      +9
      stop wasting them on all sorts of nonsense, such as Poseidons, ekranoplanes, patrol ships, ultra-expensive radar kmoplexes on coastal patrol boats, etc.
      You look and find out that there is money.
  • jonht
    jonht April 9 2021 05: 30
    +1
    Good article, but my opinion is not to dwell on one thing, you need to build a balanced fleet, and then any ship will be in its place, have its own goals and objectives. Perhaps we do not need Aircraft Carriers of the FShyn type, but also of the Vikrant type either. hi
    PS Probably it is worth looking in front, and already developing unmanned aircraft wing for aircraft carriers?
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 9 2021 08: 53
      +1
      With the modern level of development of electronic warfare, well ...
      1. jonht
        jonht April 9 2021 11: 04
        0
        A program of search and strike on a specific target can be written even now, and even under the USSR there were already (granites). And considering the speed of data processing, I think it's more than real. We put the television and 3D model of the king in memory, search in a spiral or tack. The object does not emit, the optics now see well and far away, the main thing is to bring the radio command out of the search sector. Finds a target and, according to the algorithm, will attack the target.
        So there can be different approaches.
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 9 2021 22: 09
          +2
          This is what you described the RCC actually.
          1. jonht
            jonht April 10 2021 00: 11
            0
            Let's just say the principle of work. Look at this more broadly and here you can fully see that the same Orion can search for targets in the sea, and the duration of staying in the air up to 48 hours is all the more necessary for a reconnaissance or patrolman, and the S-70 of the Hunter can be used as drums.
            To reduce the glow in the radio range, you can use an aircraft retransmitter. In fact, more than half for this already exist, or at the final stage .... And in my opinion, the development of such an "unmanned" aircraft carrier will be the end of pilates, but for this you need to get rid of the classic vision of an aircraft carrier.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 11 June 2021 01: 54
              0
              in what you described there is no point, if we and the enemy have strategic nuclear forces, then the war will come down to either the mutual destruction of the fleet or to the mutual destruction of key objects or to the mutual disregard of each other's activities outside their territorial waters. In these variants, neither the UAV, nor the AV, nor the electronic warfare, nor their combination, plays a role.
    2. Galleon
      Galleon April 9 2021 14: 11
      +4
      Quote: jonht
      do not get hung up on one thing, you need to build a balanced fleet,

      The fact of the matter, dear, is that you misunderstood the author's idea: a balanced fleet by itself is not self-sufficient, without reconnaissance, command control and air cover, it is extremely flawed. It is a guarantee and the basis for the combat stability of an aircraft carrier, and only with an aircraft carrier is the fleet capable of solving strategic tasks and showing its full strength and power.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 April 9 2021 05: 37
    +9
    Quote: IMS
    The author forgot to mention the main thing, where to get a lot of money in a country where 20 million are poor and the economy has stagnated for 10 years.


    This is a very different topic.
    It is true that the author did not talk about money, otherwise he would have gone into the field of economics. And for this there are other forums.
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 9 2021 07: 58
      .
      Some want aircraft carriers, others to the Moon or Mars. But they have a common diagnosis.
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx April 9 2021 11: 08
        +10
        Some want aircraft carriers, others to the Moon or Mars. But they have a common diagnosis.

        Both are the development of industry and technology. The most advanced industry and the most advanced technology. There is nothing wrong with that. If we approach the issue wisely, then the creation of at least an aircraft carrier, at least a new interplanetary ship, means tens of thousands of jobs, from the steelworker Misha to the scientist Vasya.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 9 2021 12: 35
          -2
          If the meaning of the workplace is in pouring steel and contaminating space, then, of course, yes, but if some visible result is expected from these workplaces, then such slaves are unlikely. the places will suit us.
          1. Trapperxnumx
            Trapperxnumx April 9 2021 13: 12
            0
            What kind of jobs will suit you?
        2. Silhouette
          Silhouette April 9 2021 12: 54
          -3
          Quote: Trapper7
          Both are the development of industry and technology.

          Technology for technology's sake? Or maybe it's better to learn how to build normal roads? Or gasify the country?
          1. Trapperxnumx
            Trapperxnumx April 9 2021 13: 16
            0
            Technology for the sake of creating high-tech products.
            We already know how to build roads. We do not always build, but we can. This is not a question for road builders. The question is about the distribution of money. And gasification is going on anyway. Nobody is asking the question "either or".
  • Yuriy71
    Yuriy71 April 9 2021 05: 44
    0
    The author should know perfectly well what the AUG consists of - it is a whole Squadron of escort ships, support ships, submarines! Has the Author already built them? We cannot build Frigates in the required quantities! Not to mention the Destroyers - they are not in the plans at all! Air Wing: Aircraft and Helicopters Has the Author already configured it? Pilots: The author knows that Russia already has practically no more corny - pilots for this wing! Another Empty article, in which the author argues - it is not known about what, about what is not and is not even foreseen !!! It's like "To split the skin of an unkilled bear."
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 April 9 2021 07: 35
      +14
      Strange logic. It is not necessary to do it, because we have not done another, third, fourth, etc. So if you do nothing, then nothing will happen. And something will only happen if you do it.
      1. novel66
        novel66 April 9 2021 07: 50
        -3
        nothing strange, right in the article:
        we will not be able to follow the Soviet path - we simply will not have enough money.
        , and then the author long and tediously contradicts himself. He counted the aircraft carriers, but where to get all the other elements of the AUG, he did not say, there is not enough strength for defense, and here about Africa ...
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 9 2021 08: 36
          -7
          Quote: novel xnumx
          there are not enough forces for defense, but here about Africa ...

          hi Hello air admirals! Listen ... does a railway aircraft carrier have a right to life?
          1. novel66
            novel66 April 9 2021 08: 47
            -2
            no, the "Barguzin" complex will be enough, and airplanes - normal airfields
            ... ours to you! hi
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 April 9 2021 08: 52
              .
              Quote: novel xnumx
              no,

              So there is a mobile railway store, a mobile railway. there is a club, but a mobile railway. no aircraft carrier ?! I will complain to the UN !!!!
              Quote: novel xnumx
              aircraft - normal airfields

              The enemy spies will dig up the takeoff, how will the planes take off?
              1. novel66
                novel66 April 9 2021 08: 53
                -2
                taxiing, problems, by the way - concrete take-off, there is no digging into a vein
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 April 9 2021 09: 36
                  -5
                  Quote: novel xnumx
                  the take-off is concrete, there is no digging into the vein

                  Tajiks bar-bir!
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 9 2021 08: 56
      +4
      1 TAVKR, 1TAKR (RK), 2-3 BOD / frigates, 1 nuclear submarine 949, 2 nuclear submarines 971 + support ships 2-3, which of the above do not we have now?
      1. novel66
        novel66 April 9 2021 09: 44
        -9
        and where are the destroyers?
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 9 2021 22: 10
          +2
          Let's get by with cruisers!
          1. novel66
            novel66 April 10 2021 09: 46
            0
            we have a lot of them ???
            1. timokhin-aa
              April 10 2021 18: 58
              0
              4 in service and one under repair.

              But what!
              1. novel66
                novel66 April 10 2021 19: 00
                0
                vulnerable. like all
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl April 11 2021 00: 42
        -1
        Quote: Ryusey
        1 TAVKR, 1TAKR (RK), 2-3 BOD / frigates, 1 nuclear submarine 949, 2 nuclear submarines 971 + support ships 2-3, which of the above do not we have now?
        and that ... all combat-ready BNK SF, - for one AUG ?! belay winked
        and yes - 1 TAVKR, ... - he is in repair !!! yes winked
        and so yes .... you already practically have one AUG !!!
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 April 11 2021 00: 57
          0
          Quote: Vl Nemchinov
          he is under repair !!!

          Are you sure it is under renovation? As they did the overhaul of the UAZ tablet. They sent us three double basses to help us. So they, hemorrhoids, only ate vodka, and in two months they got one wheel.
    3. Kalmar
      Kalmar April 9 2021 10: 37
      +8
      Quote: Yuriy71
      this is a whole Squadron of escort ships, support ships, submarines! Has the Author already built them?

      Why can't these things be built in parallel? AB is definitely not a matter of the near future, so there is time to create a certain number of ships.

      Quote: Yuriy71
      Not to mention the Destroyers - they are not in the plans at all!

      There are ideas for the 22350M, which in terms of its characteristics will be quite close to destroyers.

      Quote: Yuriy71
      Air Wing: Aircraft and Helicopters Has the Author already configured it?

      For the Indians, the MiG-29K was built somehow. Why not be able to do it for yourself too?

      Quote: Yuriy71
      Another Empty article, in which the author argues - it is not known about what, about what is not and is not even expected

      An article about why aircraft carriers are needed in principle and where they could be really useful. Yes, now there is none of this, but you have to think in advance. Moreover, the author even shows that the idea is fundamentally feasible - if, of course, order in the domestic shipbuilding is restored. But this is a completely different story ...
      1. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl April 11 2021 00: 48
        -1
        Quote: Kalmar
        ...- if, of course, we put things in order in the domestic shipbuilding
        so it is necessary first (as soon as possible) to guide him ... yes all "FOR" ... but unfortunately, except for those on whom it depends. request ...
    4. Xscorpion
      Xscorpion April 10 2021 13: 34
      0
      Quote: Yuriy71
      The author should know perfectly well what the AUG consists of - it is a whole Squadron of escort ships, support ships, submarines! Has the Author already built them? We cannot build Frigates in the required quantities! Not to mention the Destroyers - they are not in the plans at all! Air Wing: Aircraft and Helicopters Has the Author already configured it? Pilots: The author knows that Russia already has practically no more corny - pilots for this wing! Another Empty article, in which the author argues - it is not known about what, about what is not and is not even foreseen !!! It's like "To split the skin of an unkilled bear."

      The standard composition of the American AUG is an aircraft carrier and 2-3 destroyers. It can also include a multipurpose nuclear submarine and 1-2 support vessels, instead of one destroyer there can be a cruiser. We even now have something to provide for 1-2 AUGs, if we had aircraft carriers ...
      1. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 April 11 2021 00: 59
        0
        Quote: Xscorpion
        We even now have something to provide for 1-2 AUG, if we had aircraft carriers.

        We don't have a damn thing. Unless the rower on the gallery will wave his oars.
        1. YOU
          YOU April 11 2021 23: 05
          +1
          "AUG can conduct combat operations without replenishment for up to 14 days, strike ships at sea to a depth of 925 km, and on coastal targets - about 1600 km. The AUG's ability to move 1100-1300 km per day provides relative stealth, and therefore , and the suddenness of action, allowing you to quickly arrive at the designated area. " could not insert a quote let's do this. Everything seems to be correct in the article. But there are many "buts". Let's digress from the topic of what we can build and what not, and how much it costs. The question is with whom we will fight and for what, and most importantly where. If with NATO and wherever, in Africa ???? The question is that the same aircraft carrier needs supplies. Everything written about the aircraft carrier "inspires" correctly. But after 14 days the battle will run out. True, I don't know where these numbers come from. Apparently taking into account the supply ships. In the old days there was a magazine called Foreign Military Review. So there were several other more modest data, even on nuclear aircraft carriers, although it all depends on the intensity of the flights, and we will shoot down with what to bomb. So that's why I remembered about the "Foreign Military Review", at one time it described in detail the course of the operation "Desert Storm". It was there, if memory serves as much as 3 AUG. Plus the first massive use of "axes". And also land airfields. And it took the United States all the same, in the first few months to prepare. And then a few months for the operation. And to what I'm leading, they organized several points of material support, at the bases of their allies and their own. A large number of transport ships are involved, bringing supplies to the points of material support. and from there by vessels specialized for these same AUG. I don't remember the exact numbers now, it was a long time ago. But it was a very serious transport operation. Strategic scale. And this despite the fact that the United States has bases all over the world, and already now many of them have very serious supplies of equipment. Remember the Falklands, the biggest problem was the provision. And just imagine, AUG will go anywhere. No one denies about power, and a conveyor belt of supply ships will be pulled behind it. Who will scurry back and forth, but thousands of miles away. And they also need to be protected. So we will need more ships than we currently have. If we talk about NATO, then most likely we will not get there, that will first have to fight in Europe. Well, there may already be no need to go to Africa. If with someone else, then regarding the supply, everything remains in effect.
          So, of course, the aircraft carrier is beautiful, but with whom and where we will fight them. An aircraft carrier is an airfield that can be moved anywhere in the world. And at this point, he will represent a very formidable force. But this requires very serious support. The question is whether we can afford it now. Perhaps in the future, yes. But now it is doubtful that we need it. The reasons are described above.
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 April 11 2021 23: 16
            0
            And I have always written that without the development of the merchant fleet, we will not have a strong navy. If you take the same Desert Storm, then Kuwait paid the Amrikans an astronomical amount to break off Saddam's horns. Plus advertising of axes, every day they showed how they almost fly into the window. And what did we do there? Gorbachev extinguished oil wells. And in my opinion for free, if sclerosis does not confuse me. Although I'm not sure, I don't really remember either.
  • Runway
    Runway April 9 2021 05: 46
    -7
    Timokhin A. began to master the genre of "alternative fiction". SAR and Africa, as well as the AUG of the Navy in the region of Gibraltar, Cyprus and other Port Sudans in the context of a regional conflict with a party belonging to the allied Yankee circle - biking (load on the naval aviation and the Air Force of the same Yankees in the DB zones in the studio smile )
    Air steamers as an element of the Navy are needed, but only in complex application with the aerospace forces / aviation of large-scale military operations.
    The tumultuous trampling of the UAV topic will obviously change the air component of the fleets. It will come to the point that a frigate-class steamer will have its own air group of 5-10 sides.
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 April 9 2021 05: 58
      -8
      The capitalists who cut the money in Africa using PMCs urgently need cover, you just do not understand this is completely different.
      1. Ryusey
        Ryusey April 9 2021 08: 59
        -5
        You MacLeods do not need to agree, although a splinter can tear off his head ...
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 9 2021 08: 58
      0
      Ate "Timokhin A. began to master the genre of" alternative fiction. ", Then you master the path to the cemetery for your family and other citizens of the Russian Federation.
  • Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri April 9 2021 05: 54
    +7
    Having never been an enemy of aircraft carriers, I will still allow myself a small remark: investing, in my opinion, is still better in your own land and people than to irrigate the savannahs of Zimbabwe and Angola with Russian blood, and to drive aircraft carriers back and forth. It is clear that you cannot get quick dividends from such investments, but on the other hand, the risks of losing your investment are much lower.

