Military Review

The answer of the supporters of the aircraft carrier lobby to the "inconvenient" questions

338

Recently, an article was published on the electronic pages of "VO" entitled "Inconvenient questions for supporters of the aircraft carrier lobby”Respected A. Voskresensky. The author's conclusions are unambiguous - the creation of aircraft carriers has no practical justification, we are not what to build - the terms of reference for their development are incapable of formulating, and there is nowhere and no one to create them, and there is no money for them. And, in general, the idea of ​​building aircraft carriers is "a malicious message that rejects the pragmatic approach that is so necessary for the country, an appeal aimed at wasteful spending of funds allocated for the development of the armed forces."


Well, the position of the respected author is clear. It is not clear only on what it is based, because almost all inconvenient, according to A. Voskresensky, questions, long ago, were given exhaustive answers.

What to build?


A. Voznesensky titled the first section of his article "Where to build?", But in fact formulated several questions in it. One of them sounds like this: the fleet has not yet been able to formulate the requirements for a promising aircraft carrier, so how can we build a ship if we do not understand what exactly we want to get?

A. Voskresensky is convinced that there were several attempts to formulate the terms of reference, but they were "unintelligible", and that the fleet "cannot get rid of the obsession with creating a new aircraft-carrying cruiser - moreover, a springboard". At the same time, A. Voznesensky is sure that the leadership of the Navy categorically rejects the idea of ​​building an aircraft carrier according to the modernized project 1143.7 Ulyanovsk. Thus, according to the distinguished author, if Russia is going to build an aircraft carrier, it will most likely be a copy of Kuznetsov. "The country will receive not an analogue of Gerald R. Ford, but a new Admiral Kuznetsov ... And this is at best," A. Voznesensky warns.

Let's try to figure out how justified this opinion is.

Let's start simple. Nobody will give out the technical assignment for design (TK) just like that, because there is nothing to do. TK is issued when there is a need for the design of a ship. And such a need arises when its construction is planned. What does this mean for an aircraft carrier?

Talking about designing an aircraft carrier until 2010 is generally meaningless - since 1991, shipbuilding has gone into a steep peak, there have been no orders for ships, and the construction of a few units lasted for decades. But then the leadership, realizing the need to restore the country's armed forces, approved the State Armaments Program (GPV) for 2011–2020. Of course, the Russian Navy should have been revived not from aircraft carriers. And work in this direction was not included in the program. And since they were not included, there was no need to develop technical specifications for aircraft carriers. It is possible, and even very likely, that the fleet made some kind of sketches, but they clearly did not get to the level of the TK.

In the future, however, the GPV for 2011–2020. revised. It became clear that the program was not feasible. And instead of it, a new GPV was created, now for 2018–2027. To tell the truth, this new GPV was approved with a fair delay, after its actual start. Unlike GPV 2011–2020, it turned out to be much more classified, there is almost no data on it. But in May 2019, an unnamed "shipbuilding source" told TASS that:

"R&D on the new aircraft carrier is included in the current state armament program until 2027 and will begin in 2023."

In addition, the source indicated that the aircraft carrier is planned to be built atomic, and its displacement should be about 70 thousand tons.

In June of the same 2019, the same or another source told TASS that

"TTZ for the new aircraft-carrying complex is now being formed and has not yet been sent to the United Shipbuilding Corporation."

This is fully confirmed by the data of the USC itself, which has repeatedly reported that they did not receive technical specifications for the development of an aircraft carrier. The source also noted

"The unity of opinion of the Ministry of Defense and the High Command of the Naval fleet regarding the fact that a promising aircraft carrier should be with a nuclear power plant. "

In January 2020, two sources in the shipbuilding industry already told TASS that the development of technical specifications for a promising aircraft carrier was underway, and that

“When creating an aircraft carrier, drawings and other technical documentation of the project 1143.7 Ulyanovsk, unfinished during the Soviet period, atomic TAVKR (heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser), will be used.

In addition, when creating the ship, it was planned to take into account the experience gained by our only TAVKR "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" off the coast of Syria. To date, as far as I know, the TK for a promising aircraft carrier has not been issued by the Navy.

What is it all about?

Yes, that there were no "incomprehensible" technical specifications for the aircraft carrier, and it could not be, for the simple reason that the fleet did not issue any technical specifications to the developers at all. Why then did A. Voznesensky have a different opinion? I can only assume that the respected author was misled by the "near-aircraft leapfrog", namely by the numerous statements of responsible, moderately responsible and completely irresponsible persons on this topic.

For example, in 2012, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral V. Vysotsky, reported in an interview with RIA-News:

“The implementation, that is, the construction of the ship itself, will begin earlier than 2020, and completion - immediately after 2020. The appearance of the new aircraft carrier complex will be determined within two years - until 2014 ”.

That is, according to V. Vysotsky, we are talking about the "appearance" of the ship, but a number of publicists, replicating this interview, poured: "The task has been set for Russian shipbuilders ...", "The technical design of the aircraft carrier will be ready by 2014." But in reality there was no task at all. In fact, from the statement of V. Vysotsky, it is quite obvious that there is no appearance of a promising aircraft carrier for 2012, and it has yet to be formed. And it is far from the fact that the fleet, in general, began this formation, since in the same 2012 V. Vysotsky left his post, and the Russian Navy had a new commander.

Or, for example, the statement made by the deputy head of the Ministry of Defense Yuri Borisov in 2016, in which he announced the plans of the Ministry of Defense to lay down a new aircraft carrier in 2025. I reported, but I said separately that the final decision will be made only after the creation of a new generation aviation technology. And yet - he clarified that a return to the ideas of the VTOL carrier is possible:

"In the plans of the Ministry of Defense, we are discussing the creation of a carrier-based aircraft, and it can be a vertical take-off and landing aircraft."

The fact that the RF Ministry of Defense is considering various, including conceptually different, options for the development of carrier-based aircraft carriers is correct. But it has nothing to do with TK: such reasoning can only be considered as the earliest steps towards the creation of TK.

But the statements of high-ranking officials are not so bad. After all, a lot of proposals from developers have been added to them - here is the giant, up to 100 thousand tons displacement, the aircraft carrier "Storm" in nuclear or non-nuclear design, and "Manatee", and the conversion of "Ulyanovsk", and a catamaran (!) Aircraft carrier, and rather modest "Varan" in only 45 tons. In general, there is something to grab your head from.


Layout "Manatee"

But the fact is that in fact all these mock-ups are nothing more than attempts by developers to interest the RF Ministry of Defense in order to get an expensive order for the design of a promising aircraft carrier. And although the media are full of messages such as "Nevsky PKB has developed a project for a nuclear aircraft carrier ..." in fact, there are no projects, but there are only concept models created on an initiative basis by various design bureaus.

The conclusion is simple.

There are still no "intelligible" or "unintelligible" terms of reference for the creation of a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy. Currently, the Russian Navy is slowly creating a technical specification for a promising aircraft carrier. Taking into account the fact that they are going to start designing it only in 2023, there is still more than enough time. And, contrary to A. Voznesensky's opinion, this aircraft carrier, according to the data that TASS is inclined to trust, will be nuclear, its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons, and Ulyanovsk's developments will be used in its design.

This is my first response to the "uncomfortable questions for the aircraft carrier lobby."

Where to build?


Here A. Voznesensky, in general, did not ask any questions, but stated:

“… We need large slipways, which we simply do not have, and welding works on open stocks at sub-zero temperatures (if we talk about the same Sevmash) are undesirable. What does this mean? First, you will have to invest billions of dollars (by no means rubles) in the modernization and expansion of the capabilities of the ship industry - and, secondly, at least five years to wait for results. "

Well, there is no question. But all the same - I answer. Currently, the Russian Federation has a place where you can build aircraft carriers. This is, of course, Sevmash. And to be more specific - shop number 55.


This workshop has a closed (no open slipways!) Boathouse 330 meters long and 75 meters wide, while the press service of Sevmash indicated the height of lifting cargo with bridge cranes up to 60 m.In other words, in this workshop, even now, you can start building an aircraft carrier a little smaller than "Ulyanovsk", which had a length of 324,6, a width of 75,5 (the largest, at the waterline - only 39,5 m) and the height of the hull (without superstructure) up to 33 m in the area of ​​the springboard. Taking into account the fact that the height of the unfinished atomic TAVKR together with the superstructure was 65,5 m, most of it can also be built right in the boathouse.

True, there is a nuance here.

It is possible to build an aircraft carrier in shop No. 55, but to take it out of the shop is not. Because the withdrawal of ships is carried out into the bulk pool. And he, alas, is not ready today for aircraft carriers of such a large-scale size to "dive" into it. In addition, the size of the lock will not allow the aircraft carrier to be taken out of the basin.

However, these obstacles are completely removable. The fact is that the USSR was building the 55th workshop with the expectation that in the future warships of large displacement would be created in it. And the possibility of such modernization was included in the project from the very beginning. But, since at the time of construction the main task of the workshop was the construction of the latest nuclear submarines at that time, it was considered unnecessary to immediately invest in the "expanded" version. However, such a possibility was foreseen.

Of course, expanding the filling pool and increasing the size of the sluice is not cheap, it will really cost billions. But - rubles, not dollars. And no 5 years of waiting for results is needed. Firstly, they will take much less time, and secondly, such work can be carried out in parallel with the construction of an aircraft carrier.

Thus, Russia already has a place for the construction of aircraft carriers, although it requires a certain "file refinement". But a separate shipbuilding complex, as A. Voznesensky writes about it, does not need to be built for this.

“Where are we going to build nuclear submarines then?” The dear reader may ask. Yes, all on the same "Sevmash". Let's not forget that today Sevmash is simultaneously building two series of nuclear-powered submarines - SSBN Borey-A and SSGN Yasen-M. Obviously, the construction is divided into workshops, as far as I know, in the 55th SSBNs are being built. However, their construction will be completed in the foreseeable future. The outer ships, "Dmitry Donskoy" and "Prince Potemkin", will have to be transferred to the fleet in 1926-1927, and launched much earlier. And even if two more strategic missile carriers are laid in order to bring their total number to 12 units (3 Borey and 9 Boreyev-A), then in this case it should be expected that no later than 1927-1928 ... shop number 55 will be vacated. And the need for new SSBNs will arise in more than a dozen years.

At the same time, the second operating workshop, specializing in the construction of "Ash", can simultaneously build 6-8 ships of this type. In addition, if, nevertheless, common sense prevails, and in the future our fleet will begin construction of relatively small multipurpose nuclear submarines, then, at least theoretically, they can be built at other shipbuilding enterprises.

But, in fact, no one bothers to build a completely new shipbuilding complex for the aircraft carrier, like the Far East "Zvezda". The pleasure, of course, is expensive - in 2018, the cost of its construction was estimated at 200 billion rubles, that is, 3,17 billion dollars at the then exchange rate, but in reality it may turn out to be even more expensive.