    This is so by the way. Indeed, even with such a strict monetary and monetary policy, we will still have to defend the zone of our national interests, which is by no means small for a country with such a length (and history). This means that it is impossible to do without naval aviation and means of its basing and delivery.

    What I'm really interested in is whether it makes sense to equip our future (still hypothetical) aircraft carrier with a minimum set of self-defense: for example, 16 UKSK 3S-14 (based on 8 PLUR and 8 "Onyx" or "Zircon" for enemy ships), 32- 48 cells of the Redoubt air defense missile system and 4 ZAK Palma / Broadsword, or is it still not worth trying to preserve the combination of an aircraft carrier and a cruiser, abandoning the idea of ​​crossing a rhinoceros with a hippopotamus?
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 April 9 2021 07: 35
      +5
      Quote: Dante
      ... does it make sense to equip our future (still hypothetical) aircraft carrier with a minimum set of self-defense: for example, 16 UKSK 3S-14 (based on 8 PLUR and 8 Onyx or Zircon for enemy ships), 32-48 SAM cells Redoubt and 4 ZAK Palma / Broadsword or is it still not worth trying to keep the combination of an aircraft carrier and a cruiser, abandoning the idea of ​​crossing a rhinoceros with a hippopotamus?

      In my opinion, this whole "theory of" aircraft-carrying cruisers "with a pile-up of everything (anti-ship missiles and aircraft ...) on one deck is erroneous.
      An aircraft carrier must carry the maximum possible amount of aircraft, as well as aviation fuel and ammunition for it. Short-range air defense missile systems and 6-8 ZAU (possibly up to 57-mm.), 4-8 tubes with anti-torpedoes. And, perhaps, that's all.
      The rest of the missions (ASW, air defense, anti-ship, shock) should be dealt with by the ships of the group (frigate / destroyer + nuclear submarine). Although, a lot can be solved well and carrier-based aircraft.
      1. novel66
        novel66 April 9 2021 08: 48
        -2
        The rest of the missions (anti-aircraft defense, anti-ship, shock) should be dealt with by the ships of the group (frigate / destroyer + nuclear submarine) ..

        in our case - where to get them?
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 9 2021 09: 59
          +5
          By the time the aircraft carrier is accepted into the Fleet (in 12-15 years), 3-4 frigates and a couple of submarines can be scraped together for the AUG ...
          1. novel66
            novel66 April 9 2021 10: 02
            -9
            exposing the rear?
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 April 9 2021 10: 48
              +8
              I am not inclined to indiscriminate optimism, but the fact that 4 surface ships and two submarines will "bare our rear" is cubed pessimism.
      2. Galleon
        Galleon April 9 2021 14: 18
        +1
        Quote: Doccor18
        In my opinion, this whole "theory of" aircraft-carrying cruisers "with a pile-up of everything (anti-ship missiles and aircraft ...) on one deck is erroneous.

        According to the Montreux convention, the aircraft carrier has no right of passage through the Black Sea straits. Therefore, those ships that were built in Nikolaev were additionally loaded with air defense systems and strike complexes and were called aircraft-carrying cruisers.
        If the Turks dig the canal, they will be able to pass the American AUG through it, and this will be very bad for the situation in the Black Sea Fleet.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 9 2021 17: 46
          +2
          Quote: Galleon
          If the Turks dig the canal, they will be able to pass the American AUG through it, and this will be very bad for the situation in the Black Sea Fleet.

          That's to put it mildly ...
          Quote: Galleon
          According to the Montreux convention, an aircraft carrier has no right of passage through the Black Sea straits ... they were called aircraft-carrying cruisers ...

          This is all clear.
          This convention, if I am not mistaken, is from the 30s of the last century. The problem, I think, is not in the convention, but in the general misunderstanding of the political leaders of the concept of such ships, the purpose of their creation ... Not without reason, for several decades, propaganda called aircraft carriers "weapons of imperialist aggression."
        2. clerk
          clerk April 9 2021 18: 00
          +3
          .If the Turks dig the canal, they will be able to pass the American AUG through it, and this will be very bad for the situation in the Black Sea Fleet.
          Sorry, but a small legal and geographical educational program: - the so-called. “Canal Istanbul” duplicates the Bosphorus Strait, but does not affect the Dardanelles Strait in any way. And the Montreux Convention defines the regime of BOTH straits. Therefore, the Turks will dig this channel, or will not dig it - legally, this will not affect the appearance of foreign AB in the Black Sea. As for the actual possibility, it will be determined only by the height of the span of the bridges over this new channel. laughing
    2. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 9 2021 08: 03
      +3
      Investing money in African or Latin American bankrupts is not Russia's national interest, even if this process is covered up by aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers will not help against behind-the-scenes coups.
    3. SVD68
      SVD68 April 9 2021 08: 08
      +2
      Quote: Dante
      What I'm really interested in is whether it makes sense to equip our future (still hypothetical) aircraft carrier with a minimum set of self-defense: for example, 16 UKSK 3S-14 (based on 8 PLUR and 8 "Onyx" or "Zircon" for enemy ships), 32- 48 cells of the Redoubt air defense missile system and 4 ZAK Palma / Broadsword, or is it still not worth trying to preserve the combination of an aircraft carrier and a cruiser, abandoning the idea of ​​crossing a rhinoceros with a hippopotamus?

      It all depends on the tactics of use.
      But I want to note that the Soviet experience of deploying anti-aircraft missiles on aircraft carriers was caused by the following circumstance. The USSR had very good anti-ship missiles Basalt and Granite. But due to their size, they could be placed in few places. In fact, only on ships and submarines specially built for them and such large ships as aircraft-carrying cruisers. To increase the number of Basalts and Granites, they were registered on our aircraft carriers.
      Now Calibers, Onyxes and, I hope, Zircons can be placed on any ships.
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri April 9 2021 18: 03
        0
        Now Calibers, Onyxes and, I hope, Zircons can be placed on any ships.

        This is what captivates. If on Kuznetsov P-700 occupies such a large volume, then the current rocket armament has very modest dimensions and to accommodate it, a significant reduction in the air wing both on the deck and in the Anger is no longer required. Moreover, it seems to me that it can generally be very succinctly entered into the superstructure of the hull, which again will allow us to save the available usable space. I draw your attention: I do not demand to place on the ship an entire arsenal similar to that which will be based on Admiral Nakhimov, but I propose to limit ourselves to the very minimum set of self-defense equipment intended in case the air wing has already managed to retire for a significant distance within the framework of the combat mission, and to the ship at this point, an attack was made by limited enemy forces (for example, several fighter bombers, 1-2 ships of the corvette or frigate class, or a multipurpose submarine). And certainly there can be no question of the presence of an artillery mount, as it was on the Krechet.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 9 2021 14: 38
      +4
      Quote: Dante
      What I'm really interested in is whether it makes sense to equip our future (still hypothetical) aircraft carrier with a minimum set of self-defense: for example, 16 UKSK 3S-14 (based on 8 PLUR and 8 "Onyx" or "Zircon" for enemy ships), 32- 48 cells of the Redoubt air defense missile system and 4 ZAK Palma / Broadsword, or is it still not worth trying to preserve the combination of an aircraft carrier and a cruiser, abandoning the idea of ​​crossing a rhinoceros with a hippopotamus?

      On AB, you need to place only the weapons that only he can carry. That is, planes. The maximum of non-core - air defense and anti-aircraft defense, for completing what went through the air defense and anti-aircraft defense of the escort.
      Strike missile armament and air defense missile systems will also be installed on frigates, it is not necessary to take away areas and volumes from the air group for this.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 06: 30
      .
      now about Turkey and Norway ... firstly, you can fly there without an Aircraft Carrier, and secondly, both NATO members and fight them without nuclear weapons are not strong enough not only at sea, but also on land, the same applies to Japan ... total 1 ) Timokhin diligently evaded answering specific 5 questions asked to him 2) Timokhin confirmed that AV is a weapon of aggression attacks on African and Asian countries 3) Timokhin failed to prove that the war with NATO (Japan
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8 ) пригодится АВ 4) на коренной вопрос где деньги Зин? У Тимохина с Андреем из Ч ответ один.... нет денег...ну а если денег нет, мы поехали привет....нету денег на АВ, принесите нам ловэ....у РФ и не предвидится.. спор пустопорожний чего добиваться того на что нет денег, итого= палубных самолетов нет, инфраструктуры нет, опыта нет, кораблей охранения нет, и самого авианосца нет, и целей для него нет и дока нет, .... 5) итак попытка привести две цели АВ полностью провалилась, Африка нам не нужна, а свои берега достанем береговой авиацией....(каламбур берег свой так и авиация своя) ...... супостата достанем ракетами
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 9 2021 09: 02
      +7
      What kind of nonsense do you sometimes write, it is dear to read it as an example of a clinic, although you are certainly the smartest, well, in narrow circles))
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin April 9 2021 12: 43
        +5
        good , yes, the same emotions caused these, if I may say so, comments. Half of the "questions" have direct answers in the text. On the second - in the publications of Andrey from Chelyabinsk, whom he also covers. Especially touched about the "sect of aircraft carrier witnesses." Whose cow ... laughing
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 9 2021 12: 39
      +3
      Military factories in Russia do not belong to a private owner. And the very concept of ownership still needs to be clarified, because if Norilsk Nickel has shareholders from the United States, then in the event of a conflict with the United States, their share can simply be confiscated, the plant itself is, as it were, in Russia, and having a percentage of its shares, it is not transport.
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 April 9 2021 06: 31
    .
    The best excerpt from a fantastic book about the prospects for the development of the Navy.
    The author, you forgot about the outposts. Are the destroyers already on the slipway? He (the destroyer) is not even on paper. For several years, the fleet could not decide on the power plant for the destroyer (gas turbine engine or reactor). Determined, determined and decided to build a massive trough called "corvette" in the end. So much for reality. Curtain.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 06: 48
      .
      Quote: FRoman1984
      massive build troughs called "corvette"

      I agree, I support, but not massively, but in small series
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 9 2021 09: 03
      -3
      Have you run out of BOD yet?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 21: 55
        +1
        bpk is initially a large frigate .... until they run out and are trying to extend the resource, now there are 7 (8?) pennants, including 5 combat-ready
    3. Xscorpion
      Xscorpion April 10 2021 13: 41
      -1
      Quote: FRoman1984
      The best excerpt from a fantastic book about the prospects for the development of the Navy.
      The author, you forgot about the outposts. Are the destroyers already on the slipway? He (the destroyer) is not even on paper. For several years, the fleet could not decide on the power plant for the destroyer (gas turbine engine or reactor). Determined, determined and decided to build a massive trough called "corvette" in the end. So much for reality. Curtain.

      Well, why is this binding to the name Destroyer? We have different classifications of ships with NATO. Our frigates are quite like destroyers. Well, if we call them destroyers tomorrow, will it be easier for you?
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 06: 43
    .
    the cunning Timokhin wants to confuse everyone, he invented his five questions so as not to answer the 5 questions asked to HIM ... from which he shamefully avoided realizing his wrongness and weakness ... all 5 Timokhin's questions do not concern AB (a well-known manipulative method of substituting the subject of the dispute ) these are questions about aviation, .... we answer, we have aviation (coastal) and strike and target designating and long-range, it solves all problems without AB, we do not need AB ... There is not enough aviation and the creation of AB will be a blow to aviation for which there will be no money., as well as a strike on the vital nuclear submarines and ICBMs
    1. ccsr
      ccsr April 9 2021 13: 21
      -6
      Quote: vladimir1155
      the cunning Timokhin wants to confuse everyone, he invented his five questions so as not to answer the 5 questions asked to HIM,

      I also noticed this feature of the writing journalist Timokhin - he did not answer a single question regarding the operational use of aircraft carriers, and he always avoids this. And this proves that the person is not at all in the subject, but got it into his head that aircraft carriers are cool, and everyone should believe him. I suspect that he deliberately exaggerates this topic in the hope that the people will lead to his lies, and believe that we have all enemies in the country's leadership, and he Timokhin on a white horse is fighting them. Although I am sure that he is pursuing selfish goals, and I do not exclude that he is being dictated to impose these questions.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 21: 49
        -3
        Quote: ccsr
        the peculiarity of the writing journalist Timokhin - he did not answer a single question regarding the operational use of aircraft carriers, and he always avoids this.

        totally agree
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra April 9 2021 07: 02
    -6
    Well, I didn't understand nicherta ... The question is that the aircraft carrier is 5-6 billion, the air wing is the same minimum, the support group ... well, also in the price of the aircraft carrier, roughly - 15 lard at a minimum must be ripped out from somewhere. Where - it is not clear. For what? Here I am not a Moreman, but it seems to me that
    But the aircraft carrier, at the first signs of a threatened period, moved from Tartus to the Red Sea

    ... reminds of a fairy tale about a white bull, where an Englishwoman with an aircraft carrier near Taiwan scared China - no one was scared. There will be a target dangling in the Red Sea - and it will be a target until they cover it from the coast, and it is not covered - there is no money, that's the same 15 billion at least.
    Well, these are of course the judgments of an amateur, I just did not understand this spherical horse in a vacuum. Bam - and our aircraft carrier teleported to a stripped-down base with a figurative infrastructure and sits there, waits, perhaps for years (the enemy can afford it), he does not need service, so that at an hour Heh will happily come to the Red Sea and defeat everyone! With the same success, you can buy a corny base closer in advance, and it will cost less, I think so. And not to let, I suspect, is easier an aircraft carrier through Suez, and not a base within a radius
  • Professor
    Professor April 9 2021 07: 14
    .
    As you know, the United States has made great efforts to create a terrorist group called the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - ISIS (banned in the Russian Federation).

    I did not read further. I thought by the title that the article was about aircraft carriers, but here, like in a scoop, an ideological introduction like:
    "The historic decisions of the XNUMXth Congress of the CPSU have become an inspiring program of creation and peace for the Soviet people. Science plays a major role in the implementation of the plans outlined by the party." era ". "
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 9 2021 08: 07
      -9
      First time in life plus Professor
    2. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 April 9 2021 08: 09
      +2
      Only Jewish Zionism is worse.
  • Exval
    Exval April 9 2021 07: 24
    -3
    In my opinion, the author's demand to refute it "with examples, pictures and diagrams" is completely redundant and obviously unnecessary. For the absence of the need for aircraft carriers for the domestic fleet (as well as the impossibility of this task for the country's economy and industry) is proved by referring to the historical experience and the general logic of the development of the navies. Understandably, the desire of the patriots of the fleet to convince themselves and others that an aircraft carrier under the St.Andrew's flag is both cool and vital, but alas ... Their arguments are not convincing.
    1. Runway
      Runway April 9 2021 07: 38
      -4
      You do not understand the "intent" - the monetization of the "dead" topic at the moment by means of scholasticism, who will "swallow" the "bait" and "the volume of articles is provided."
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 9 2021 09: 06
      0
      Yours is also not too much and give examples of historical experience, especially in the context of a clash with a world-class sea power.
    3. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 10 2021 11: 48
      -1
      The very title of the article "a few questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers" raised some questions in me. To which opponents does the author ask his questions?
      I admit that there are certain individuals who do not accept the aircraft carrier as a class. I have met very few of them. Others admit their existence in some countries of the world, but not in Russia. There are more of them. But there are also opponents of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy in the next 30-50 years, to which I include myself. I believe that those are the majority. Therefore, such a general formulation of the question is meaningless for everyone and indicates a lack of understanding by the author of the problem under consideration.
      Further, the author boldly primitivizes his opponents by means of a vulgar interpretation of their points of view, reducing all the argumentation to several primitive theses: money "and the like."
      Then, with absolutely no evidence, he brings the point of view of his opponents to a fantastic absurdity: “In especially pathological cases, it is proposed to start a nuclear war in response to any shot, and even if the United States does not participate in the conflict, then immediately strike at them, cause a nuclear response by itself. blow, because America is definitely for any of our enemies, right? So we all need nuclear suicide. " So-so trick from the field of discussion holivar. I closely follow the discussions on the aircraft carrier topic on the pages of "VO", but, I must confess, I have not met any calls for nuclear suicide. But the calls to start building aircraft carriers in the near future can only be described as calls for "aircraft carrier suicide" by Russia and Mr. Timokhin as his apologist.
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 10 2021 11: 48
        +2
        Further, the author issues a profound maxim, which deserves to be cited in full: “We must clearly understand that the issues of creating a military fleet in general and aircraft carrier forces (without which the capabilities of the Navy are very severely slaughtered) in particular, in our country have long been turned into irrational, and in some especially advanced cases - in general, in medical ones. " I could not understand the terms and concepts used by the author about the slaughtered capabilities of the Navy in the light of the irrational and medical issues of creating a military fleet. For the life of me I don’t understand what Mr. Timokhin wanted to say.
        1. Silhouette
          Silhouette April 10 2021 11: 50
          0
          Further Timokhin explains for such dull ones like me:
          The reason for this, in his opinion, "lies in the fact that the consciousness of a significant part of our citizens still bears distinct signs of such a pre-industrial era, and such complex issues as the Navy simply do not fit into their heads." It is written quite illiterately (the reason he has "lies") and incoherently "questions do not fit into the head", and consciousness bears "clear signs of the pre-industrial era", which are known only to the author himself, because it is absolutely impossible to understand what the author means due to the lack of research on this topic.
          A clear impression is created that this consciousness of the author “does not fit in the head”.
          But he further continues to relegate his opponents to the primitive outlook of a rural inhabitant:
          “Potatoes in the garden - fits, the neighboring city where there is (or not) Ikea, unlike the city of residence - fits, the fleet - does not fit. The land for which you can fight in order to take it, dear land, (or, alternatively, not to give it) - fits, and the significance of open sea communications - does not fit. And really, what kind of fleet is in the taiga? There is no fleet there, which means it does not exist, and cannot exist at all, and there is no need to breed verbiage here. "
          I am beginning to understand that I, who served in the navy for 25 years, including 10 years in the 10th operational squadron of the Pacific Fleet, where there were two aircraft carriers, the author, who did not serve in the navy for a single day, equated me with specialists in rural potatoes and taiga savages.
          Well, well, I also had to deal with not such eccentrics for the well-known letter. Go ahead.
          1. Silhouette
            Silhouette April 10 2021 11: 50
            +1
            Timokhin laments: “This unpleasant and tough, but truthful conclusion is directly confirmed by the fact that none of the authors has ever illustrated the uselessness of an aircraft carrier with any even primitive tactical task simplified to an unacceptable level in military planning. With distances, combat radii and specific areas of the oceans.
            And he kills his opponents on the spot: "So, behind the propaganda of the uselessness of aircraft-carrying ships among those who spread it, there is no understanding of the process." Like, opponents - propagandize, and he proves. They are propagandists (this is now a liberal curse). And Timokhin himself is an objective researcher from science. And these primitive propagandists from the village and taiga "think in cliches, but they simply cannot imagine the reflection of the American" alpha-strike ", like a lot of other things."
            And Timokhin is determined to give the last and decisive battle to these idiots and "return the discussion to a rigid conceptual framework."
            To do this, he decided to ask "the opponents of aircraft carriers a number of questions, an attempt to answer which would make them start thinking not in clichés."
            A very noble and wonderful idea! What question does he ask first and strikes the enemy on the spot with one blow, like the submarine missile carrier "Baton"? I begin to experience vague restlessness and anxiety. Will I be able to answer it? Maybe now my consciousness will be reformatted and I am shouting joyfully “Banzai! I will join the ranks of supporters of the aircraft carrier idea of ​​Russia. And here's the question:
            Question 1. How are you going to fight without aviation in principle?
            I confess he surprises me. I'm not going to fight without aviation. And not a single sane person of the industrial age either. It seems to me. Nobody has such principles.
            So who is this thoughtful question addressed to? Inhabitants of a mental hospital or insane asylums?
            In principle, you can skip reading further. The impression is that Timokhin is talking to himself. He hears himself, and convinces himself. This can be considered a diagnosis.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr April 10 2021 18: 47
            +1
            Quote: Silhouette
            I am beginning to understand that I, who served in the navy for 25 years, including 10 years in the 10th operational squadron of the Pacific Fleet, where there were two aircraft carriers, the author, who did not serve in the navy for a single day, equated me with specialists in rural potatoes and taiga savages.

            I would like to note that practically all military professionals who have served in the Armed Forces for many years have the same attitude to the "creativity" of this journalist, illiterate in military affairs, and there is no reason for his idea of ​​creating aircraft carriers. I think that Timokhiin is deliberately imposing this whim on ignorant people who are not able to correctly assess the current state of our economy, but they really want us to be like the Americans, in a word, a typical manilovism.
            In general, the essence of his plans is to inflict as much damage as possible on Russia by creating weapons that are absolutely unnecessary for us, which is why some authors directly call him a provocateur.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 9 2021 07: 57
    +3
    In especially pathological cases, it is proposed to start a nuclear war in response to any shot,


    And let's not lie, they pointed the finger at the obvious fact that any large-scale aggression is driven under the threat of the existence of the state, and nuclear strikes may well be the answer to it, moreover, the long-term investment of huge funds in the nuclear shield and the memory of the Second World War itself , in principle, they do not leave the authorities any choice, otherwise, if it is impossible to win the war immediately and with almost no losses, they will have to answer to the population for the coffins and the very existence of the strategic nuclear forces, which turns out to be holding no one back.

    A nuclear response to aggression is simply an inevitable fact, the only question is whether there will be warnings, the number of charges and their targets.
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 April 9 2021 08: 40
      -3
      Quote: EvilLion
      A nuclear response to aggression is just an inevitable fact

      If this is an inevitable fact, then why spend money on other military construction? Let's not lie, if a nuclear response is inevitable, then we must start with it, bypassing meaningless intermediate stages.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 9 2021 08: 54
        +2
        And if we attack someone, or are we asked to sort out a civil war, where we cannot figure out in the squares, leaving the customer only a burnt radioactive desert?
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 21: 52
      -1
      Quote: EvilLion
      Nuclear response to aggression is just an inevitable fact,

      undoubtedly, this is part of the doctrine and the basis of the security of the Russian Federation
    3. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 April 11 2021 01: 08
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      Nuclear response to aggression is just an inevitable fact,

      Complete nonsense. Wet dreams from kindergarten.
  • Yaroslav Zhigulin
    Yaroslav Zhigulin April 9 2021 08: 15
    +2
    Watching the Falklands invasion of Yugoslavia and any desert storm. And again we understand that the aircraft carrier is needed only in the open ocean. And he will lose to any ground air base.
    We look at the USA at their 11 aircraft carriers and hundreds of airfields around the world

    Regarding the Norwegian Sea, here recently V1B showed what would happen to the NC if they turned in the wrong direction


    Oto will be a coordinated strike of aug and you are interested in the question of what an aw will do with it with 20 aircraft
    What then is the whole world to dust?
    And the syas are strong enough. You wrote an article that is not enough. And what to do next?
    Here the question will become purely quantitative whether we are ready to build a fleet equal to at least half of the NATO fleet. And not 1 ... 2 aircraft carriers of moderate displacement. And the question is whether they will give
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 9 2021 08: 16
    +3
    and the importance of open sea communications does not fit


    Please show these communications. Otherwise, I woke up in the morning and remember that I lived in the largest country in the world, which does not have access to the open seas, except for the actually internal Northern Sea Route.

    None of the authors has ever illustrated the uselessness of an aircraft carrier with any even primitive tactical task, simplified to an unacceptable level in military planning. With distances, combat radii and specific areas of the oceans.