But you need to understand that such construction will not at all be a heavy burden on our economy. On the contrary, it will push it forward. Today, our shipbuilding industry is “on fire”, it is saved only by military orders, which make up 90% of the total production of this industry. However, even with military orders, the industry is underutilized - up to 50–70% of production capacities are idle. At the same time, the Russian Federation has a huge need for civilian vessels of all classes: from small fishing trawlers to giant Arctic gas tankers, 300 meters long and 50 meters wide for sailing along the Northern Sea Route. It seems to be - build for yourself and build, but the fixed assets of the Russian shipbuilding are worn out by 70%. And we are building using outdated technologies, since for most factories large-block assembly and other modern methods are simply not feasible with the existing equipment park. All this, of course, affects both the timing and the cost of construction.

And as a result of all of the above, we live in a real theater of the absurd - our own shipbuilding industry is idle, and we order the same gas tankers to Korea.


It is very good, of course, that the Zvezda shipbuilding complex was built using the mass of the latest technologies, but it alone is not enough. And, if we are going to create another new complex, then it could well, along with aircraft carriers, build large-capacity civil vessels. Simply put, if we want, for example, to have 2 aircraft carriers in the fleet, one each for the Northern and Pacific fleets, while the slipway period of one aircraft carrier is 10 years, and the service life is 50 years, then during half a century the shed of a new shipbuilding complex will be occupied by aircraft carriers for 20 years, and the remaining 30 years it will be possible to build any other ships and vessels, including civilian ones, of course.

Therefore, when they say that we have nowhere to build an aircraft carrier, and the creation of a new production will cost a pretty penny, I answer - we have where to build aircraft carriers now, but if (in spite of this) we start to create a new shipbuilding complex, then it will be very good for our economy.

Who will build?


According to A. Voznesensky, there is no one to build a Russian aircraft carrier today.

“… At the time of those works, a significant part of Soviet specialists was still“ in service ”- it was banal for them not so many years, and the United Shipbuilding Corporation had experienced and efficient personnel at its disposal. Now another decade has passed - and it is reasonable to ask, how many of those who participated in the work on the Vikramaditya are still “in the saddle”? "

Here, alas, I can only make a helpless gesture. Because it is completely unclear why the respected author needed the very people who worked on Vikramaditya. But let's sort it out in order.

The agreement with the Indians was concluded in 2004, but in fact our TAVKR was brought into the Sevmash filling pool only in 2005. Before that, there was a survey of the ship and the unloading of equipment that was not supposed to be transferred to the Indians. Thus, the actual construction work on the aircraft carrier was carried out from 2005 to 2012, when the Vikramaditya first went to sea. What was the situation with the qualified workers at that time?

Very bad. The fact is that in the period 1991-1996. "Sevamsh" handed over to the fleet the penultimate serial "Pike-B" (in the amount of 4 units) and "Antei" (5 units), after which, in fact, stood idle. In the period from 1997 to 2005, the extreme "Pike-B" - "Gepard", which was handed over to the fleet in 2001, was slowly being completed. Moreover, the construction of Severodvinsk and Yuri Dolgoruky, which were laid down in 1993 and 1996, respectively, were not shaky and shaky. It was only in 2004 that Alexander Nevsky was finally laid down. In other words, the gigantic plant, which in the past built 10 nuclear submarines at the same time, or even more, "rolled down" to 2-3 ships, and even those built very, very slowly. And this state of affairs (by the time work began at Vikramaditya) persisted for 9 years.

There is no doubt that at this time the plant lost many skilled workers who were forced to look for other work on the side. And it is obvious that today the situation at the plant has significantly improved - at present, Sevmash again, like in the old days, is building simultaneously 12 submarines (5 Boreev-A and 6 Yasenei-M, and Belgorod), although and it does it much slower than before. But, undeniably, the situation with skilled workers is much better than in 2005. And it is likely that upon completion of the construction of Boreyev, the enterprise will have an excess of labor, which will need to be occupied with something.

Thus, without a doubt, we obviously have qualified personnel for the construction of an aircraft carrier.

So what is the respected A. Voznesensky dissatisfied with?

Perhaps he thinks that for the construction of a promising aircraft carrier we will need exactly those workers and engineers that did the Vikramaditya? What for? Should I remind you that before Vikramaditya, Sevmash had never built aircraft-carrying ships? And, nevertheless, when the need arose to rebuild the TAVKR intended for basing vertical take-off and landing aircraft into a full-fledged small aircraft carrier, Sevmash did an excellent job with the task.

Oh yes, after all, according to A. Voznesensky, he failed. Well, let's take a look.

Is Vikramaditya an epic fiasco?


According to the distinguished A. Voznesensky, "Sevmash" failed to cope with the restructuring of the former TAVKR "Baku" into an aircraft carrier. And even the presence of old, still Soviet personnel “even this factor did not save the ship - everyone knows about the accident during sea trials, when the power plant of the aircraft carrier was out of order. The very same project of re-equipment of "Admiral Gorshkov" turned out to be unprofitable for Sevmash ".


Let's start at the end, that is, with losses. As you know, the cost of repairs can be determined only on the basis of a complete defect list, when it is already known exactly what needs to be fixed. But the Indian contract in those conditions was heavenly manna for Sevmash, and that is why it was concluded incorrectly, without a complete survey of the rebuilt ship.

And when they did it, it turned out that it was out of order and required much more replacement than was originally expected. Naturally, the tight-fisted Indians were not eager to overpay in excess of the contract, although, in the end, they had to do it. As a result, "Sevmash" could not count on big profits, but that was not the main thing - the work on "Vikramaditya" helped to retain the same qualified personnel, which was then so useful to us in the construction of "Ash" and "Boreyev".

As for the quality of work, the failure of a power plant during testing is certainly a regrettable case, but nothing more. The tests are designed to identify ship problems and eradicate them. This is exactly what happened with Vikramaditya. On July 8, 2012, he first entered the test. And on November 16, 2013, that is, after 1 year and a little over 3 months, the aircraft carrier was transferred to India. This is not too long. For example, the British destroyer Daring began sea trials in July 2007, and did not enter service with the Royal Navy until 2009.

Nevertheless, A. Voskresensky is dissatisfied with the quality of Sevmash's work. However, the Hindus themselves take a different point of view. For example, Pabbi Gurtej Singh, Chief of the Indian Navy's Logistics Department, stated that:

The Vikramaditya is a wonderful aircraft carrier ... Today it is the flagship of the Indian Navy. Over the past five years, we have been very active in exploiting it. He perfectly performs all combat missions and often goes to sea. "


"Vikramaditya" (attention - he is in the background) at the international naval exercises

I must say that the Indians never went into their pockets for a word to moan at our technology. But there is no criticism regarding the aircraft carrier (unlike, by the way, the MiG-29K, based on it). Moreover, after holding appropriate negotiations, Sevmash undertook to double the terms of its stay in the Indian fleet - from 20 to 40 years.

What can better prove the quality of Sevmash's work?

Where to base?


Here it is necessary to fully agree with the respected A. Voznesensky - today there is nowhere to base aircraft carriers.

But there is no need to exaggerate the costs of creating such an infrastructure. A. Voznesensky writes: "China ... did it for four whole years - that is how much it took to build a special naval base in Qingdao."

The thing is that building a naval base from scratch is really an extremely expensive business, and this is exactly what the Chinese did when they created a new naval base in the Qingdao region. However, we do not need to go the same way, we can simply create the necessary infrastructure in the existing bases, which, of course, will be many times cheaper.

How to fight?


A. Voznesensky writes: “The most obvious choice is the use of the Su-57. However, this aircraft is still not in serial production, does not have second stage engines, and is probably too heavy even for an ejection AB. "

I am pleased to announce that the Su-57 went into mass production back in 2019. As for the engine of the second stage, let us recall that the Su-33, having a maximum take-off weight of 33 tons and engines with a maximum thrust of 12 kgf (total thrust - 800 kgf), has a thrust-to-weight ratio of slightly less than 25 ... And this allows him to take off from the third takeoff - weight restrictions apply only to a start from two short bow positions. And the Su-600 with its first stage engines has a total thrust of 0,78 kgf and a maximum takeoff weight of 57 tons. the thrust-to-weight ratio will still exceed that of the Su-30. And the second stage engines are just around the corner. And what is too heavy ... Well, the deck version of the Su-000 is quite possible with a maximum weight of 35,5-57 tons, while the maximum weight of the F-33 "Tomcat" came close to 57 tons. I don't think the difference is that fundamental.

As for the carrier-based AWACS aircraft, the respected author writes: “Considering that at present our Oboronprom has rested even on a large-scale modernization of the A-50, any talk about a carrier-based AWACS aircraft can be considered fantastic history about jelly shores ".


In fact, there is nothing fantastic here.

A-100 "Premier" is being created in the Russian Federation, in which we, in essence, have filled all the bumps that should have been. That is, at first they made for it a complex with an active phased array, automatic data exchange systems with other aircraft and other equipment, which is equally important and necessary for a promising AWACS aircraft, then they stood in line for the Il-76MD-90A aircraft, then they tested and tested all this, faced with inevitable difficulties, and even against the background of the need for import substitution ...

Regardless of how successful the work on the creation of the A-100 "Premier" is (officially, everything is successful there, but the project is secret, and who knows how things really are?), It is obvious that we have gained tremendous experience with its creation, and this experience will greatly simplify and facilitate the work on the "people's" AWACS aircraft. On the basis of, say, the same Yak-44, which will be much cheaper than the Premier and which can be produced in much larger batches in the interests of both the Aerospace Forces and the Navy.

Who will accompany?


Russia does not have and does not foresee ships that could accompany an aircraft carrier in the ocean, A. Voznesensky is sure. The respected author dismisses the idea that this task can be solved by Russian frigates:

“Ships of the“ frigate ”class can perform auxiliary tasks as part of the AUG, but they are definitely not its backbone. Moreover, in the event that our ship group is in the ocean (and the supporters of aircraft carriers always emphasize the fight against the enemy "on the distant lines"), ships of such a modest displacement may be unable to use weapon due to the restrictions imposed by the pitching ”.

The answer is very simple.

Currently, the Russian Federation is developing a project 22350M frigate or "Super-Gorshkov", if you like. One of the main differences of this frigate is the increased displacement, and if at first it was said that the standard displacement of the ship would increase by 1 tons, then later - that the displacement would reach 000 tons, that is, even if we are talking about the full displacement, this is an increase of approximately by 7 tons. Taking into account the fact that the standard displacement of the "Gorshkov" is 000 tons, the frigates 1M will have from 600 tons or even more.

At the same time, the air defense of the US aircraft carrier formations for a long time provided missile ships, called either "leaders", then "frigates", then "cruisers", of the "Legi" and "Belknap" types (9 units each), whose standard displacement was 5100 -5400 tons (although, perhaps, this is a displacement in the so-called "long tons"). Yes, and the first "Arleigh Burke" had only 6 630 tons of standard displacement, so there is no particular difference in size between these ships. Finally, the Soviet anti-submarine ships of project 1134-A, which traveled all the seas and oceans, had a standard displacement of 5640-5735 tons.


BOD "Vasily Chapaev" in the Pacific Ocean

A. Voskresensky also writes: “We should also mention the integrated supply ships (by the way, they themselves are a little less than AB and their construction requires appropriate funds and capacities) - we do not have ships of this class, and without them the autonomy of an aircraft carrier strike is called into question. groups ".

All this is true, but there is a nuance - supply vessels will be needed by the fleet in any case, with or without aircraft carriers. This is not a question of an aircraft carrier, this is a question of long-range cruises of ships of the fleet. If we do not plan to send our ships further than the near sea zone, then, of course, we can do without supply vessels. But even today our ships go to the Mediterranean Sea and to the Indian Ocean, and we cannot build here without specialized tankers and fleet “supplies”.

Where to apply?


This question of A. Voskresensky is very, very interesting.

But the article is already too long, so I will postpone the answer to it until the next article.

Thank you for attention!
Author:
338 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sling cutter
    Sling cutter April 7 2021 05: 05
    +29
    Andrey, thanks, another great article. Keep it up.
    1. Tiksi-3
      Tiksi-3 April 7 2021 07: 01
      +12
      Quote: Stroporez
      Andrey, thanks, another great article. Keep it up.

      Andrey, I take off my hat for your quality work! and I join the words of Stroporez !! drinks hi
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 7 2021 07: 41
        +34
        Thanks! The next article will be devoted to why we still need these aircraft carriers :))))
        1. novel66
          novel66 April 7 2021 08: 01
          +16
          Andrei hi
          why do we still need these aircraft carriers :))))

          this is the most interesting thing! look forward to
        2. Sling cutter
          Sling cutter April 7 2021 09: 35
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Thanks! The next article will be devoted to why we still need these aircraft carriers :))))

          From the Soul! Will wait! good drinks
        3. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 7 2021 09: 56
          +8
          Andrey, thanks for the article! As always, everything is very logical and reasoned.
          However, regrettably, there are a considerable number of people who doubt in general the expediency of building a Fleet, and aircraft carriers are a completely annoying factor for them. And the standard arguments will be applied: it is expensive, difficult, we are a land power, the fleet did not show itself in the Second World War ... The people here, for the most part, are not young, with the prevailing opinion. It is almost impossible to convince the "atheists of the Fleet" ...
          1. Niko
            Niko April 7 2021 10: 05
            +9
            Quote: Doccor18
            Andrey, thanks for the article! As always, everything is very logical and reasoned.
            However, regrettably, there are a considerable number of people who doubt in general the expediency of building a Fleet, and aircraft carriers are a completely annoying factor for them. And the standard arguments will be applied: it is expensive, difficult, we are a land power, the fleet did not show itself in the Second World War ... The people here, for the most part, are not young, with the prevailing opinion. It is almost impossible to convince the "atheists of the Fleet" ...

            You are right, it is probably impossible to convince, but there are other worthy goals, even if it turns out to show that you can express your opinion calmly, listen to your opponent, and not look for something to find fault with, just treat with RESPECT and do what depends on us to throw verbal poop at the opponent has become bad form, this is already good
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 April 7 2021 10: 15
              +4
              Quote: Niko
              ... and not look for something to find fault with, just treat with RESPECT and do what depends on us so that throwing verbal poop at our opponent becomes bad form ..

              How well you wrote.
              This mission is worthy, and in my opinion, it is more important than all technical disputes. Respect for the interlocutor, even if he fundamentally disagrees with your opinion, is almost an ART. And, like any art, it requires exhausting searches and training ...
          2. Krasnoyarsk
            Krasnoyarsk April 8 2021 17: 24
            +2
            Quote: Doccor18
            The people here, for the most part, are not young, with the prevailing opinion. It is almost impossible to convince the "atheists of the Fleet" ...

            Why convince them? Does anything depend on their opinion? As well as from ours. But, a good article, short, clear, understandable, logical, pleasant to read. Thanks to the author for that.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 April 8 2021 17: 31
              0
              Such battles, at times, are played out in the comments that involuntarily you will think, what if ... smile
              Quote: Krasnoyarsk
              .. Does anything depend on their opinion? As well as from our ..
        4. Alien From
          Alien From April 7 2021 10: 02
          +5
          Thank you, I agree with many things! hi one moment :) "" The extreme ships, "Dmitry Donskoy" and "Prince Potemkin" will have to be handed over to the fleet in 2026–1927, and launched much earlier. "" We will definitely not wait until 1927))
          1. frog
            frog April 8 2021 09: 31
            +2
            We definitely won't wait until 1927))

            The first five-year plan ?? And again into battle, rest on ..... is not needed ??
        5. MinskFox
          MinskFox April 7 2021 10: 53
          0
          Thanks for the article, I'm looking forward to the next one!)
        6. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin April 7 2021 13: 12
          +3
          The most interesting thing is that "VO" is full of publications, from which it is as easy as shelling pears to understand how and where Russia can and should use aircraft carriers. But it must be done again, as soon as a series of publications of "AVid-dissidents" appeared, which either did not read the materials carefully, or did not read at all, or act according to the principle "And Baba Yaga is against!", Or live in a parallel the universe. We are waiting, Andrey. With impatience, as colleagues have already written good
        7. Machito
          Machito April 7 2021 16: 41
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Thanks! The next article will be devoted to why we still need these aircraft carriers :))))

          Andrey, thanks, I look forward to the article. A sober view of the situation with our fleet. It is good that such a heated discussion about the fleet has flared up at VO lately. And then, some comrades do nothing but roll cylinders at Klimov and Timokhin, but they cannot offer something intelligible, meaningful and logical.
          The issue of using aircraft carriers is one of the key factors in the strategy of using the Russian fleet. hi
        8. g1v2
          g1v2 April 7 2021 18: 57
          +6
          Well, this is the most interesting question. Everything else is derived from it. When the Zvezda mega-shipyard is being built for a lot of money, this is understandable. At least, so as not to buy gas carriers and tankers from the Koreans. When the Kola shipyard is being built, it is also understandable - so as not to order production platforms abroad, for a lot of money and risking non-delivery due to sanctions.
          It is possible to build an aircraft carrier - it is expensive, time-consuming, with big problems and postponements. And the main question is - why? PM looking forward to the main article with interest. hi
          By the way, the plans for the construction of a new superyard near St. Petersburg, where the Admiralty Shipyards and the Baltic Shipyard are going to be moved, have been updated again. PM is likely to build a shipyard anyway. And primarily for military purposes and icebreakers.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 07: 40
      +14
      And thank you for your kind words!
    3. Israel
      Israel April 8 2021 13: 45
      +7
      As an outside observer, on the contrary, I see that Andrei's article fully confirms the conclusions that Andrei is trying to refute.
      1. Understanding what kind of aircraft carrier is needed, their number, etc., is not in Russia.
      2. There is nowhere to build AV, Andrey honestly admits that there are theoretical ones, but there you need to "work a little with shovels, deepen, expand", that is, in fact, there is no place, not to mention the fact that in this case the construction of an aircraft carrier will go to damage to the nuclear submarine. In reality, it is necessary to build a new shipbuilding complex for aircraft carriers, which will most likely be a city-forming enterprise.
      3. As for the specialists, it's just an assumption that people with experience in designing such a class of ships are magically available in Russia, despite the fact that in modern Russia there is no experience in building such ships.
      4. With airplanes in general, in my opinion, "pulling an owl", the Su-57, although it went into production, but for deck use it will actually have to redesign the aircraft. With AWACS in general, a strange argument, in Russia they have not yet brought to mind the A-100, which is not even close to deck-based, that is, again, for a deck-based AWACS, a full-fledged design and production cycle must be carried out. It's the same with multifunctional deck helicopters. That is, in total, there is nothing to “fill” the aircraft carrier in aviation at the moment.
      5. There is nowhere to base, which the author admits.
      6. There are no escort ships at the moment.

      As a result, it is not clear what exactly Andrey denied. And it turns out that if Russia wants to have AB, then it is necessary to invest huge funds in the shipbuilding complex, in the development of carrier-based aircraft (all types), carry out a full range of work from design to serial production of escort ships, create several naval bases, etc. A huge amount of money that Russia does not have now.
      1. max702
        max702 April 8 2021 14: 43
        +2
        Lord, what little things are you talking about so boringly! All this is nonsense, according to the local Morephiles, the fact that these funds can be given to those who are really fighting (ground forces and aviation) who have not played enough with boats is categorically not satisfied, because the sailors have a beautiful dagger and, in general, romance! The only thing with which I disagree with you is the lack of money in the country, to put it mildly there is no place to put it, hundreds of billions in banknotes of a potential enemy lie dead weight because there is REALLY no place to invest them, not to buy something worthwhile, not to invest in something useful give (ay factory Rolls-Royce in Norway) on this and try to at least somehow spend them even on crazy projects .. But let's see what the author argues for the need for AUG, and I’ll say right away 1-2 AUG will not solve anything, 3-4 nuu maybe 5-6 is already an argument! But the "partners" are the same as with their 12-15 AUG during this time they can increase these up to 25-30 .. Achilles will never catch up with the turtle ..
        1. victor50
          victor50 April 9 2021 11: 35
          -1
          Quote: max702
          The only thing with which I disagree with you is the lack of money in the country, to put it mildly there is no place to put it, hundreds of billions in banknotes of a potential enemy lie dead weight because there is REALLY no place to invest them, not to buy something good, not to invest in something useful give (ay Rolls-Royce factory in Norway) for this and try to spend them at least somehow, even on crazy projects ..