    You don't have to illustrate anything, you assert - you prove. Scenarios of the type of landing in the Philippines, where without an aircraft carrier, or an air base nearby, will be difficult to the extreme, we do not consider them realistic. That's just 100% in the next 50 years, this will not happen. As well as the strange wars in the Iceland region since the days when submarines with missiles were almost to sail to New York. But our imagination is also rich, for example, Russia does not exclude the possibility of claiming rights to Antarctica.

    Let us ask ourselves the question - what if the Americans, with air strikes, would clear the way for the militants in the same way as their loyal henchmen, the Danes, did it later at Deir es-Zor, opening the way for ISIS fighters to the city?


    The question is why ours ended up there exactly in 2015, and not earlier. At the same time, it is pointless to talk about both single attacks by the American Air Force that would not have affected, and about some kind of help from "Kuzi", which is physically incomparable with Khmeinim.

    as long as we invest in the country as we should, and when it comes to the return on these investments, just arrange a coup there, and that's it


    And how will aircraft carriers help in this case? Will the country be occupied and will participate in the civil war that will start there? The point is that one dagger is sometimes more effective than a thousand swords.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 April 9 2021 08: 26
    +4
    Again, some kind of competition between authors and commentators?
    Is this such a new "trend" now? Oh well...
    Here I do not belong to any of the two groups (for
    and against AVM), I am a practitioner-realist. In general, I will express
    my personal point of view, I will express myself very briefly, but
    I will try to make it intelligible.
    - We have nothing to do either in Syria or in Africa, we don’t need
    come up with tasks for the AUG. First you need to point
    order in your country, and then think about all sorts of
    "Africans".
    - Reconnaissance and command control is a very important issue, but it is being resolved
    not fighters with AVM, but "space" and aircraft
    patrol aircraft.
    - Our submarine and submarine submarine enemy. I'm already old, and
    I almost forgot everything, but now flash my memory
    suggest - everything is completely different from how they draw here
    in the pictures, the absence of our fighters with AVM in any way
    will not affect the performance of the assigned tasks. Truth,
    we now have almost no submarines, so there is no one to defend.
    - I believe that in the presence of aircraft with a combat radius
    about 2500 km (Su-34M), and anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 1000 km,
    we can not strain about AVM. Here over this now and
    you have to work hard.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim April 9 2021 11: 56
      +2
      Is this such a new "trend" now?

      This is now a new holivar, or simply - srach against the background of seasonal exacerbation. Like "Kalashnikov assault rifle or M16?"
    2. 911sx
      911sx April 9 2021 23: 52
      0
      I believe that in the presence of aircraft with a combat radius
      about 2500 km (Su-34M), and anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 1000 km,
      we can not strain about AVM. Here over this now and
      you have to work hard. Su 34m within a combat radius of 2500 km in the open sea to cover from enemy aircraft who will? And target designation of anti-ship missiles .... Probably Tu 95 rts. I doubt it very much. Isn't it better to do it with carrier-based aircraft ... and cover the Su 34 and provide target designation.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 April 10 2021 07: 45
        +1
        Quote: 911sx
        Su 34m within a combat radius of 2500 km in the open sea to cover from enemy aircraft who will?

        And from which enemy will you need to cover?
        Quote: 911sx
        And target designation of anti-ship missiles .... I doubt very much

        This is a completely separate topic ...
        And you do not doubt, nothing will happen - not AVM,
        no Su-34M, no anti-ship missiles with a range of 1000 km, no new
        patrol plane ... NOTHING!
    3. andybuts
      andybuts April 13 2021 13: 35
      0
      - We have nothing to do either in Syria or in Africa, we don’t need
      come up with tasks for the AUG. First you need to point
      order in your country, and then think about all sorts of
      "Africans".


      Gold words. We do not have Russia (I will clarify, ordinary citizens of Russia) in any part of the world interests for which our army should fight or which should be ensured.
      The author confuses the business interests of individual companies (Lukoil, Rosneft, Rosatom, Gazprom, etc.) with the interests of Russia. It is proposed to use the armed forces in the struggle for the possession of oil wells in Libya, the profit from which will be received by shareholders and oligarchs, and which will give the country no more than a hundred additional jobs in analytical departments and company headquarters.
      About the seizure of Svalbard and the war with the United States or a coalition from some NATO countries - this is some kind of surrealism.

      It's good if your fleet has 4-6 carrier groups and other fleets in different parts of the world, no one argues. But only the basis for the presence of these forces should be a powerful economy, a developed industrial and scientific base, appropriate political influence, sound goals, thoughtful concepts of application, and not memories of past greatness and influence, imitation of other states and the ambitions of individual figures.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 9 2021 08: 50
    +10
    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.


    That is, we will be obliged to constantly keep an aircraft carrier in Tartus, which in case of anything will not pass into any Red Sea, since we do not control the Suez Canal. They will land another barge there "accidentally" aground and you can sunbathe on the take-off deck while you smoke around Africa, through British Gibraltar. Just in time for the nodding analysis and you will arrive.

    The problem with aircraft carrier supporters is that an aircraft carrier is not an independent force, but a tool to strengthen existing forces.

    The conditional base in Sudan should not depend on whether an aircraft carrier is on the move or not, it should have enough strength to react in the first hours, because if the locals drag "our" president to a lamp post, we will not have days for the approach of the fleet, and, perhaps, even for the arrival of aviation. The garrison must jump armored personnel carriers and take control not only of its base, but also of key objects. Well, the MiG-35 link plus several Mi-8s at the base should also be available. Even 4 aircraft for which a couple of dozen KABs are in store at the right time will be more valuable than an entire aircraft carrier near Tartus. Well, then, something will come. At the same time, the rebels are not fools either, they will not wait for the Russians to send serious reinforcements, which guarantees the swiftness of the development of events.

    By the way, in the same Venezuela, the rebel was driven under the table without an explicit dispatch of expeditionary forces, which could only observe how much more benefit turned out to be from cybersecurity specialists and other people with bearing, but in civilian clothes.

    The question arises - how would our group in Syria keep up in such conditions?


    In the fantasies of aircraft carriers, an aircraft carrier is something that solves all problems. I'm afraid to disappoint, but an aircraft carrier is nothing more than a floating airfield with insignificant supplies of fuel and bombs for aircraft on board. And in order for him to act on him, huge security and supply forces must work. And in the case of a scenario of a war with Turkey, provided that our aircraft carrier was located off the coast of Syria, its entire role would be reduced to the expenditure of ammunition with fuel, after which it, like Khmeinim, would be in a blockade, if it were not destroyed by the Turkish aviation and fleet, i.e. because it would inevitably be near the coast. And, obviously, the only way to maintain the defense of troops in Syria is to arrange on the Black Sea coast of Turkey such that it would not be able to closely engage in Syria. That is, the help of the aircraft carrier trough would be expressed only in the presence of additional. squadrons.
  • Kotus
    Kotus April 9 2021 08: 52
    +4
    Alexander, hello again! In my opinion (I am not an opponent of aircraft carriers), there are several points in the article that require more accurate argumentation with facts, figures, or just a visual calculation:

    1. The assertion that a W76-2 strike (when there will be enough of them is unknown) from the "red zones" will take less time than the command for a response launch will pass through the command and control networks.

    2. Launch corridor from the Pacific Ocean. Where did the American scheme come from, from what source? And does this "hole" in the early warning system really exist today? Is there at hand the most up-to-date diagram of the view areas available now and planned for commissioning in the near future radar and ZGRLS early warning system?

    3. Recharging the UKSK in the base for 48 hours. Where did this figure come from? It is too dubious - conventionally, when the IBM enters the base, there are already "pencils" on the pier and there is a crane. As an example -
    "To load without rolling" in calm water "on the ship of the project 20380 of the total ammunition of the missile defense system
    it takes about 8 hours, excluding the time for preparing the SZ, transport logistics and,
    if necessary, unloading empty TPK. "(Shipborne means of loading missiles into vertical launchers. Kiper, Davlyud. Science, society, defense. # 3, 2018)

    4. For what reason are the URO ships in the example with the "modification" X-35 limited to a speed of 20 knots?
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 9 2021 09: 23
    +2
    But how would we protect the convoys from Turkish air strikes?


    The author lives in 1940. Turkish Air Force - about 200 combat aircraft, EMNIP will not receive any reinforcements, the war is what it is, that is, even before the supply troughs bypass Europe, the Turkish Air Force should already cease to exist simply because the aircraft based on the Su- 27 without any tankers penetrate Turkish territory through and through, which means after the destruction of the Black Sea bases of Turkey, and we can do this with purely brute force, and it will happen - even without nuclear bombs, most likely, no later than 24 hours after the start of the conflict, destruction will begin airfields deep in Turkish territory. I do not know how many planes we ourselves will lose, the walk will not be easy, but the complete destruction of the Turkish Air Force is within our power and they do not have a flight out in the form of a flight to zones inaccessible to our aviation.

    disruption of an enemy nuclear missile strike from ocean directions


    And you can ask the question, how realistic is this task at all and how is it more dangerous than launching nuclear missiles from the territory of the United States? We are not considering nonsense about a "disarming strike", because our strategic nuclear forces can only scratch a few dozen missiles from submarines, which means that a response of hundreds of warheads is inevitable.

    At the same time, when they want to attack us from the sea, our aircraft carrier, or its helicopters, which graze the submarine, neutralize it without any problems. That is, again there is a belief in a miracle weapon, that "what if we have an aircraft carrier!"

    For comparison, we take "Kuznetsov" with an air group of 22 MiG-29K


    Almost "Nimitz" which also has 24 fighters F \ A-18. Do not cut the sturgeon - halve it.

    The key mistake is that the author begins to count the missiles, but does not think at all about the cost, and worse than that, he actually demands to have his own version for each case. After all, the need for frigates with missiles will not disappear from the presence of an aircraft carrier. I admit that in some situations airplanes would be more effective than missiles, but no matter how we talk about the difference between the presence of an opportunity and its absence. That is, the tasks of an aircraft carrier can be performed by ships and missile carriers. It may be worse in some situations, but they can. And it is unlikely that the construction of an aircraft carrier for the sake of 1-2 operations, in which aircraft are better than missiles, will be justified.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 22: 10
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      And it is unlikely that the construction of an aircraft carrier for the sake of 1-2 operations in which aircraft are better than missiles will be justified.

      certainly
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 11 June 2021 12: 08
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      That is, the tasks of an aircraft carrier can be performed by ships and missile carriers. It may be worse in some situations, but they can. And it is unlikely that the construction of an aircraft carrier for the sake of 1-2 operations in which aircraft are better than missiles will be justified.

      not quite so, it would be more accurate to say "you can abandon aircraft carriers (ford \ nimits \ blacksmiths \ ersatz), but you cannot abandon aircraft carriers with large manned aircraft (VTA \ AWACS)" (that is, at least UDC \ DVKD \ etc mass dimensions comparable to Singapore endurance). Now, if such ships are substituted in the previously given comparison, then ...
  • Prometheus
    Prometheus April 9 2021 09: 48
    0
    As always, an excellent article, everything is reasoned logically. And Timokhinskaya's proprietary text structure hi
    Alexander, a couple of questions:
    1) What is the maximum ammunition load of the CD for deck ships that Kuznetsov can carry?
    2) Are the supply vessels carrying additional ammunition for the carrier's decks?
  • Engineer
    Engineer April 9 2021 09: 56
    +5
    Somehow unconvincing at all
    And if you ensure the disruption of the deployment of SSBNs for strike, then nuclear weapons from the enemy will not be used.

    Yeah, let's build an avik and rip it off. In the pre-war period, at the stage from the aggravation of relations to the war, especially. And what about the fact that we already have an aircraft carrier? Is it different? And why did the US nuclear triad dry up only to the unfortunate SSBNs, that it is enough to deal with them and there will be no nuclear war?
    We are conducting an anti-submarine search operation west of the Strait of Gibraltar to prevent SSBNs from breaking through into the Mediterranean.

    All Timokhin in one phrase. Are we preempting the deployment of the States? This is possible if some of their submarines are always deployed at launch positions, isn't it? Why, then, do they still climb into Mediterranean. Why don't they go to the North Sea, the west coast of Norway, etc. where there is no Kuzi 2.0?
    And what are the 11 American tin cans doing? Are they not covering up the deployment of their SSBNs?
    The epic Russian aircraft carrier suppresses, intimidates, distributes bream and owns the sea. Adyn, that is, with a group of squires. It’s good.
    So the US allies may well not come to the war, this is a fact.

    And the Britasha too? Fact?
    This is not an idle question - let's take a look at the scheme of Russia's economic presence in Africa. We look at the money invested and the turnover.