          +++ And there are also oligarchs' pockets.
  2. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 April 7 2021 05: 09
    -5
    I think the fleet and the UDC will be enough.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus April 7 2021 08: 49
      -10%
      everything is clear, the enemy of the aircraft carriers and the fleet himself appeared.
      I'm with you.
      They write a lot about building and nothing about tedious "operation" 50 years how much will it cost? Give a breakdown by year - content, etc. until 2080 !!!
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 7 2021 17: 30
        +5
        It costs approximately $ 1 billion a year to operate the Nimitz class AV. This is in peacetime.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus April 7 2021 17: 51
          +2
          1 lard with an air wing and a naval base and the maintenance of repair base-docks, etc.? Or only AB?
          THE MOST SAD FOR MINUSERS - WE WILL BE DEFENDING AND REPAIRED IN DR LATITIES .. in the PM and aviation. it is already possible to calculate the annual costs both for 30 years and for 50 years.
        2. bobba94
          bobba94 April 7 2021 22: 40
          +5
          Aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" class. For example "Karl Vinson", the cost is 5 billion dollars, maintenance is 170 million dollars a year, we skip current repairs, every 12 years a major overhaul costing 1,5-2,0 billion dollars. This is only for the aircraft carrier. Separately, escort - at least 2 destroyers of the Arlie Burke class, worth 1,6 billion dollars each, plus 1 missile cruiser of the Ticonderoga class, plus 1 nuclear submarine of the Virginia class, plus two supply ships and those. provision. This is the minimum composition of the AUG. So consider their content ...
          1. Silhouette
            Silhouette April 8 2021 07: 50
            +5
            Don't fantasize. Only the maintenance of the air group costs 170 million. Details on the maintenance of aircraft carriers for the year are here: https://nilsky-nikolay.livejournal.com/846698.html
        3. frog
          frog April 8 2021 09: 33
          0
          For example "Karl Vinson", the cost is 5 billion dollars, maintenance is 170 million dollars a year, we skip current repairs, every 12 years a major overhaul costing 1,5-2,0 billion dollars.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 7 2021 05: 20
    +7
    Aircraft carriers are needed, but now they are not vital, so in extremes like "build immediately at least twenty pieces" and "cut and forget like a bad dream" should not be rushed.
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 April 7 2021 05: 30
      +27
      We need to build our own economy immediately, and then everything that is needed.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 7 2021 06: 00
        +2
        Quote: Pessimist22
        You must first build your own economy.
        Something like that. wink
      2. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter April 7 2021 06: 07
        +14
        Quote: Pessimist22
        We need to build our own economy immediately, and then everything that is needed.

        Absolutely true, because the aircraft carrier fleet is the prerogative of powerful economies.
        1. MinskFox
          MinskFox April 7 2021 10: 54
          0
          So the aircraft carrier, by the way, will give impetus to the development of the entire economy, and not ephemeral, but real production and personnel.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 20: 55
            0
            Quote: MinskFox
            by the way, it will give an impetus to the development of the entire economy, and not ephemeral but real production and personnel

            aw cannot give an impetus to the economy like military spending in general, military spending is a forced necessity in order to protect resources defensively, the economy, during development, must give an outlet to itself in the form of goods that can be offered to the consumer for which he pays money, and more money and more, that is, a long ruble. multiplier, and av only costs without profit, I do not call for reducing military spending, but urge to spend them prudently on defense, and not on unnecessary toys. And you can load the shipyards of workers and engineers through nuclear submarines, frigates and corvettes, through minesweepers of ICBMs, air defense and coastal aviation
            1. MinskFox
              MinskFox April 7 2021 22: 09
              +3
              You count the indirect advantages, or do you think the money spent on AB will go somewhere? They will leave for their people, I doubt that they will take them out of the country somewhere, the enterprises will pay taxes, the remainder for the re-equipment and development of production. New competencies, technological development, and you are all playing in classical economics, capitalism has outlived its usefulness. So the money will be redistributed from the state to workers and engineers and, again, the state. for enterprises for development, this is better than when billions come for oil and then they go abroad in the form of dividends.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 22: 13
                +3
                Quote: MinskFox
                They will leave for their people, I doubt that they will take them out of the country somewhere, the enterprises will pay taxes, the remainder for the re-equipment and development of production. New competencies, technological development, and you are all playing in classical economics, capitalism has outlived its usefulness. So the money will be redistributed from the state to workers and engineers and, again, the state. for enterprises for development, this is better than when billions come for oil and then they go abroad in the form of dividends.

                let's apply this to nuclear submarines minesweepers and coastal aviation, there people will earn more and, most importantly, there will be more use and sense
                1. MinskFox
                  MinskFox April 8 2021 10: 16
                  0
                  Aircraft carrier technological breakthrough nuclear submarines and minesweepers - no. I am not a supporter or opponent of aircraft carriers, I do not really understand this, but from the point of view of the development of engineering thought, it is necessary.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 10: 21
                    -1
                    Quote: MinskFox
                    from the point of view of the development of engineering

                    what for? let's develop engineering thought on napl and gas carriers
                    1. MinskFox
                      MinskFox April 8 2021 10: 24
                      0
                      Confusing warm with soft, in my opinion. Completely different things. But this is your opinion, and this is mine. And they will decide in MO, with respect.
                  2. ccsr
                    ccsr April 8 2021 12: 03
                    +2
                    Quote: MinskFox
                    I am not a supporter or opponent of aircraft carriers, I do not really understand this, but from the point of view of the development of engineering thought, it is necessary.

                    Have you ever wondered why battleships did not begin to develop from the point of view of engineering, removing gun turrets and replacing them with missile weapons? Why did you decide that cruisers are better suited for this? And now that rocketry has risen to such a high level, and in addition, the cost of the missiles themselves has dropped sharply, what's the point of creating aircraft carriers if we can inflict unacceptable damage on the enemy without them. 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.
                    Can you formulate?
                    1. Denton
                      Denton April 9 2021 02: 01
                      -2
                      Battleships ceased to develop in their classic form because the guns have outlived their usefulness, and the armor has ceased to be reliable protection. But on the other hand, the same Orlan with powerful defensive systems and the "main" rocket caliber is quite pulling on the battleship (although more precisely, it is still a battle ship), albeit not constructively, but in meaning.

                      Avics have not lost their relevance, simply because aviation has not lost its relevance.
                  3. max702
                    max702 April 8 2021 14: 59
                    +3
                    A submarine is not a technical breakthrough? Are you out of your mind to say that? An aircraft carrier is a large barge with planes and that's it, but a nuclear submarine is a very complex mechanism that must work effectively at a depth of 1000m +, that is, in a completely different environment where every mistake leads to disaster ..
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 23: 17
                      0
                      Quote: max702
                      A nuclear submarine is a very complex mechanism that must work effectively at a depth of 1000m +, that is, in a completely different environment where every mistake leads to disaster ..

                      she still moves under water, chooses a course, and her missiles, having flown half the world, hit the target, ... or a small apparatus for searching for mines, he finds a needle in a haystack ... this is science. this is progress, but the members of the pagan totalitarian destructive sect of the aircraft carrier's witnesses are not impressed; they think superficially and do not see the roots, estimate only the size and do not want to abandon the blind idolatrous belief in a rusty piece of iron that recently almost sunk with the dock ...
                    2. Alien From
                      Alien From April 8 2021 23: 27
                      +1
                      I agree, the nuclear powered aircraft is akin to space technology, but the aircraft carrier is not a barge either. drinks
            2. Denton
              Denton April 9 2021 01: 57
              0
              There is so much that can be done for an aircraft carrier in terms of technology, which is then torn off in civilian life with arms and legs. Plus, the specialists who designed and built this monster will not go anywhere either, and will train new specialists ...
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 05: 35
                +1
                Quote: Denton
                a citizen with arms and legs will be torn off.

                Why do citizens need an aerofinisher? do they want to tear off their arms and legs?
              2. max702
                max702 April 9 2021 08: 48
                0
                Quote: Denton
                There is so much that can be done for an aircraft carrier in terms of technology, which is then torn off in civilian life with arms and legs. Plus, the specialists who designed and built this monster will not go anywhere either, and will train new specialists ...

                And let's have at least one sound technology that can be applied in civilian life.
            3. victor50
              victor50 April 9 2021 11: 40
              -2
              Quote: vladimir1155
              av cannot give an impetus to the economy as in general military spending, military spending is a necessary necessity in order to protect resources defensively,

              Interestingly, there was such an argument against the construction of rockets and spaceships, flights into space? lol Why do we need all this ?! There is enough plow to plow and grow bread. You never know that the world has rushed somewhere - we only observe the backs from a distance!
              1. max702
                max702 April 11 2021 21: 06
                -1
                You were asked for at least one technology from the Aircraft Carrier, and you drew some kind of stream of consciousness .. apparently all flotophiles are like that .. The drain is counted ..
      3. Per se.
        Per se. April 7 2021 06: 58
        +12
        Quote: Pessimist22
        and then all that is needed.
        Interesting logic, it's like, at first I will become stronger, and only after weights and dumbbells I will buy. The construction of an aircraft carrier is in many ways an increase in the country's industrial power, jobs, new technologies, and production experience.
        1. Aag
          Aag April 7 2021 07: 42
          +3
          Quote: Per se.
          Quote: Pessimist22
          and then all that is needed.
          Interesting logic, it's like, at first I will become stronger, and only after weights and dumbbells I will buy. The construction of an aircraft carrier is in many ways an increase in the country's industrial power, jobs, new technologies, and production experience.

          And what should we buy weights, dumbbells for? Or will we take them from whom?
          Apparently, you have to swing your own weight)) ... hi
          1. Per se.
            Per se. April 7 2021 08: 03
            +6
            Quote: AAG
            And what should we buy weights, dumbbells for? Or will we take them from whom?
            You don't have to select it, there would be a desire to become stronger, and for this you need to look for opportunities to train, and not reasons for doing nothing, but only wanting.
        2. max702
          max702 April 8 2021 15: 02
          0
          This is not a purchase of dumbbells, but an attempt to break the barbell record in the super heavy weight category .. You may not even lift the barbell and will be taken away with a disabled person on a gurney ..
      4. Tiksi-3
        Tiksi-3 April 7 2021 07: 02
        0
        Quote: Pessimist22
        We need to build our own economy immediately, and then everything that is needed.

        this is live to Putin hi
      5. Niko
        Niko April 7 2021 08: 41
        +4
        Quote: Pessimist22
        We need to build our own economy immediately, and then everything that is needed.

        You are right in general, but you are mistaken in thinking that these are two different processes. Development, bringing the shipbuilding industry into a competitive state in the country is one of the directions of economic revival
    2. Niko
      Niko April 7 2021 08: 37
      +5
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Aircraft carriers are needed, but now they are not vital, so in extremes like "build immediately at least twenty pieces" and "cut and forget like a bad dream" should not be rushed.

      This is partly the point. EXTREME. There is a category of people, and quite extensive according to my observations, who at the same time cry about how sorry they did not keep what was possible from the USSR, and then furiously try to break what is still left (Kuznetsov as an example). Moreover, there is a high probability that exactly these people were indignant in the 90s: "Why do we need this fleet? Give me something to eat ..." "Why do we need this space?" Etc. etc.
    3. prior
      prior April 7 2021 10: 18
      +4
      "I have the opportunity to buy a goat, but I have no desire.
      I have a wish ........... " No. request
    4. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo April 7 2021 13: 29
      -4
      Aircraft carriers are needed

      it will be enough to lengthen TAVKR type Kuznetsov i.e. project Manatee with air defense, PTZ, anti-ship missiles, PLUR
      at least 2 aircraft-carrying cruisers
      under escort of 4 frigates of Project 22350 i.e. 8 - everything is already under construction
      TAVKRs can be built on: Zvezda and the Gulf for 3 years in dry dock, completion afloat for 2 years
      in 2025 will start by 2030 there will already be 2 TAVKRs
  4. Runway
    Runway April 7 2021 05: 23
    +4
    There are "moments" controversial, but on the whole it is reasonable "alaverdi"
    Only there is still an "element" - people who go to the troops / for "iron" ...
    The VP of the Pacific Fleet was aroused by the fact of bribing 11 cadets of an "unnamed VVUZ" to a teacher from the same UZ. The future paid the incumbent for the "tails".
  5. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga April 7 2021 05: 35
    +5
    Quote author:
    Talking about designing an aircraft carrier until 2010 is generally meaningless - starting in 1991, shipbuilding went into a steep peak, there were no orders for ships, and the construction of a few units lasted for decades. But then the leadership, realizing the need to restore the country's armed forces, approved the State Arms Program (GPV) for 2011–2020.

    And we immediately got production capacities and financial resources for the construction of a modern fleet, trained personnel and the necessary infrastructure for basing? No.
    Until the country moves to sustainable development, which implies a change in the current leadership and a serious revision of what has been done, nothing will change. And dreams of aircraft carriers will remain dreams.
    1. Flooding
      Flooding April 7 2021 06: 34
      -15%
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Until the country moves to sustainable development, which implies a change in the current leadership and a serious revision of what has been done, nothing will change.

      as soon as Shoigu is squeezed out of the Ministry of Defense - can we count on aircraft carriers?
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 April 7 2021 07: 02
        +9
        Quote: Flood
        as soon as Shoigu is squeezed out of the Ministry of Defense - can we count on aircraft carriers?

        Perhaps only on Taburetkin and the regiment of secretaries
      2. Per se.
        Per se. April 7 2021 07: 28
        +9
        Quote: Flood
        can you count on aircraft carriers?
        It is possible, it is possible with Kuzhugetovich (he is not, in principle, the "root of evil"). But, most likely -
      3. Toucan
        Toucan April 7 2021 08: 03
        +1
        It is strange that you did not understand that this is not about Shoigu, but about the supreme irreplaceable "guarantor" and his friends.
        1. Flooding
          Flooding April 7 2021 08: 07
          -5
          Quote: Tucan
          It is strange that you did not understand that this is not about Shoigu, but about the supreme irreplaceable "guarantor" and his friends.

          list the list, pzhalsta (s)
          I thought the Minister of Defense was also one of friends
          it's strange that I didn't understand right away
          1. Toucan
            Toucan April 7 2021 08: 31
            +4
            Have you been banned from Google? Do you know who is in charge of our state corporation and who receives the most profitable government contracts?
            1. Flooding
              Flooding April 7 2021 08: 35
              -4
              Quote: Tucan
              Have you been banned from Google? Do you know who is in charge of our state corporation and who receives the most profitable government contracts?

              got it
              I drive "Putin's friends" into Google
              good idea. I would never have guessed
              Do we consider the heads of state corporations to be friends of the great and the terrible?
              did I understand you correctly?
              means, it is necessary to remove them from their posts?
              and will we live?
              PS
              The full list of 210 "friends of Putin" from the new "Kremlin report" of the United States has been published

              Google suggested. What do you think? Don't lie?
            2. Flooding
              Flooding April 7 2021 10: 04
              -2
              Don't be silent.
              The topic is crucial and extremely interesting.
              Can we take Putin's American list of friends as a guide?
    2. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter April 7 2021 06: 39
      -1
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Until the country moves to sustainable development, which implies a change in the current leadership and a serious revision of what has been done, nothing will change. And dreams of aircraft carriers will remain dreams.

      That's right, you are absolutely right.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 07: 39
      +8
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      And we immediately got production capacities and financial resources for the construction of a modern fleet, trained personnel and the necessary infrastructure for basing?

      Immediately - no, but it appears. The construction of a "large fleet" is possible already within the current budget of the RF Ministry of Defense, I wrote this here https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
      We have production capacities, and to postpone the construction of the fleet means to destroy them irrevocably, because it is impossible to increase them without building ships. It is also impossible to prepare trained personnel for the fleet without ships.
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Until the country moves to sustainable development, which implies a change in the current leadership and a serious revision of what has been done, nothing will change.

      You are right in many ways
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      And dreams of aircraft carriers will remain dreams

      Nevertheless, according to the available information, they will probably be pledged - in the late 20s
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 April 7 2021 10: 15
        -2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        And we immediately got production capacities and financial resources for the construction of a modern fleet, trained personnel and the necessary infrastructure for basing?

        Immediately - no, but it appears. The construction of a "large fleet" is possible already within the current budget of the RF Ministry of Defense, I wrote this here https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
        We have production capacities, and to postpone the construction of the fleet means to destroy them irrevocably, because it is impossible to increase them without building ships. It is also impossible to prepare trained personnel for the fleet without ships.
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Until the country moves to sustainable development, which implies a change in the current leadership and a serious revision of what has been done, nothing will change.

        You are right in many ways
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        And dreams of aircraft carriers will remain dreams

        Nevertheless, according to the available information, they will probably be pledged - in the late 20s

        We barely make frigates with corvettes, and you dream about aircraft carriers. Do you have the laurels of the USSR?
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 7 2021 10: 57
          +4
          Quote: Pilat2009
          We barely make frigates with corvettes, and you dream of aircraft carriers ...

          The problem is that we can, but not that we really want ... That there are no unsolvable technical and financial issues, but there is a banal unwillingness to give this topic proper attention. An important topic, I must say. For what could be more important than the defense capability of your state? Moreover, in such a "friendly environment" ...
          And the laurels of the USSR do not give us peace of mind for many. For almost half of my life, I got used to seeing myself as a citizen of a mighty socialist giant ...
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 April 8 2021 20: 01
            +1
            Quote: Doccor18
            And the laurels of the USSR do not give us peace of mind for many. For almost half of my life, I got used to seeing myself as a citizen of a mighty socialist giant ..

            So the USSR was larger in territory and population, school and science were not optimized, brains did not drain abroad, there was someone to build. The heads of factories and design bureaus were not managers, but engineers and directors who went through the entire chain
    4. Serg65
      Serg65 April 7 2021 07: 52
      -4
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Until the country moves to sustainable development, which implies a change in the current leadership and a serious revision of what has been done

      Only, instead of development, there will be a rollback twenty years ago!
    5. Boris55
      Boris55 April 7 2021 07: 57
      -3
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Until the country moves to sustainable development, which implies a change in the current leadership and a serious revision of what has been done, nothing will change.

      Are you sure that this clan will be replaced by a patriotic one (by the way - which one?), And not again Dimon, and will begin to hand over everything that was restored with such difficulty for another iPhone.

      I am sure that Putin will leave in 24 - this is his last presidential term, but the siloviki clan will remain in power. Perhaps the next president will be Shoigu.

      The task of aircraft carriers is to solve economic, political and military tasks far from their native shores. Do we need them? In the future, yes, but now it is necessary to ensure guaranteed protection of our shores.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 April 7 2021 09: 43
        +4
        Quote: Boris55
        Do we need them? In the long term - yes, but now it is necessary to ensure the guaranteed protection of their shores.

        And aircraft carriers do not provide protection ..?
        If not, then they are definitely not needed. request
        1. Boris55
          Boris55 April 7 2021 10: 09
          -3
          Quote: Doccor18
          And aircraft carriers do not provide protection ..?

          Protection is provided by the coastal defense structure and short-range ships.

          Aircraft carriers ensure the interests of the state far from their native shores, but for this there must be a state that has such interests.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 April 7 2021 10: 23
            +2
            Quote: Boris55
            Aircraft carriers ensure the interests of the state far from their native shores, but for this there must be a state that has such interests.

            An aircraft carrier is, first of all, a warship. The strongest (surface) and most versatile of the existing ...
            And only the "interests" of the state are ensured by the embassies, "far from their native shores" ...
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 April 7 2021 10: 18
          -2
          Quote: Doccor18
          Quote: Boris55
          Do we need them? In the long term - yes, but now it is necessary to ensure the guaranteed protection of their shores.

          And aircraft carriers do not provide protection ..?
          If not, then they are definitely not needed. request

          Coastal protection can be provided by conventional aircraft; there is no need to build a floating airfield
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 April 7 2021 10: 29
            +5
            Quote: Pilat2009
            Coastal protection can be provided by conventional aviation.

            Can. But not always.
            And an aircraft carrier can, but ... also, not always
            The fleet is a complex multipurpose structure. There is no universal remedy for all threats and will not be. Everything, ideally, should complement each other.
          2. PSih2097
            PSih2097 April 7 2021 17: 28
            +2
            Quote: Pilat2009
            Coastal protection can be provided by conventional aircraft; there is no need to build a floating airfield

            only here is how long the plane will fly from land (and they are a priori at least a hundred kilometers from the coast (except for the Crimea)) and AB with a normal grouping of aircraft (fighters + AWACS) compare ...
            1. max702
              max702 April 8 2021 15: 06
              -1
              And for what to fly then? For what purpose? And yes, take a look at the map of our country ...
            2. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 April 8 2021 20: 14
              0
              Quote: PSih2097
              and AB with a normal grouping of aircraft

              If this is a full-fledged US aug, then there are 80 aircraft. And they have several such AUGs. And you want to build 3, a bunch of more ships for them and keep all this. Right now I see how this aug is moving to the shores of the United States.
            3. max702
              max702 April 9 2021 08: 53
              +1
              Well, Duc standard aircraft always surpass those with AUG, and the choice of the same aircraft is greater than that of AUG up to strategists, and the same AWACS are a cut above their sea counterparts, a hundred km will not solve anything for modern aviation, given the limited areas of application of AUG, dependence from the weather, low combat stability and a small ammunition space .. we basically have one DB theater for the AUG, this is the Pacific Ocean, but again there are no serious targets that these AUGs could destroy ..
              1. PSih2097
                PSih2097 April 9 2021 20: 16
                0
                Quote: max702
                By and large, we have one DB theater for AUG, this is the Pacific Ocean, but again there are no serious targets that these AUGs could destroy ..

                Seriously??? And then WE will have to drive Japan and China into the Stone Age, as you like such a passage.
                1. max702
                  max702 April 11 2021 21: 04
                  0
                  Well, not only, it seems like the USA, Australia, and everyone else .. The road is open .. They won't let us get out from other theaters .. They will drown ..
      2. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 7 2021 17: 46
        -2
        I spoke about Shoigu 5 years ago. There will be a new Stalin of the 21st century. What tasks on which shores the aircraft carrier will solve - no one has ever answered this question. One aircraft carrier is clearly not enough. How much do you need? 5, 10? There is also no single point of view. A little is bad for the fleet, a lot is bad for the economy. So how long does it take to "Just Right"? I hope Andrey from Ch will answer in the next article.
        1. S. Viktorovich
          S. Viktorovich April 7 2021 17: 55
          +4
          The answer is simple - no aircraft carriers will be enough to counter the US Air Force fleet. We need "asymmetric" solutions.
          1. max702
            max702 April 8 2021 15: 07
            +1
            Quote: S. Viktorovich
            The answer is simple - no aircraft carriers will be enough to counter the US Air Force fleet. We need "asymmetric" solutions.