    Venture capital investments should be backed by portfolio balancing and risk analysis. And not aircraft carriers, large landing ships, and regiments of the marines. The state is not a direct beneficiary of the actions of companies abroad. The state takes taxes, but we have it at 13 percent. Neither Lukoil nor Rosneft will ever beat off an aircraft carrier with a tax on African profits.
    And what should we do then, how to save our money?

    Not to us, but to Lukoil and the company. There are a lot of options. The most obvious is not to go to Africa. At all.

    The most important thing
    Aircraft carrier witnesses in Russia, you want a new aircraft carrier, but what about Kuzya? Why not renovated?
    Why are there regiments - we also have an aircraft carrier! It is only necessary to repair it in some way, but there is nothing to be done about it - there are still organizers at the USC ...

    How to understand this in general? Kuzya kaput? And is this durakam a new toy? Again before the first fence, that is, the combat exit? How can we build a new one if we cannot repair the old one? We can build, but not repair. Maybe it's better not to start?
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 9 2021 13: 08
      +3
      Quote: Engineer
      And is this durakam a new toy? Again before the first fence, that is, the combat exit? How can we build a new one if we cannot repair the old one? We can build, but not repair. Maybe it's better not to start?

      Ay-uuuuuu, Timokhin! Where are the answers? ..... You don't need to ask a lot of cleverness. In general, before telling how to protect national interests in Africa or in the vastness of the Universe with the help of aircraft carriers or intergalactic spacecraft, it is necessary to show a document where these very national interests are formulated. And they are not formulated anywhere.
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich April 9 2021 10: 06
    +2
    The author is not convincing enough in his argumentation.
    1. For air support of possible "colonial" operations with an enemy that does not have air defense ("barmaley"), AUG is not needed. There are quite enough carriers of the UDC type, laid in Kerch, with the corresponding aircraft.
    2. In a conflict with an enemy that has superior air and space forces, single AUG are useless. Extra and painful losses.
    To counteract surface ships, it is necessary to continue the development of long-range unmanned weapons used from different types of carriers. For ASW in the far zone, it is necessary to develop means of illumination of the underwater situation and naval weapons on submarines and, possibly, underwater drones.
    3. In what the author is right, so in the fact that the Navy is far behind in the systems of conducting "network-centric wars", and not only from the world average, but even from other types of Russian Armed Forces. On this path, an alternative to the aircraft carrier solution of the tasks facing the fleet is possible, and more efficient. For promising weapons, a global reconnaissance and target designation system is required, which produces data at a rate close to real time and its creation is one of the primary tasks of the development of the Armed Forces as a whole.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock April 9 2021 10: 22
    -2
    In general, a funny article turned out.
    At first, everything seems to be smooth, everything is logical.
    And even the whole world torn to glaze was remembered, and then again ...
    And pre-capture Svalbard ...
    Applause to the author.
    1. timokhin-aa
      April 9 2021 11: 43
      +3
      Can you imagine at least one sane defense of the country in the north without capturing Bear and Svalbard and invading Norway at least to the Honningsvag-Lakselv-Karasiyok line (with the capture of the rokada)? This is not real.
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin April 9 2021 12: 47
        -2
        Why, Alexander, what are you? The capture of Spitsbergen is absolutely unrealistic, because the commentator had never heard such a phrase before and never thought about it. And since this has not happened before, it means that it is simply impossible. This is an obvious fact, as you did not immediately understand something !!!
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock April 9 2021 14: 38
          0
          Quote: Artyom Karagodin
          The capture of Svalbard is an absolutely unreal thing, because the commentator had never heard such a phrase before and never thought about it.

          No, I didn't think so. What for?
          I just always thought that an attack on a NATO country automatically means the beginning of a global war with mutual glazing and the whole world in dust.
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin April 9 2021 15: 49
            0
            Read the publications of Alexander carefully, he often says in which case this is possible.

            As for trash, they fought with China, by the way, a nuclear power, on Damanskoye, and without any trash.
      2. alstr
        alstr April 9 2021 14: 05
        -2
        If we capture Svalbard, then there is no need for an aircraft carrier, because it is easier to arrange a field airfield. This is in addition to the existing airports.
        1. Evil eye
          Evil eye April 9 2021 14: 11
          +2
          ... which will be even easier to bomb with "tomahawks"
          1. alstr
            alstr April 9 2021 15: 13
            -1
            Yeah, only on land can air defense be built much more seriously than at sea. Build the same S-400 with Shells and Torahs. Plus aviation. Plus more powerful electronic warfare.
            I will say even more. If you wish, you can also solve the problem with the long reloading of ammunition for the S-400. (it's just stupid to put another set of launchers next to it and switch to new launchers when the ammo is used up).
            The advantage of a ground aerodrome over AB is that a shipyard or a dock is not needed to repair the aerodrome runway. And we have problems with this (the presence of docks and shipyards).
            Those. the stability of the aerodrome is higher than AB.

            In addition, it is easier to land a damaged aircraft on the ground than on AB.

            PS I'm not against the actual AB, but we need to prioritize and look to the future.
            In the meantime, based on the current situation, even with the coastal defense (ASW is weak, and with minesweepers it is even worse) disorder. Therefore, a new AB is not a necessity. And if we take into account the trend in the development of various drones, then the value of AB (in the classical sense) in 20 years will be scanty.
            In my humble opinion, we need:
            1. To form an AUG of a permanent composition (and not prefabricated hodgepodge as now - what is ready, then they pushed into the sea). And on it to work out all the questions. There is one aircraft carrier (albeit a small one), the rest of the AUG can also be formed from existing ships (the same Peter the Great will do, plus modern corvettes / frigates can be sent there).
            And calm down on this.
            2. Create a solid coastal defense, i. E. we need about 50-60 modern patrol (ie good anti-aircraft defense + air defense of self-defense + 4-8 anti-missile systems) ships of the near sea zone. Plus the reconstruction of mine-sweeping forces.
            3. To this add the development of the base infrastructure (including AB) and preferably further from the border.
            4. To deal with the issues of drones (not only UAVs), which may reduce the need to build part of the patrol force and cancel the construction of AB.
            It should be understood that instead of AB it may be necessary to build a completely new type of ship.
            1. Evil eye
              Evil eye April 9 2021 16: 17
              -1
              > Yeah, only on land can air defense be built much more seriously than at sea. Build the same S-400 with Shells and Torahs. Plus aviation. Plus more powerful electronic warfare.
              I will say even more. If you wish, you can also solve the problem with the long reloading of ammunition for the S-400. (it's just stupid to put another set of launchers next to it and switch to new launchers when the ammo is used up).

              Well, let's think logically. All this would work well if it was about air defense somewhere in the interior of the mainland. And here is an arctic island. More precisely, even a group of islands, which does not add any advantages. You can attack him from any direction. The archipelago is small, it is shot through by rockets. From a massive volley of missiles emerging from the horizon, ground-based air defense will not protect well, especially since it will be suppressed in the first place. An echeloned defense cannot be built. In the jungle, you cannot hide from enemy reconnaissance because of their absence. Maneuvering forces will not work out especially, because the roads are not very good there. To transfer more equipment, communications will have to be protected, that is, you still need to achieve domination at sea, but at the same time be able to do without an aircraft carrier. You cannot build a capital airfield in three days, but a temporary unpaved one ... Well, even if it can be done quickly and efficiently, then the airfield is not only GDP. We need to store planes somewhere. Airplanes parked in the open air is a great target. Much more priority than ground takeoff. And the more troops you drive there, the tastier the target will be for the enemy.
              It turns out that the capture of small islands should take place not instead of the actions of the fleet, but together with the fleet.

              > And we have a problem with this (the presence of docks and shipyards).

              This is how these problems need to be solved.

              > In addition, it is easier to land a damaged aircraft on the ground than on AB.

              Nobody bothers you to sit down on the ground, it's just dangerous to stay there for a long time, if this land is not in the depths of its territory, but far beyond.


              > we need to prioritize and look to the future.

              Logical.

              > In the meantime, based on the current situation, even with the coastal defense (PLO is weak, and with minesweepers it is even worse) disorder. Therefore, a new AB is not a necessity.

              While the development of the project, while the preparation of the site for the construction, while the trial and the case - not one year will pass. And it will be built for more than one year. How will this hinder the construction of AB? And by the way, a strange juxtaposition, "or AB, or coastal defense." AB - this is a means of coastal defense and anti-aircraft defense too.

              > And considering the trend in the development of various drones,

              Drones are in almost everything worse than normal aircraft. How can they cancel conventional manned aircraft?

              > we need:
              1. Form the AUG ... And work out all the questions on it.

              It is logical. To learn how to walk, you need to try and fill the bumps. But if you do not do this, then you will crawl forever.

              > 2. Create a solid coastal defense, i.e. we need about 50-60 modern patrol (ie good anti-aircraft defense + air defense of self-defense + 4-8 anti-missile systems) ships of the near sea zone.

              Whatever self-defense air defense you do not create, small ships will melt from the air.

              > 3. To this add the development of the base infrastructure (including AB) and preferably away from the border.

              So the infrastructure and the combat fleet need to be developed in parallel, because one without the other will either not pay off or defend itself.
              1. alstr
                alstr April 10 2021 21: 51
                0
                1. Spitsbergen is a fairly large island. For reference, its area is approximately equal to the Kaliningrad region and Crimea combined. But at the same time, We say that an access denial zone has been created there, but it cannot be created over Spitsbergen. And if we consider that Kaliningrad is actually an island, then comments are unnecessary.
                2. As for the shipyards, it is necessary first to calculate the desired ship composition and allocate the capacity of the shipyards (and not only) for it. And if necessary, then build new shipyards. Unfortunately, this is not done in our country. In fact, it turns out that we cannot even repair more than one or two large ships.
                And where are we going to have at least one large ship?
                3. The opposition is that AB cannot be in 10 places at once. And as a means of PLO AV no - this is not his direct responsibility. PLO in AUG are engaged in escort ships and submarines.

                4. UAVs are still worse. But even now, there are already niches in which drones are better than manned equipment (not just aircraft). And the war in Nagorno-Karabakh clearly shows this.
                And yes, UAVs cannot YET replace fully manned equipment, but it is already clear that in the next decade the leader of the pack tactics will be used, i.e. when one manned object controls several drones (Hunter is the first swallow).
                Therefore, there is every reason to believe that it is necessary to focus on the development of unmanned and automatic systems.

                And at least it is possible to use drones as a network of sensors right now.

                In connection with drones, it should be recalled that "generals always prepare for past wars." We must look ahead.
                And drones don't need to be better than manned vehicles. Their advantage is cheapness, quantity and absence of loss of people in case of loss. Those. losing several drones is more profitable than losing one manned one.

                5. The task of the patrol ships is to find the direction of the strike and, at the cost of YOUR life, cover the main target and gain time to prepare to repel the strike. At the same time, one must understand that losing a cheap patrol ship is better to lose an expensive one. Firstly, human losses are less, and secondly, it is easier to replenish cheap ships than expensive ones.
                Those. stupid economy.
                Of course, one must understand that cheaper patrol ships should also have more powerful ones, but in smaller numbers.

                And proceeding from 4 and 5, it makes sense to consider the project of the carrier of patrol ships, i.e. there is a large uterus ship that carries 3-4 unmanned vehicles.

                And with the infrastructure, it is necessary that first there was a basing place, and then ships. And not like ours, when our large ships have been standing for 30 years without their own berths.
                1. Evil eye
                  Evil eye April 11 2021 10: 52
                  0
                  1. Spitsbergen is a fairly large island. For reference, its area is approximately equal to the Kaliningrad region and Crimea combined. But at the same time, We say that an access denial zone has been created there, but it cannot be created over Spitsbergen. And if we consider that Kaliningrad is actually an island, then comments are unnecessary.

                  And Spitsbergen, and the "island of Crimea", and the Kaliningrad region. large from the point of view of the national economy, and from the point of view of vulnerability to "tomahawks" (well, or Caliber) quite medium-sized. Crimea and Kaliningrad are primarily protected by political factors - these are our territories, although controversial, an attack on them will be perceived as an aggression to which an immediate response will follow. At the same time, it will be almost impossible to give an answer with ground forces alone, at least aviation will be required, but due to the closedness of the water area, this may be enough.
                  While in the case under discussion we capture Svalbard ourselves, it is located in the open sea and far enough from us.

                  2. As for the shipyards, it is necessary first to calculate the desired ship composition and allocate the capacity of the shipyards (and not only) for it.

                  As for the shipyards, I can explain for the economy. Shipyards should be built with an eye on the development of civil shipping, which, in turn, must develop with an eye on some kind of profitable activity; and the navy must protect the "merchants", including ensuring that our ports cannot be blocked. And this is the only way this economy will pay off. Do you understand? You should not think about petty savings on infrastructure, but about how to recoup costs from it. And this applies not only to shipbuilding, but to everything. Against this background, the location of the base is not the most expensive and difficult task.