            That is, we close the AUG topic as meaningless.
  6. jonht
    jonht April 7 2021 06: 39
    +2
    "Not in an eyebrow, but in a voice" hi
    A balance is needed in everything, and we should know what the imbalances lead to, in our history there are a lot of such examples.
    The main thing here is that "the fleet should be" !!! hi
  7. sergo1914
    sergo1914 April 7 2021 06: 50
    +8
    It's time to build orbital aircraft carriers with orbital fighters and orbital bombers. And with hefty fluff in the most beautiful place.
    PS No, I don't know anything about a Death Star.
    1. max702
      max702 April 8 2021 15: 09
      +1
      Quote: sergo1914
      It's time to build orbital aircraft carriers with orbital fighters and orbital bombers. And with hefty fluff in the most beautiful place.
      PS No, I don't know anything about a Death Star.

      That's about space, you rightly noticed! Investing a trillion into this is much more effective than 3-4 AUG ...
  8. Coward
    Coward April 7 2021 06: 52
    0
    "(Although, perhaps, this is a displacement in the so-called" long tons ")"
    Most likely, the author meant short tons. American weight measure, which "weighs" 907 kg and is written with one "n" (ton).
    Used by the USA in calculations as the displacement of ships.
    1. Flooding
      Flooding April 7 2021 07: 25
      +1
      Quote: Coward
      Most likely, the author meant short tons. American weight measure, which "weighs" 907 kg and is written with one "n" (ton).

      The long ton is used precisely.
      Here is an excerpt from the 1930 London Maritime Conference:
      Article 16
      1. The completed tonnage in the cruiser, destroyer and submarine categories which is not to be exceeded on 31 December 1936 is given in the following table:
      Cruisers:
      (a) with guns of more than 6.1 inch (155 mm) caliber
      United States: 180,000 tons (182,880 metric tons)

      as you can see, it is the long tons that are indicated

      Thanks to the comrades on the forum, who vollens-nevolens were engaged in my education in naval topics. wink
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 07: 43
      +4
      Quote: Coward
      Most likely, the author meant short tons. American weight measure, which "weighs" 907 kg and is written with one "n" (ton).

      No, just a long one. Often faced with the fact that the displacement of British and American ships was given in long tons
  9. mark2
    mark2 April 7 2021 07: 01
    +2
    As always, the aircraft carrier lobby started off with the wrong questions. The question remains unanswered, for what purpose does Russia need to build aircraft carriers right now?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 07: 35
      +14
      Quote: mark2
      ... The question remains unanswered, for what purpose does Russia need to build aircraft carriers right now?

      The answers were given in the order of the questions asked. It's not my fault that uv. Voznesensky began with the questions "where to build?", "By whom to build?" etc. And the answer to "Why build?" - this is the topic of a separate article, or even more than one, so it was not worth starting with it.
      You see, if I was now undertaking to write a justification for the need for AB, I had to start with "why". But the format of the article is different - I answered the questions asked. So wait, please, there will of course be a rationale. In the next article
      1. mark2
        mark2 April 7 2021 12: 16
        -6
        I am pleased to read your justification for the need to build ships of imperial expansion throughout the world. I will look forward to it.
        1. Sergey Zhikharev
          Sergey Zhikharev April 10 2021 15: 29
          0
          And what ships will then remain if they have no ambitions? Apl is a weapon of destruction, the whole world is in dust. Helicopter carriers are the same as aircraft carriers, but the chimney is lower, the smoke is thinner. Cruisers, destroyers, frigates - so democracy (imperialism) and cruise missiles carried ...
    2. Arkon
      Arkon April 7 2021 07: 45
      -2
      Quote: mark2
      As always, the aircraft carrier lobby started off with the wrong questions.


      Exactly. For some reason, the author believes that the objection to the thesis "The Navy has not yet been able to formulate the terms of reference for the aircraft carrier" is the objection: "And he did not try to formulate it."
      Although this is not an objection to the thesis, but its confirmation.

      There is no urgent need for an aircraft carrier, so no one is catching the "elusive Joe".
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 7 2021 07: 55
        +6
        Quote: Arkon
        Exactly. For some reason, the author believes that the objection to the thesis "The Navy has not yet been able to formulate the terms of reference for the aircraft carrier" is the objection: "And he did not try to formulate it."

        I'm going to faint now :)))))) The thesis "The Navy has not yet been able to formulate the technical assignment for AB" WAS NOT. There was a thesis - "The Navy formulated a number of TK, but they were incomprehensible."
        You understand, I cannot answer in the article all the questions that arise in the minds of readers. Therefore, I answer those voiced by Voskresensky :))). This is the first thing. Second - I DIDN'T HAVE a thesis
        Quote: Arkon
        "And he didn't even try to formulate it."

        I have it written in Russian in white that the fleet began to form this TK as soon as the work on AB was included in the current GPV.
        Quote: Arkon
        There is no urgent need for an aircraft carrier, so no one is catching the "elusive Joe".

        Well, but the sources of TASS do not agree with you.
        1. Arkon
          Arkon April 7 2021 15: 24
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I'm going to faint now :)))))) Thesis "The Navy has not yet been able to formulate the technical assignment for AB" WAS NOT. There was a thesis - "The Navy formulated a number of TK, but they were incomprehensible."


          Come on. Here's a quote from your article:
          A. Voskresensky is convinced that there were several attempts to formulate the terms of reference, but they were "unintelligible"


          You either correct the article or do not write a comment. Because "an unintelligible attempt to formulate TK" and "to formulate an incomprehensible TK" are not conceptual synonyms in the Russian language. Sorry. wink
        2. anzar
          anzar April 7 2021 16: 33
          +4
          Excellent article, well motivated "how much", we are waiting for the continuation of "why"))
          I have it written in Russian in white that the fleet began to form this TK as soon as the work on AB was included in the current GPV.

          A may be worth a little ... wait, working, or something. The fact is that unmanned aerial vehicles will change (reduce) the requirements for aircraft carriers in the near future. It will be possible to manage with a smaller tonnage. Although the big ones will not become obsolete either))
          The basis of an air order in the future will probably be a combination of AWACS (type E-2 / Yak44, but better jet / bistry, such as Embraer R-99) and unmanned vehicles (such as "Hunter") There is no point in making a deck-mounted Su-57 - it is single. Or will they make it a double? In the meantime ... you can also STOBAR))
      2. ccsr
        ccsr April 7 2021 18: 11
        +3
        Quote: Arkon
        Exactly. For some reason, the author believes that the objection to the thesis "The Navy has not yet been able to formulate the terms of reference for the aircraft carrier" is the objection: "And he did not try to formulate it."
        Although this is not an objection to the thesis, but its confirmation.

        And the author of the article does not know that in order to create a TTZ for an aircraft carrier, it is necessary at least to carry out R&D in several specific research institutes of the Ministry of Defense, because this is too complex technology, where systems of different general customers will be located. Until money is allocated for these R&D, it makes no sense to talk about TTZ for an aircraft carrier at all, because it may well turn out that even aircraft under this aircraft carrier cannot be created in the near future, given the limited funds for defense.
    3. Lannan Shi
      Lannan Shi April 7 2021 08: 47
      +15
      Quote: mark2
      The question remains unanswered, for what purpose does Russia need to build aircraft carriers right now?

      An aircraft carrier is not some kind of superweapon, not a mysterious thing in itself, but just an airfield. True floating. And as everyone knows, aviation is impossible without airfields. That's when anti-aircraft the lobby will be able to formulate an answer to the question why Russia does not need aviation right here and now, and why it is easier and more fun to fight without air cover than with it ... Then it will make sense to discuss the construction of aircraft carriers. And then somehow it turns out funny. Aviation is great and wonderful, always and everywhere. And only in the far sea zone, air cover is an absolute and useless evil.
      The question is not whether aircraft carriers are needed or not. The question is what kind of fleet Russia will have. If the banks are guarded, then yes, then they are not needed. Ocean? Then you need it. No options. If you do not agree with this statement, then the question of abandoning aviation as a whole, and not of one of its varieties, should be raised.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 7 2021 18: 11
        +5
        Quote: Lannan Shi
        And then somehow it turns out funny: only in the far sea zone, the air cover is an absolute and useless evil.

        Sharman! It's hard to say better! good
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 7 2021 21: 00
          +2
          Come on, I have a whole article written around this thesis, it will probably be released soon
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa April 7 2021 23: 42
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            I have written a whole article around this thesis,

            AA, hi
            If we return to the question of arguing the need for an air cover for NK in the DMZ, then I wrote about this back in the year 2018.
            Reluctance to raise the archive. But if necessary, then you can raise ...
            AHA.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 7 2021 23: 43
              0
              Necessary.
              Lift up.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa April 8 2021 02: 29
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Lift up.

                AA, only out of respect for his "brother in spirit" wasted 3 hours of time, poking around in his previous posts. am
                Views on this were outlined back in 2013, on May 20, in the comments to the article "The new nuclear aircraft carrier being created in Russia should surpass all ships of this class existing in the world - the commander-in-chief of the Navy." it's late, and tomorrow to work ... Go bye-bye. hi
      2. Arkon
        Arkon April 7 2021 19: 11
        -1
        Quote: Lannan Shi
        Ocean? Then you need it. No options.


        Why no options? With options. So we are not going to "force" anyone to cooperate. If we do not have allies "on the shore," then we are not going to use aviation. Option?
      3. bk0010
        bk0010 April 7 2021 21: 03
        0
        Quote: Lannan Shi
        That's when the anti-aircraft lobby will be able to formulate an answer to the question why Russia does not need aviation right here and now, and why it is easier and more fun to fight without air cover than with it ...
        I am not an "anti-aircraft lobby", but I can formulate it. The floating airfield that we are now able to implement will not allow servicing aircraft that could fully solve modern air defense, anti-aircraft missile defense, AWACS, RC missions, etc. Therefore, it is better to spend money on solving these problems by other means. For example, a zonal air defense complex and an PLO helicopter on each lousy corvette.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 8 2021 08: 14
          +1
          Quote: bk0010
          The floating airfield that we are now able to implement will not allow servicing aircraft that could fully solve modern air defense, anti-aircraft missile defense, AWACS, RC missions, etc.

          what Why do you think so?
          Quote: bk0010
          For example, a zonal air defense complex

          How do you propose to deploy a zonal air defense complex at the turn ... well, at least the land of Serkapp-Mikkelsbik?
          Quote: bk0010
          helicopter PLO on each lousy corvette.

          when the sea is roughly 5 balls, the corvette will remain without an air submarine, and what to do next?
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 April 8 2021 20: 48
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            what Why did you decide that?
            How why? I'm speaking on behalf of the anti-aircraft lobby. I can refer to the experience of "Kuzi".
            Quote: Serg65
            How do you propose to deploy a zonal air defense complex at the turn ... well, at least the land of Serkapp-Mikkelsbik?
            As in the joke: the zonal complex is not at the turn, but on a corvette, Polyment-Redut at 20385, for example.
            Quote: Serg65
            when the sea is roughly 5 balls, the corvette will remain without an air submarine, and what to do next?
            Stomp home, fortunately not far (the corvette is still, not a cruiser). Airplanes, by the way, do not fly very well in bad weather either.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 April 9 2021 07: 43
              -1
              Quote: bk0010
              on behalf of the anti-aircraft lobby.

              Sorry, I didn't even notice the next Comintern ...
              Quote: bk0010
              I can refer to the experience of "Kuzi".

              And what can you prove from this experience?
              Quote: bk0010
              an on-line complex not at the turn, but on a corvette,

              Oh wonana what!
              Quote: bk0010
              Polyment-Redoubt at 20385, for example.

              You, as an active member of the "Aircraft Carriers NO!" Organization, command an entire battalion of Project 20385 corvettes! Your task is the same, to close your border without sparing your belly, the land of Sirkapp-Mikkelsbik! What rockets do you prefer for Redoubt? And how much?
              Quote: bk0010
              Stomp home, fortunately not far (the corvette is still, not a cruiser).

              Those. ..... comrades enemies, we’ll move away a little here .... out of need ... you’re it ... don’t be naughty too much!
              Quote: bk0010
              good not far

              And where is far away, the Motherland can no longer be defended?
              Quote: bk0010
              Airplanes, by the way, do not fly very well in bad weather either.

              Especially, not really, but they fly! At least at 7 balls I observed takeoff and landing from Kuznetsov.
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 April 10 2021 00: 11
                -1
                Quote: Serg65
                And what can you prove from this experience?
                Well, look: formally, we have an aircraft carrier (an air defense aircraft carrier, but since there are no others at all, we will not limit its functions). In fact: an aircraft carrier can perform very limited air defense missions - there are no carrier-based AWACS aircraft, accordingly, it can detect the enemy and control its fighters only within its radio horizon (probably 150 kilometers, if the enemy is not quite flying over the water, is not enough). And the speed of the rise of aviation is not impressive. The PLO tasks are the same: we do not have a carrier-based PLO aircraft, and the Ka-27M can fly from smaller ships. Work against ships is also bad: Su-33s can only bomb, MiG-29Ks can carry 4 X-35s, this is a good missile against our ships, but it won't be enough against the US AUG, there are not so many aircraft on Kuznetsov to overload the AUG air defense , and there are not so many chances for a breakthrough in subsonics. Work against the coast - everything is bad: there are few aircraft, it will not be possible to load them heavily, the Su-33 can only bomb, illuminate the air situation for them, crush the enemy with interference, refuel and so on, which the Hornets have in this application, there is no one. You will say - "well, so we need to make these planes!" But it is not so easy, and it is not a good idea to make new carrier-based aircraft for a catapult-free take-off - they will have no prospects or they will have to use aircraft with modest characteristics on the new aircraft carrier, the equipment on them will be such that it can be lifted without a catapult. and not so as to measure strength with the US AUG.
                Quote: Serg65
                You, as an active member of the "Aircraft Carriers NO!" Organization, command an entire battalion of Project 20385 corvettes! Your task is the same, to close your border without sparing your belly, the land of Sirkapp-Mikkelsbik! What rockets do you prefer for Redoubt? And how much?
                9M96E2 and 9M100, are there any special options? Let the headquarters calculate how to divide the cells between these types: intelligence will tell them who will fly and who is the target. If the target is these corvettes, then they will give more 9M100, if the target is behind the corvettes, then you can take more 9M96E2.
                Quote: Serg65
                Those. ..... comrades enemies, we’ll move away a little here .... out of need ... you’re it ... don’t be naughty too much!
                What, am I alone in the fleet? Let the base aviation keep an eye on the naughty ones, or send the destroyers into service. A strange claim to the BMZ ship.
                Quote: Serg65
                And where is far away, the Motherland can no longer be defended?
                Let the larger ships protect far away.
                Quote: Serg65
                At least at 7 balls I observed takeoff and landing from Kuznetsov.
                Were these regular flights or test flights?
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 April 14 2021 14: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: bk0010
                  no carrier-based AWACS aircraft

                  There is a patrol with a radius of +/- 1400 km.
                  Quote: bk0010
                  accordingly, he can detect the enemy and control his fighters only within his radio horizon (probably 150 kilometers, if the enemy is not quite flying over the water, it is not enough)

                  Radar station "Mineral-ME" -450 km detection radius. Yes ... and you somehow famously knocked the A-50u AWACS plane out of the game!
                  Quote: bk0010
                  And the speed of the rise of aviation is not impressive.

                  It is compensated by detecting the time of the rise and formation of an echelon of enemy aviation or by detecting the enemy's KUG at distant lines.
                  Quote: bk0010
                  or the new aircraft carrier will have to use aircraft with modest characteristics, the equipment on them will be such that it can be lifted without a catapult, and not such that it can be measured against the US AUG.

                  The new aircraft carrier will have a catapult.
                  Quote: bk0010
                  If the target is these corvettes, then they will give more 9M100, if the target is behind the corvettes, then you can take more 9M96E2.

                  The target is our PLO ships, covering our bastions. You have 9 corvettes. Enemy-enhanced AUG - +/- 60 aircraft and 120-150 cruise missiles ... fighting?
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Let the larger ships protect far away.

                  What kind? The aircraft carrier is down to us! Frigates without air support are the same suicide bombers!
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Were these regular flights or test flights?

                  Established 100th Aviation Regiment.
                  1. bk0010
                    bk0010 April 14 2021 23: 33
                    0
                    There is a patrol with a radius of +/- 1400 km.
                    Who is on patrol? Su-33, which itself should be directed from the "ground"?
                    Radar station "Mineral-ME" -450 km detection radius. Yes ... and you somehow famously knocked the A-50u AWACS plane out of the game!
                    You proceed from the radio horizon, not from the maximum range of the radar: the enemy now flies at low altitudes, even the B-52. A-50 will not fit on an aircraft carrier, at all, even on an American one.
                    It is compensated by detecting the time of the rise and formation of an echelon of enemy aviation or by detecting the enemy's KUG at distant lines.
                    How will we detect it at distant frontiers? To do this, we need a deck reconnaissance target designator and an AWACS aircraft, we do not have them.
                    The new aircraft carrier will have a catapult.
                    Great, but then the new aircraft won't fit the Kuzi.
                    The target is our PLO ships, covering our bastions. You have 9 corvettes. Enemy-enhanced AUG - +/- 60 aircraft and 120-150 cruise missiles ... fighting?

                    PLO ships covering our bastions are these corvettes. Add to them three regiments of basic naval aviation (which we no longer have, really) and a couple of Tu-95RTs, and then we will completely fight. The air defense systems of the corvettes will finish shooting the undead.
                    What kind? The aircraft carrier is down to us! Frigates without air support are the same suicide bombers!
                    1144 is possible. Air support is not only deck ships, it is also basic aircraft, more powerful and cheaper. Add to it pieces of 4 flying tankers (albeit old ones, not even IL-78) and it will support the ships where necessary.
    4. Serg65
      Serg65 April 7 2021 09: 23
      -2
      Quote: mark2
      For what purpose does Russia need to build aircraft carriers right now?

      what For what purpose....
      Peacetime goal.
      The strengthening of our influence in the world space is, in short.
      The goal of wartime.
      Air support for submarine and surface forces away from their bases. But there is such a small nuance .... if we think to fight in the old ways of war! The way wars are fought has changed dramatically over the past 50 years. As I am very sure that in the third world there will be no tank breakthroughs, no sea battles ... in general, nothing epic, familiar to us! In 91, we lost the war without firing more than one shot, while losing almost half of our country and more than half of the army and navy! The price of the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford is +/- $ 11 billion, the price of another victory over Russia is a couple of billion ........
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 7 2021 17: 01
        +4
        Quote: Serg65
        The goal of wartime.
        Air support for submarine and surface forces away from their bases.

        It would not hurt to clarify that away from their bases - this is further 400-450 km from the nearest land airfield. smile
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 8 2021 07: 46
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          It would not hurt to clarify

          recourse Well, I will briefly ..... forgive good people !!!!
      2. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 7 2021 17: 51
        -3
        Quote: Serg65
        Peacetime goal.
        The strengthening of our influence in the world space is, in short.

        Or maybe in the universal? Why waste time on trifles? .... But at whose expense?
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 8 2021 07: 52
          0
          Quote: Silhouette
          Or maybe in the universal?

          This is not for Russia!
          Quote: Silhouette
          But at whose expense?

          When Russia is locked up from all sides and it starts to cook in its own juice ... at whose expense will you pay for the social services? Health care, education, subsidies at whose expense do you intend to support? At your employer's expense?
          1. max702
            max702 April 8 2021 15: 17
            0
            And how will they lock it up? Well, how is it? Will they not buy oil and gas? Well, well .. Or our food? Or a lot of other things that are being produced more and more every year? Again, some unreal scenario, or are you also from the sect of witnesses to the shutdown of the "holy swift"? Over the past 30 years, Russia has become very tightly integrated into the world economy as a buyer and a seller, without us it will be very difficult for the world ..
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 April 9 2021 07: 49
              -1
              Quote: max702
              Over the past 30 years, Russia has become very tightly integrated into the world economy as a buyer and a seller.

              Young man, this has already happened and I have already seen it!
              Quote: max702
              The world will not be easy without us ..

              request Do not indulge yourself with illusions, the world will survive our absence and much faster than you think!
              1. max702
                max702 April 9 2021 08: 45
                0
                Well, besides emotions, what is there to say? With facts it is desirable ..
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 April 9 2021 09: 28
                  -2
                  Quote: max702
                  With facts it is desirable ..

                  What facts are you interested in? Banning Europe from buying Russian gas? Yes, like two fingers on the asphalt! They will drag Russia into a war with Ukraine, on the basis of this they will impose an embargo on Russia with a complete ban on trade. Europe will gladly buy American gas ..... It will be more profitable for Europe to buy expensive American gas than to suppress the revolutionary actions of the Arabs and blacks who have become the new citizens of Europe! And here is the late USSR, and the late Russian Empire ... one to one!
                  1. max702
                    max702 April 9 2021 09: 38
                    0
                    Facts, facts, each of your points you comment not as "two fingers on the asphalt", but all the same with calculations of at least some numbers and all this is with proofs .. And so you have hysterical balabolism and no more ... Like American gas and other things .. If you still live in the late USSR, then I have no questions ..
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 April 9 2021 09: 53
                      -2
                      Quote: max702
                      Facts, facts, each of your points you comment not as "two fingers on the asphalt", but all the same with calculations of at least some numbers, and all this is with proofs ..