                  2.1. The opposition is that AB cannot be in 10 places at once.

                  And patrol ships can be in 10 places at once, only they cannot really fight without AV. Or at least without the missile cruiser, which is the same for the price.

                  2.2. And as a means of PLO AV no - this is not his direct responsibility. PLO in AUG are engaged in escort ships and submarines.

                  Yes? But during the war with Iraq, for some reason, there were anti-submarine "Vikings" on board the AV. What for?
                  Probably, you are looking only at modern American AUG, and forget about other methods of an aircraft carrier. For example, about Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers. Or about ten (sic! - as many as Nimitzes now!) Essex anti-submarine aircraft carriers with a specialized air group, which the United States had from the late 50s to the early 70s.
                2. Evil eye
                  Evil eye April 11 2021 10: 53
                  -1
                  3. ... even now there are already niches in which drones are better than manned vehicles ... And the war in Nagorno-Karabakh clearly shows this.

                  There is such a niche - to attack the country poorer, with a leaky defense, but too self-confident. What Karabakh really shows.

                  3.1. ... tactics are the leader of the pack, i.e. when one manned object controls several drones ...

                  Well, that's not bad, but what should it look like in a serious fight? Well, let's say, if we have already seized air supremacy and our attack aircraft flies high beyond the range of MANPADS, and strike drones fly below, I can imagine. And if air supremacy has not yet been captured, then what? Will the manned plane fly at the speed of drones, or will the drones accelerate to the speed of the plane? How is it supposed to work?

                  3.2. And at least it is possible to use drones as a network of sensors right now.

                  UAVs can be used as scouts, gunners, etc., but you don't need to wish for the strange.

                  3.3. cheapness, quantity and absence of loss of people in case of loss. Those. losing several drones is more profitable than losing one manned one.

                  It's cool, but on condition that the combat mission is completed. Otherwise, we, like, will not lose anyone on the battlefield, after which the enemy breaks through to our cities and the losses are already among the population.

                  3.3.1. The task of the patrol ships is to find the direction of the strike and, at the cost of YOUR life, cover the main target and gain time to prepare to repel the strike.

                  This is cool, but how exactly to reflect the blow?

                  3.3.2. Of course, one must understand that cheaper patrol ships should also have more powerful ones, but in smaller numbers.

                  An aircraft carrier, for example)))

                  3.3.3. And proceeding from 4 and 5, it makes sense to consider the project of the carrier of patrol ships, i.e. there is a large uterus ship that carries 3-4 unmanned vehicles.

                  How big are unmanned ships, for example?
      3. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock April 9 2021 14: 34
        +5
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Can you imagine at least one sane defense of the country in the north without capturing Bear and Svalbard and invading Norway at least to the Honningsvag-Lakselv-Karasiyok line (with the capture of the rokada)? This is not real.

        I understand defense as the task of preventing hostilities.
        And you propose to attack the NATO country first, i.e. to arrange a global war.
        But at the same time you scold those who want to threaten the enemy with a nuclear bomb.
        And why are you better?
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 22: 19
      -2
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      And pre-capture Svalbard ...

      Timokhin does not know that Svalbard is demilitarized and it makes sense to seize it only for the sake of coal ... that you do not have enough coal? he sees an alien island and wants to seize it, but why will they decide later ..
      give him free rein ... he will seize Africa and it is not clear just what to do with it later ...
  • Akaki_1
    Akaki_1 April 9 2021 10: 43
    0
    [quote] [Accordingly, opponents of aircraft carriers are invited to answer the question - how in the future in a similar situation to do without aircraft? What to do when there are tasks, but there are no air bases? / Quote]
    I have never been an opponent of aircraft carriers, I think that they are generally needed to ensure the stability of the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet, but this argument was not impressed - if the respected author wants to stimulate the immense appetites of our corporations in Sudan, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. ., what prevents to equip competently located geographically several permanent air bases (for 1-2 squadrons + UAVs) with appropriate protection and cover (especially since the "infantry", as the author claims, is already there). Isn't that what the same Americans do, and others do not disdain it ...
    The supply issue is solved much easier (local food, fuel too, ammunition - it is logical that you need to provide supplies in warehouses, if something is promptly delivered before the arrival of transport ships - several BTA boards) than to build and maintain a full-fledged multibillion-dollar cost AUGi drive her once a millennium to the ends of the world.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 9 2021 10: 49
    +2
    It will be interesting to look at the experience of the Turks in placing UAVs on a landing ship .. UAVs can solve some of the problems that planes are now solving.
    1. AWACS
    2. Aircraft refueling
    3. Strikes against ships and ground targets
    4. Spetsnaz support on the shore
    5. Submarine reconnaissance
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik April 9 2021 10: 52
      -1
      The KMP has the same task, they will expand the range of UAVs, including those launched from their UDC. Of course, from the point of view of capabilities, the Turks are more interesting, we do not have such resources and technologies as in the United States.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek April 9 2021 11: 05
        +1
        I also ... and a couple of such ships can, quite, butt the coastal defenses and infrastructure of a small country
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 11 June 2021 13: 56
      0
      1. The UAV can perform the function of search and target designation asynchronously, but for AWACS, or rather AWACS, you need synchronous control.
      2. in the context of "AV VS UDC" for air refueling, not "UAVs" are needed, but "LARGE AIRCRAFT with VVPZ (VTOL)"
  • Per se.
    Per se. April 9 2021 10: 58
    +4
    The author will be very happy if the opponents of the aircraft carriers answer the above five questions in the comments.
    Alexander, I personally do not need to be persuaded, as Vysotsky sang - "I have already proved everything to myself", it is necessary to prove to those who, at best, are mistaken, and at worst an adept himself, sagging the lobby of other people's interests. There is no "aircraft carrier lobby", just as there is no "lobby" of people with two hands, but those who persistently convince the Russians that they are residents of a "land country" that has enough ships for the littoral zone are not baked for the good of Russia. I just want to say that, go, dissuade the United States and NATO from aircraft carriers, they have a lot of land bases, and so Russia was besieged. No, they won't, the information war did not end, it just flares up, ideological sabotage is gaining momentum.

    The power of demagoguery lies in verbiage, the substitution of concepts, the appearance of scientificness and common sense. In addition, where can we do without speculation on saving the people's penny. If we need a full-fledged fleet that can perform all tasks at sea, no one wants to catch up and overtake the United States in terms of the number of the same aircraft carriers. Yes, we can't build them anymore, we can't even build destroyers and frigates anymore, the same nuclear submarines, but this is not a verdict on the uselessness of the fleet. So, if we do not put more soldiers under arms than in NATO, and the ground forces seem useless according to this logic. An aircraft carrier is not a whim, not a tribute to fashion, it is an aircraft carrier at sea. There will be no need for aviation, it will go away as a type of weapon, there will be no need for an aircraft carrier. This has not happened yet and is unlikely to happen soon.

    Having a reduced fleet is like trying to play chess with only pawns, voluntarily giving up heavy pieces such as the rook and queen. This is what the "well-wishers" want from us.
    We do not need to have the same number of ships as the United States and NATO as a whole, much less more, but our fleet must have operational groupings at sea, capable of performing all the tasks that can and should be solved by the fleet. And, behind these groups, even each individual ship, the entire might of a nuclear and space power should stand. Try to touch. As the commander of our lone ship once said, to the insolent behavior of the NATO naval grouping, "I have all the might of the Soviet Union behind me!"
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek April 9 2021 11: 09
      +2
      The USSR had a large fleet ... but very specialized. As a result, he could inflict blows on the shore normally with limited scope. Even the CD for these purposes was not ... In the light of 50 years of local wars, tools are needed to conduct local operations off foreign shores. So that the MTR would not fight the enemy themselves. And they did not suffer losses.
    2. 911sx
      911sx April 9 2021 23: 56
      0
      I subscribe to every word of the respected Per se.
  • demiurg
    demiurg April 9 2021 11: 24
    -2
    Or maybe just take the hull of some supertanker / container ship and convert it into a forward base with a flight deck?
    There is experience, it is already clear that if you take a small building it will be continuous suffering. We need a building for 100+ thousand tons. The Russian Federation can now build this at the Far East shipyards. Expanding the deck, embedding a couple of elevators, installing afterburners to ensure the 25th nodal speed, these are quite easy tasks to solve.
    If you don’t chase the prodigy, forget about air defense (a maximum of a couple of shells), PLO, surveillance radars, an air wing of 20-30 aircraft, such a hull without aviation will cost less than 22385.
    1. Evil eye
      Evil eye April 9 2021 13: 03
      +2
      This issue has been repeatedly discussed in the comments and opponents usually say that the hull of a civilian vessel is not seaworthy enough. Plus, you will have to change the superstructure, add a catapult and finishers, electronics, aircraft lifts - and as a result, you will get an expensive economy, which is a pity to release into the sea without air defense, anti-aircraft defense and anti-torpedo protection, otherwise such a tasty target will quickly be drowned. And it's easier to build a normal aircraft carrier at the same shipyard right away.
      So the "dry cargo aircraft carrier" option is in demand in three cases:
      1) Pure ersatz to bomb the natives. But for us this is irrelevant.
      2) A ship for helicopters. Helicopters are easier to base.
      3) Mobilization vessel "in case of nuclear war", but not for permanent use.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 9 2021 14: 51
      +1
      Quote: demiurg
      Or maybe just take the hull of some supertanker / container ship and convert it into a forward base with a flight deck?

      And that already happened - the famous helicopter carrier / landing ship "Halzan" Amelko. Result: provided that the minimum requirements of the Navy for a ship of this class are met, practically nothing remained from the base ship in the project. A ship based on hull 1143 turned out to be the best option. smile
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek April 11 2021 11: 06
      0
      ..and the trousers turn into elegant shorts .... We get the UDC.
  • Hog
    Hog April 9 2021 11: 25
    +1
    What's the use of one aircraft carrier in a global war? He will not be able to be in all the right places at once. His only role is air support in some Syria No.2.
    1. Evil eye
      Evil eye April 9 2021 13: 06
      -4
      In all the right places at once no one can be, except for our Lord God, omnipresent and omniscient.
      And mere mortals on metal pelvis can only be in one place, so you need to constantly train to be in the right place at the right time.
      For example, in a global war, a domestic aircraft carrier will be able to shield our strategic submarines from enemy aircraft. This requires only two aircraft carriers in two locations. Or he himself can disperse enemy submarines, as the author writes about.
      1. Hog
        Hog April 9 2021 13: 49
        +1
        And the use of one aircraft carrier

        This requires only two aircraft carriers in two locations.

        Logic, fire. They won't figure out one here, but give you the second one.
        1. Evil eye
          Evil eye April 9 2021 14: 13
          -1
          So it is necessary to deal with this one.
  • Undecim
    Undecim April 9 2021 11: 43
    +6
    Thanks to the efforts of the VO site, the list of holivars has been replenished with a new topic - aircraft carrier. Moreover, the holivar is exclusively theoretical, since the presence of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy is not visible either in the foreseeable or in the boundless future. At the same time, one of the main reasons is that the country's leadership does not see any need for them, believing that the tasks facing it are being perfectly solved and will be solved without any aircraft carriers.
    By the way, the author - the map for Africa is outdated. And no aircraft carrier will help there.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 April 9 2021 11: 58
    0
    Good article. Valid with examples of tasks.
  • sleeve
    sleeve April 9 2021 12: 44
    +1
    And where are the opponents of aircraft carriers then? There are no such people here. There are opponents of turning the last pants into a means of global confrontation. We will double (or better triple) the GDP and immediately organize three rotational aircraft carrier groups (plus one or two amphibious aircraft carriers) for the Northern and Pacific fleets, and so that they even be present in the Indian. And they will have three tasks: protection of communications of the Russian Federation in oceanic regions, countering the deployment of the fleet of "partners", political "representative" functions in the regions where the interests of the Russian Federation are present. And now what to say about it. "Stretch your legs over your clothes."
    1. Evil eye
      Evil eye April 9 2021 13: 08
      -1
      In order not to have to think about how to save the last pants, you need to accumulate wealth. And this requires foreign trade not only in raw materials, but also in products of a high value added. For this you need communications, and for them you need an aircraft carrier. Checkmate, atheists.
      1. sleeve
        sleeve April 9 2021 13: 14
        +3
        Is it seriously written now? And it is planned that it will be direct and the answer will be in the same style? Do you seriously think that the number of aircraft carriers reflects the level of national wealth? Well then, poor Germany ... And Switzerland. In general, the theory is excellent. Need to be adopted. What is the truth to complicate some kind of argumentation formulation. Here is a beautiful theory of "Shah and mate". I take it. Give two)
        1. Evil eye
          Evil eye April 9 2021 13: 29
          -1
          Have you noticed that Germany is an ally of the United States, that Germany participates in one economic bloc together with the United States, whose well-being depends on domination of sea communications? This means, and from the American aircraft carriers.
          Have you noticed that Switzerland is an ally of the United States, that Switzerland participates in the same economic bloc along with the United States, whose well-being depends on domination of sea communications? This means, and from the American aircraft carriers.
          1. sleeve
            sleeve April 9 2021 13: 42
            -1
            ABOUT! That is, an aircraft carrier is also a sign of sovereignty. And in general, the factor of world culture and civilization. The impossibility of implementing the "aircraft carrier program" testifies to the dead-end path of the civilization cluster in principle. Something like that ... Where, where ... Exactly! The theory of linear forces in Britain at the end of the 19th century, the beginning of the 20th ... And there is something else after WWI. I don’t remember at all.
            1. Evil eye
              Evil eye April 9 2021 14: 14
              0
              An aircraft carrier is one of the instruments of influence. I don't need to attribute the words of British theorists.
          2. sleeve
            sleeve April 9 2021 13: 48
            +1
            Maybe let's talk more practical? I'm only for the aircraft carriers. I am against their deification. The thing is expensive, poorly preserved, and weak in terms of organizing the weather in the theater. There should be a lot of them and not just one, well, to make a contribution. And in order for them to be "so", a slightly different economic base is needed. Here, after all, the saying is very true: "If you want to ruin the country, give it a cruiser." If we are trying to live without debt, we need to carefully prepare the base for a full-fledged aircraft carrier element of the fleet with the corresponding doctrine and concept of application. This means identifying the tasks and threats for this doctrine. So to speak, not with a finger in the nose ... That's what the conversation should be about. Are we a power? Yeah. It means that we must strive for domination. A-sets is still one of the effective tools for its implementation. But if you come up with a non-trivial option to replace it! (Dreams). So what about the aircraft carrier, just let's get started right away.
            1. Evil eye
              Evil eye April 9 2021 14: 19
              0
              > Thing is dear,

              There are a lot of expensive things around. For example, Olympiads and pretentious summits. Maybe we’ll give them up first?

              > Low-saving

              Much has changed since the sinking of the Kagi.

              >, and weak in terms of the organization of the weather in the theater.

              Your not true

              > They also should be many and not one, well, to make a contribution.

              Again, a lot has changed since the sinking of Yamato.

              > And so that they were "tak" needs a slightly different economic base.

              Yes, industrial, not agrarian and raw materials.

              > Here in fact the saying is very true "if you want to ruin the country, give it a cruiser".

              I see you are a big fan of the realities of the 19th century. But we live in the 21st.

              > If we are trying to live without debt, we need to carefully prepare the base for a full-fledged aircraft carrier element of the fleet with the corresponding doctrine and concept of application.

              People are slowly preparing a doctrine and application concept. So what don't you like?
  • DMi
    DMi April 9 2021 13: 08
    0
    1. There is nothing for us to do outside the borders of the Russian Federation in the absence of ground bases there and the support of the local government. Are we planning to become the "second" US to bring democracy through the AUG?
    This is the logic of the capitalist colonial state. Personally, I don't want the Russian Federation to turn into such a dump.
    2. Turkey can be shut up with the help of OTRK. Throughout the capital and headquarters, industrial centers. If they don't understand from the first volley, then repeat. And no need to butt with them in Libya or the Red Sea.
    3. Future reconnaissance will be handled by drones. Soon. Faster than AUG construction.
    4. A volley of nuclear weapons from amerskih submarines is restrained by the inevitability of a retaliatory response. And she will still be. And the "dead hand", and poseidon, and combat lasers to cover patrol zones of mobile complexes, and missile defense of mines, and the new PAK DA, which can hang in the air for days, somehow convince me. That there are missiles and warheads to retaliate.
  • ccsr
    ccsr April 9 2021 13: 08
    +1
    Author:
    Alexander Timokhin
    Question 1. How are you going to fight without aviation in principle?

    Silently, because the total ammunition stock of all strategic aviation in the nuclear version is significantly inferior to the potential of the Strategic Missile Forces, and the speed of their delivery to US territory does not at all fit into the standards of a nuclear war. So the aviation is only on the dancer of the Strategic Missile Forces and its main task is to organize patrols during the threatened period. That is why we do not need 50 Tu-160 units, but 20-24 aircraft of this brand will be enough. Upward correction is possible, but insignificant. And it's better not to think about aircraft carrier planes at the same time - this is generally wasted money, because aircraft carriers are floating coffins that will be destroyed within 20-30 minutes after the start of the war with the United States.
    Question 2. How are you going to fight without aviation with those who have it?
    With the bordering countries, the forces of the Aerospace Forces, with those that are 2-8 thousand km from our borders with the help of strategic aviation, using both nuclear and non-nuclear warheads on cruise missiles. As an option - to use the CD on small ships, as it was in the Caspian Sea during the shelling of militants in Syria.
    Question 3. How are you going to do without aerial reconnaissance?
    Timokhin's provocative question, because aerial reconnaissance is carried out by both the Aerospace Forces and OSNAZ aircraft, and therefore this cannot be pulled by the ears of the aircraft carrier fleet. On the contrary, only unnecessary costs for the creation of aircraft that are weak in relation to reconnaissance means for aircraft carriers.
    Question 4. Why do you not want to use aviation even when it is vital?

    This is a speculative question of Timokhin, a journalist who is illiterate in military affairs, was asked in order to chatter the topic, and completely ignores the situation in Syria, when our VKS are still successfully working there. And the war on 08.08.08/20/XNUMX showed that we used aviation, though not as efficiently as we would like, but these were organizational errors, not operational use. In Syria, these mistakes were taken into account, although there were no casualties there, and the Il-XNUMXM reconnaissance aircraft operated there.
    Question 5. Why do you not want to use aircraft for strike missions, even when this is the best option?
    And here Timokhin got involved in asking this question, because he himself still could not intelligibly answer simple questions, like all his admirers, by the way.
    Can you justify the operational necessity of creating aircraft carriers? Not a single naval, and even more so journalists like Timokhin, still cannot clearly answer a simple question - where should we use aircraft carriers? Well, at least let them name the area, who is the enemy and the type of hypothetical conflict, where we cannot do without an aircraft carrier.
    Maybe Timokhin, without wagging as usual, competently formulate his answer to the question posed so that he is not considered a windbag right on the points?
    The author will be very happy if the opponents of the aircraft carriers answer the above five questions in the comments.

    I answered all five questions, but Timokhin will never answer the ones I asked - he is simply afraid to publicly sit in a puddle, because he does not know the answer to my questions.
    To Timokhin's barrier - we are waiting ...
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 22: 36
      +1
      Quote: ccsr
      I answered all five questions, but Timokhin will never answer the ones I asked - he is simply afraid to publicly sit in a puddle, because he does not know the answer to my questions.
      To Timokhin's barrier - we are waiting ...

      I fully support and have been waiting for specifics from Timokhin for a long time, but there is none
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 10 2021 20: 47
        +1
        Timokhin merged.
  • sleeve
    sleeve April 9 2021 13: 30
    +4
    Then there are several questions for the "aircraft carriers".
    1.Why and why are "aircraft carriers" trying to portray themselves as a front of opposition to the construction of aircraft carriers and the municipal creation of an aircraft carrier component as part of the Russian Navy? Such a front does not exist in nature, since we are mainly talking about the expediency of starting "aircraft carrier" work based on the potential and financial capabilities.
    2. Why, in order to please their "aircraft carrier lobby", are the advocates of this idea ready to put Russia on the path of an aggressive foreign policy based on intimidating less developed countries?
    3. Why do all "aircraft carrier" calculations avoid economic components within the current realities?
    4. Why do "aircraft carriers" call for a detailed counter-argumentation of their statements with figures, facts, coordinates, without presenting a single sensible calculation of an operation involving an aircraft carrier (hypothetical) formation somewhere.? Let at least it be Syria without taking into account the factors of Tartus and Khmeimim.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 22: 48
      +2
      Quote: sleeve
      When there are already several questions for "aircraft carriers".
      1.Why and why are "aircraft carriers" trying to portray themselves as a front of opposition to the construction of aircraft carriers and the municipal creation of an aircraft carrier component as part of the Russian Navy? Such a front does not exist in nature, since we are mainly talking about the expediency of starting "aircraft carrier" work based on the potential and financial capabilities.
      2. Why, in order to please their "aircraft carrier lobby", are the advocates of this idea ready to put Russia on the path of an aggressive foreign policy based on intimidating less developed countries?
      3. Why do all "aircraft carrier" calculations avoid economic components within the current realities?
      4. Why do "aircraft carriers" call for a detailed counter-argumentation of their statements with figures, facts, coordinates, without presenting a single sensible calculation of an operation involving an aircraft carrier (hypothetical) formation somewhere.? Let at least it be Syria without taking into account the factors of Tartus and Khmeimim.

      everything is correct. but Timokhin will not answer he has no arguments
    2. Sanguinius
      Sanguinius April 11 2021 11: 24
      -1
      1.Why and why are "aircraft carriers" trying to portray themselves as a front of opposition to the construction of aircraft carriers and the municipal creation of an aircraft carrier component as part of the Russian Navy? Such a front does not exist in nature, since we are mainly talking about the expediency of starting "aircraft carrier" work based on the potential and financial capabilities.

      Because such a front arose earlier as "anti-aircraft carriers", which deny this whole thing ... just about the expediency of building an aircraft carrier and its advantages of having it in our fleet! And they also called the users who advocate the construction of aircraft carriers "aircraft carriers".
      2. Why, in order to please their "aircraft carrier lobby", are the advocates of this idea ready to put Russia on the path of an aggressive foreign policy based on intimidating less developed countries?

      Who are we going to intimidate?
      3. Why do all "aircraft carrier" calculations avoid economic components within the current realities?

      Within the framework of the current realities, "Andrey from Chelyabinsk" has already written a similar article and there are no such huge problems in the construction of an aircraft carrier that you are trying to give out at all.
      4. Why do "aircraft carriers" call for a detailed counter-argumentation of their statements with figures, facts, coordinates, without presenting a single sensible calculation of an operation involving an aircraft carrier (hypothetical) formation somewhere.? Let at least it be Syria without taking into account the factors of Tartus and Khmeimim.

      Examples were given repeatedly, but as always people like you said the following ... "this option is not possible" or "all this is far-fetched"
      1. sleeve
        sleeve April 11 2021 14: 33
        +1
        Is that all? That's why you are not accepted. Although I can hardly agree with the existence, in principle, of such a "grouping" as aircraft carriers. Unless to participate in a front of confrontation created by his own hands. For what purpose. Although no, there is a goal. Construction of an aircraft carrier. At least one, as I understand it?
        There are no economic reasons for refusing to build an aircraft carrier? But one thing is not enough. It is not enough for the effective implementation of at least one doctrine of their application. However, just one is possible. It is about her that is constantly mentioned in all "justifications". "But if only to the shores of Africa, to the Mediterranean Sea ..." In short, a concrete club, an element of the "gunboat policy", only with aviation. But no: "Who is this we are going to intimidate?" You can only frighten with one ship. And not often. We need routine maintenance, crew training, in short, a lot of things that will keep him in the base. Well, that question is solved "easily". It is necessary for "Andrey from Chelyabinsk" to write about TWO aircraft carriers. Just after 10 years from the beginning of construction (I idealize, taking out five years for the construction of each), you can begin to regularly wave it around. The cost of the swinging process? I don’t dare to imagine, but it’s definitely either a sharp increase in the budget, or a slowdown of the already "Estonian" fleet restoration program, or expropriation from the rich and more, so that it would be enough not only for the construction of two buildings, but at least one escort group We need TWO), infrastructure, and the subsequent maintenance, modernization, updating of the aviation fleet, training of young pilots for regular updates. And also the provision of their trips. But I think that for aircraft carriers multiplying by two programs "Andrey from Chelyabinsk" will not create problems. This is pure arithmetic.
        About "Examples were given repeatedly" I just do not know what to say, honestly. Let's just exclude the political component in the form of possible counteraction to our aircraft carrier from the side of sworn "partners", let's also exclude logistical problems and our aircraft carrier will be invincible and with constant supply of super-high-speed transport, which we have a sea of ​​sea and each of which is accompanied by at least a frigate on the way ... Let's just deduce a formula in which the ammunition on the ship, autonomy and the possible real number of sorties will be involved (and let's take it like "Nimitz" then perhaps, everything is there in numbers). And we will see the light because we will see the effectiveness of ONE ship within the framework of any remote operation. And we will have three "revelations":
        1. Operations can be episodic without the ability to "keep the results";
        2. The area of ​​coverage and the complexity of targets will be limited by the ship's potential very seriously, so the "enemy" can be extremely "weak";
        3. Operations can only be planned in advance and in ONE place in the world, that is, a one-time mono-area action.
        Not an expensive toy?
        The doctrine of the use of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy may carry another option. This is to ensure the deployment of SSBNs. But why? Our strategists can be protected in base areas. The duty area can cover huge water areas, which can be fully covered by base air defense (including island areas like the Sea of ​​Okhotsk) and aviation, in any case, capable of achieving superiority over aircraft carrier groups, even without taking into account the possibility of their defeat.
        That is why the question arises: do we need aircraft carriers now?
        It is expensive. There is nothing to cover them with. They are difficult to apply. And "them" is already dreams, rather "his".
        Aircraft carriers, at least before the creation of a weapon system as effective, but of a different meaning and content, is a logical continuation of the evolution of any state-owned fleet. The long arm of a fleet in the ocean is required to have an aviation glove for its umbrella and effective impact along the shore. When will the time come for them to appear? Probably soon. In any case, the DVKD is already being built ...
  • AAK
    AAK April 9 2021 13: 43
    -2
    I fully support Timokhin's colleague on his theses about the need for an aircraft carrier, but I strongly disagree with the AB model he proposed for the following reasons:
    1 In the "aircraft carrier" publications on the AO, various tactical schemes for the use of AB from the old, still Gorbachev's perestroika era, a good popular science book "Aircraft Carrying Ships" were often cited. But no one gave the diagram of the amount of filling of the hull and deck of an aircraft carrier, which is available there, depending on the height of the waves and the displacement of AB, and this is a very important factor, since the author's main areas, in his opinion, of the proposed actions of our AB, are located in the Barents and Norwegian Seas, the North Atlantic, as well as in the North Pacific Ocean, i.e. regions of the World Ocean with constant significant waves, where AB with a displacement of 40-50 thousand tons. can use aviation (take off and land) no more than 240-250 days, that is, approximately 8 months a year, while AB in 80-90 thousand tons. - for more than 320 days.
    2 The quantitative composition of the aircraft fleet of the AV proposed by the author also does not ensure the fulfillment of the main tasks:
    - in total, according to the author, on the AV 22 aircraft proposed by him, of which there should be at least 3-4 helicopters for the ACC, i.e. the remainder - 18-19 aircraft of which up to 8, as the author suggests - in the shock version, i.e. .e. the remainder is 10, which is even less than the squadron. About the aircraft for PLO, electronic warfare and AWACS - nothing was said, refueling - also without special aircraft, only at the expense of the UPAZ. Those. when performing air defense functions - an air wing (or rather an incomplete squadron in the remainder) blindly and uncontrollably. There is also nothing to search for and destroy enemy SSBNs, if even by reducing the remainder of the aircraft to include another 3-4 PLO helicopters, then a squadron remains for all Wishlist, i.e. none of the tasks of this valiant ship is already incapable of fulfilling. Well, for 2 steam catapults without a boiler and turbine power plant at a gas turbine plant with an auxiliary boiler, there is simply not enough steam.
    Bottom line: to perform the tasks stated by the author, an AV is needed in dimensions / displacement at least not lower than "Kennedy" with nuclear power plants, 4 e / m catapults and a fleet of 65-70 aircraft / UAVs (2-3 aircraft / UAVs for AWACS, 6-8 aircraft / UAV for PLO, 4 ACC helicopters, 2-3 aircraft / electronic warfare UAVs, 2-3 tankers, 2-3 reconnaissance aircraft + 2 air defense squadrons and 1 shock squadron).
  • g1v2
    g1v2 April 9 2021 13: 51
    +4
    Well, I thought that there would be some really interesting argumentation. And here it is weak. If this is all then the aircraft carrier is definitely not needed. Let's see what kind of argumentation Andrey from Chelyabinsk will give in his article. Hopefully something really interesting.
    Questions mean.
    1. No one is going to fight without aviation. But the aircraft carrier will definitely not save here. In US companies in Iraq and Yugoslavia, 15 percent of the strikes were inflicted from aircraft carriers. Everything else - from land airfields. These most land-based airfields allow aircraft to carry a heavy load at least. Plus, it is much easier to train an ordinary pilot than a deck one. Wherever we are going to fight, we should simply have our own airfield, which will be much more useful and cheaper than this very aircraft carrier. If we do not have the opportunity to get an airfield there, then there is no need to seriously fight there and the aircraft carrier will not save here. request
    2. Let's repeat. Nobody is going to fight without aviation. Turkey is in the zone of reaching our aviation from the Crimea, from Khmeinim and the North Caucasus. The aviation of the Southern Military District is so superior in its capabilities in the war with the Turks to any aircraft carrier that there is nothing to talk about. Plus, besides Khmeinim, we have several jump bases in Syria. Aircraft can be relocated to the same Tiyas on occasion. Supply - through Iran. But in any case, Khmeinim's role here will be auxiliary. The aircraft carrier is not needed here at all. It will even interfere. It is much more difficult to protect it. Plus, Middle-earth is completely controlled by NATO, and Turkey is still part of the alliance. So at least intelligence and targeting will help her.
    3. No one is going to go around without aerial reconnaissance. Satellites, a50, a100, drones and over-the-horizon container type radars. And even easier - a network of inexpensive high-altitude UAVs such as the Owl with a ceiling of 18 km and a range of 4000 km. This will be enough with a margin for all areas of interest to us. This will be more effective than one aircraft carrier with a pair of drills, which will be clearly weaker than the same a50.
    4. We will use aviation. Moreover, and when it is necessary and when you can do without it. But the aircraft carrier will not be stupidly allowed into these marked zones. Simply because the Anglo-Saxons in these areas can deploy much greater forces. Well, we have built an aircraft carrier. Okay -2. And the enemy will concentrate 3-4 Augs there. Plus supported by aviation on one occasion from Iceland, Norway and Scotland. And in another case with Japan and Hawaii. And what? What can our Augs do other than die heroically? The Anglo-Saxons will concentrate sufficient covering forces in advance in the places from where the IBR will fly. And one or two of our aircraft carriers here clearly will not do anything.
    5. Because this is not only not the best option, but a much worse option. Which is much more expensive and weaker than the impact of the same Tu22m3m. And if with daggers, then even more so. Deck moments in terms of shock capabilities are definitely not comparable here.
    In general, all questions are asked strangely. Initially, foolish theses are attributed to opponents, which are immediately exposed. I ask myself - I answer myself. belay
    And by the way, we need nuclear icebreakers now much more than a megawunderwaffle. The Baltic shipyard is going to order 2 more icebreakers and it is not a fact that these are the last ones. hi
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana April 9 2021 13: 54
    0
    Let's remember Admiral I.M.Kapitanets and the great exercises of the Northern Fleet

    Despite the terrible personal tragedy, the man found the courage to lead the Northern Fleet. Under his leadership, Operation Atrina was carried out in the Northern Fleet in 1987 in order to uncover the patrol areas of nuclear submarines equipped with ballistic missiles of the NATO Navy in the Atlantic. During the operation, the nuclear submarine division made a two-month joint cruise and confirmed the alleged patrol areas of nuclear submarines equipped with US and British ballistic missiles.
  • A.TOR
    A.TOR April 9 2021 14: 22
    +6
    An aircraft carrier is a fleet base, moreover specific, these are training centers, these are hundreds of service contractors, moreover, experienced and skilled, these are bases around the world and logistics around the world, these are specialized training grounds and much, much more ..
    All this should work like a clock, and - all year round.
    In Russia, this is hardly possible - the weapon system is too complex and depends on a huge number of factors.

    Somehow many people forget that aircraft carriers as a weapon system have been groomed, cherished and nurtured in the United States since the early 30s of the twentieth century.
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 9 2021 15: 42
    +1
    Everything is much simpler. Without carrier-based AWACS aircraft, the aircraft carrier loses its meaning. And we don't even have them on the horizon. You can't let airplanes go anywhere. In addition, using a fighter on ground targets is heresy. It was not designed for such tasks, the effectiveness of such strikes will be much lower. We need a full-fledged deck attack aircraft designed purely for strikes on the surface. No one removed the protection from submarines, that is, deck-based anti-submarine aircraft are needed, and in marketable quantities. In general, it is far from only a ship, so much R&D is still needed ... The task is very difficult, so I do not urge you to drop everything and throw yourself in a hurry.
  • Xlor
    Xlor April 9 2021 17: 01
    +1
    Roughly the same, before the PM and VM wars, admirals reasoned when it came to battleships and heavy cruisers. Try replacing the word "aircraft carrier" with the word "battleship", and the word "aircraft" with the word combination "main caliber" ...
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette April 9 2021 18: 34
    +2
    [quoteThis is not an idle question - let's look at the scheme of the Russian economic presence in Africa.


    We look at the money invested and the turnover. So far, the security of these investments is provided by guys from non-state structures and a very small number of military advisers from the RF Armed Forces. But all these are "peacetime games".

    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 what should we do then, how to save our money? ] [/ quote]

    Well, "Let's look at the diagram" as the author suggests. The scheme is amazing. Surprisingly, there is no schema. There is a splint. That is, a primitive poster. It depicts it is not clear who and what "partners" in Africa. Among them are Burkina Faso, Tanzania, South Africa and other exotic countries that have never been Russia's allies. It is unclear why the author decided that the security of investments (what the hell are investments ?!) is provided by "guys from non-state structures" (the mafia or what?) And Russia's military advisers. Does he even know what the military advisers are doing? And who are they, what are they doing, etc. And in general, with what fright is it not clear whose investments in Africa should be protected by the aircraft carriers and marines of Russia? Do we have agreements on military assistance with South Africa and Tanzania or Libya? Tovarisch is clearly delusional.
    Move on. "What do we do, how do we save our money?" he asks. My answer is short: No way.
    More precisely: as always. Forgive. Write off at a loss. Which has always been done under the communists and under the capitalists.
    And about the implementation of this delirium of his Timokhin invites the opponents of the aircraft carrier idea to argue with him "with examples, pictures and diagrams. And even better with radio horizons, the flight time of aircraft from the shore, comparing it with the flight time of ship aircraft, etc. It is not unfounded , in short. "
    Does anybody want?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 April 9 2021 19: 04
    +1
    Great article. But it is a bad idea to protect the interests of the respected people who rob our country in Africa at the expense of the taxpayers.
  • YOU
    YOU April 9 2021 21: 40
    +1
    Hello colleagues and sympathizers. I'm a new person here. And I will say this, Impression from the first paragraphs of the article, everything is correct. Only the first conclusion remains "money". Here the corvettes are in the "w", and here is the Aircraft Carrier. Where, why, and who will accompany, those corvettes, or frigates, which are "not". Everything is good "theoretically" only if someone. it wants the real benefit of the Russian Navy. Let's not talk about fiction, but about real deeds. Let's talk about the real situation of the Navy rearmament program.
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 April 9 2021 21: 45
    +1
    I looked diagonally. Complete nonsense. Nothing to discuss at all.
    Most likely, the discussion will have to be returned to a rigid conceptual framework.
    Let's ask the opponents of the aircraft carriers a number of questions, an attempt to answer which would make them start thinking not in clichés.

    And what are the questions? And here's what: a comrade decided to "control" the entire North Atlantic, but for some reason without the environs of Britain, the fjords of Norway, Iceland, because by the 30th year they will attack us, and for some reason from there:
    This, frankly, will happen with a high degree of probability.

    Something old again about low power warheads. And here's what's dangerous: not big, but small. And they will make it big, what will Timokhin say? - And he will say the same - again "everything is gone, the plaster is being removed." Delirium about China. In general - complete nonsense. sad
  • Artemion3
    Artemion3 April 9 2021 22: 52
    -2
    You only need 2 aircraft carriers, one is in use, the other is under repair
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash April 9 2021 23: 33
    +5
    The author is not of this world. How much money will be spent on a project, R&D, and the construction of an aircraft carrier? And this is a small part - and the air wing, and the AWACS aircraft, AUG? And what about the provision, service, support? Infrastructure based (see Norfolk). An aircraft carrier and AUG cannot be permanently at sea, therefore, it is necessary to create one or two or more AUG with all of the above. And to add a cut to the entire astronomical amount - is it another 30-40%? This is if we assume that everything can be designed and brought to mind. Magnetic catapults and the Americans cannot bring it, it is with their experience. AWACS for aircraft carriers, except for the Americans, does not exist at all.
    Dreaming is not harmful, of course. But the first step towards aircraft carriers and their entire component is a healthy economy in the literal and figurative sense.