                      Maxim, my friend, you got into someone else's conversation, but not understanding how the boron cheese began! Proofs, facts ... the war of the USSR in Afghanistan will help you!
                      Quote: max702
                      And so you have hysterical balabolism and no more

                      Hold your horses!
                      Quote: max702
                      If you still live in the late USSR, then I have no questions ..

                      what Well, yes, living one day is much easier!
                      1. ccsr
                        ccsr April 9 2021 12: 10
                        0
                        Quote: Serg65
                        .the USSR war in Afghanistan to help you!

                        Did Europe then refuse to buy our gas and our oil? Or did someone refuse our forest and the construction of nuclear power plants? So there is no need to tell tales about Europe, how it will easily switch to gas at the behest of Washington, but rather remember about the price of our gas, and about the fact that burghers in the yard have a container for gas, with which they heat their homes and heat water ... And you will not convince them that expensive gas for personal use is better in the name of Ukraine - they will simply sweep away such a government when they get into their pockets.
                      2. Serg65
                        Serg65 April 9 2021 12: 35
                        -2
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Did Europe then refuse to buy our gas and our oil?

                        Remind me what buns the USSR received from the introduction of troops into Afghanistan? And how did this whole divorce end up?
                        Quote: ccsr
                        So no need to tell tales about Europe

                        Can you recall the situation after the provoked decrease in oil prices by the OPEC countries?
                        Quote: ccsr
                        And you will not convince them that expensive gas for personal use is better in the name of Ukraine - they will simply sweep away such a government when they get into their pockets.

                        Come on? When these same burghers got into their pockets under the guise of sanctions against the Russian Federation, they didn't even bark! And they will yapping, the Americans will activate their Afro-Arab fifth column! When the United States imposed sanctions against SP-2, 90% of the European companies involved in this project scattered through the bushes with their tail between their legs!
                        The essence of this dialogue is not in some kind of burghers, but in the fact that if Russia becomes isolated on domestic politics and leaves foreign policy, then the people of Russia will not live better from this!
                        Quote: Serg65
                        When Russia is locked up from all sides and it starts to cook in its own juice ... at whose expense will you pay for the social services? Health care, education, subsidies at whose expense do you intend to support? At your employer's expense?
                      3. ccsr
                        ccsr April 9 2021 13: 34
                        +1
                        Quote: Serg65
                        Remind me what buns the USSR received from the introduction of troops into Afghanistan? And how did this whole divorce end up?

                        No need, I began to serve long before entering and I know much more in what it poured into us. But this does not mean that our contacts on economic issues with Europe ended immediately.
                        Quote: Serg65
                        Come on? When these same burghers got into their pockets under the guise of sanctions against the Russian Federation, they didn't even bark!

                        It seems to you that way, you probably think that the "Alternative for Germany" accidentally arose. You probably do not know what is happening even in the elections to local bodies, where their representatives began to win. So they are not that obedient.

                        Quote: Serg65
                        that if Russia becomes isolated on domestic politics and leaves foreign policy, then the people of Russia will not live better from this!

                        What makes you think that our leaders are planning to do this?
                        So far, I see that all the sanctions have only benefited us in many sectors, and have not led to any explosion of displeasure among the population.
                      4. Serg65
                        Serg65 April 14 2021 11: 22
                        +1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        No, I began to serve long before entering and I know much more in what it poured into us

                        So it did not pass me by either!
                        Quote: ccsr
                        But this does not mean that our contacts on economic issues with Europe ended immediately.

                        Before the arrival of Gorbachev, these contacts looked very sluggish ..
                        Quote: ccsr
                        So they are not that obedient.

                        Have you already put on your yellow vests? As I did not notice!
                        Quote: ccsr
                        What makes you think that our leaders are planning to do this?

                        It depends on what kind of leaders! For example, the left is now the leader Khodorkovsky! Where do you think it will lead?
                        Quote: ccsr
                        So far, I see that all the sanctions have only benefited us in many sectors, and have not led to any explosion of displeasure among the population.

                        It took a long 1991 years to explode the population's displeasure in 40, 9 years have already passed to the next explosion ...
                      5. ccsr
                        ccsr April 14 2021 17: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: Serg65
                        For example, the left is now the leader Khodorkovsky! Where do you think it will lead?

                        This is clearly from the realm of fantasy - what the hell is he the leader of the "left"? Levakov - I admit, and then with a big stretch.
                        Quote: Serg65
                        It took a long 1991 years to explode the population's displeasure in 40, 9 years have already passed to the next explosion ...

                        The authorities have learned to extinguish discontent, and effectively through handouts and propaganda - whether you want to see it or not, but it is so. Our people are no longer what they were in 1917, and this must be honestly admitted. I am not under the illusion that something will happen in a revolutionary way - God forbid, that we evolve on the right path.
                      6. Serg65
                        Serg65 April 15 2021 07: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        This is clearly from the realm of fantasy

                        Communists, liberals, Nazis, everyone is standing in line for him for buns!
                        Quote: ccsr
                        The authorities have learned to extinguish discontent, and effectively through handouts and propaganda

                        Well, God forbid, although there are elections ahead ...
                2. max702
                  max702 April 11 2021 21: 15
                  -1
                  Would you like to take what medications you need to take, it’s not 1979 and Russia is one of the main suppliers of everything the world really needs, even the statements that we will reduce food supplies in 2020 caused an extremely negative reaction and accusations of global hunger, and your incompetence in the supply of energy resources on a global, and especially a European scale, on a truly universal scale .. Ask whose gas is reversed in 404 and whose LNG is going to Europe under the guise of American, and in general what was happening on the gas market in January February 2021 .. What nonsense are you talking about your ears just wither .. Wake up! The world has changed a long time ago ..
                  rs: SP-2 is being successfully completed and completed for the new heating season, and this is a fact ..
                3. Serg65
                  Serg65 April 14 2021 11: 48
                  +1
                  Quote: max702
                  Wake up! The world has changed a long time ago ..

                  The world is the same as it was 200 years ago! As there were predators and prey, so they stayed! And Russia will always treat victims and no one will allow her to become a predator!
                  Quote: max702
                  your incompetence in the supply of energy resources on a global, and especially a European scale, on a truly universal scale.

                  what Your self-worth is worthy of respect laughing
                  The world is so fragile now that it takes minimal effort to turn it upside down, and the container ship Ever-Given is a striking evidence of this!
                  Blocking Russian oil and gas will bail out the American shale oil and gas industry, increase the revenues of the Arabian countries and strengthen China's position as the main hub for Russian oil and gas! And who will suffer from this? Europe? Problems blacks sheriff do not care!
                  Ahead is a new redistribution of the market and then either pan or disappear! And to be a master, you need a solid foreign policy, backed by an army and navy ... including aircraft carriers!
                  Quote: max702
                  What nonsense are you talking about, your ears are withering.

                  So pour them, your ears ... with warm water! This is about .. no need to be rude and clever! I read the same two books ... a blue one and one more! hi
                4. max702
                  max702 April 14 2021 11: 57
                  -1
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Blocking Russian oil and gas will bail out the American shale oil and gas industry,

                  Come on, is it okay that the United States is now buying LNG from us, like oil? Probably out of the kindness of my heart ..
                  Quote: Serg65
                  will increase the revenues of the Arabian countries and strengthen China's position as the main hub of Russian oil and gas!

                  Uh, when did China become an oil hub? How many do not give them enough, and in the next 30 years the picture will not change ... About the war of the Arabs against our oil in the know, so successfully won that of all oil companies Rosneft is the only one in the black in 2020 ..
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Europe? Problems blacks sheriff do not care!

                  But this is in vain! Europe has always been the locomotive of everything progressive in the world and nothing has changed in this area .. All REAL high-tech in Europe is being done ..
                  We have enough forces and arguments in the military aspect even without aircraft carriers, and that is why we don’t make them ..
  • Arthur 85
    Arthur 85 April 7 2021 07: 36
    -4
    On the topic of the article: I believe that AB should be built, and they will be the main striking force of the fleets before the development of a rocket-space engine based on new physical principles. That is, another 30-40 years.
    A little off topic: I realized that the navy is a very conservative structure. It has been said that the artillery battle will be at a distance of 10 cab. - until Tsushima we are training to shoot at 10 cabs ... Is the battleship the main striking force? We build battleships up to the 46th year!
    But that doesn't stop me from dreaming of a cheap, massive (I'm not afraid of this word!) Aircraft carrier for the Russian fleet, right? I see one of its elements as a simple, land-based aircraft, but only with a removable "sea" landing gear (it provides braking on the deck, if anyone is interested, I will write how).
    And what I wanted to ask: if at the MIG one of the struts will be able to lengthen telescopically by 20-30 centimeters, so that on the deck the plane is tilted by one wing (thus leaving the folding wing). The possibility of "descent" should be provided manually and from the cockpit.
    According to experts: why am I wrong this time?
    1. Angry Alt-Right
      Angry Alt-Right April 7 2021 19: 09
      0
      Quote: Arthur 85
      A little off topic: I realized that the navy is a very conservative structure.

      Not so much conservative as inert. Even in the article, the construction period of the same AB is laid down, in 10 years !!!
      And as for the submarines, which are built according to one project initially, and then, during the construction process, they are reinterpreted several times under a different functionality, I generally keep quiet.
      Quote: Arthur 85
      I see one of its elements as a simple, land-based aircraft, but only with a removable "sea" landing gear (it provides braking on the deck, if anyone is interested, I will write how).

      It won't work like that! It will be necessary to strengthen the structure in general, because takeoff and landing loads are higher. And this is the weight. And this is a concomitant decrease in performance, simply due to a greater dry weight, etc. But yes, Russia needs a fresh AV desperately, if only due to the aging of Kuznetsov's hull, for example. Even if it is Charles de Gaulle 2.0. , it will at least help to expand the aircraft carrier composition of the fleet as a whole.
      1. Arthur 85
        Arthur 85 April 7 2021 19: 48
        +1
        No no. It will take off, of course, from a flat chassis! But, to be honest, I was tortured by this: "the aircraft carrier must be nimsiform." In the morning I've made half an article, I'll try to put it on VO for the first time in my life, but tomorrow. Let them tear me apart, telling me why my aircraft carrier is bad, and theirs is beautiful ... But it will never be.
        Unless, of course, the editors miss. Otherwise, I will post here a link to Kont.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 7 2021 20: 57
      0
      I see one of its elements as a simple, land-based aircraft, but only with a removable "sea" landing gear (it provides braking on the deck, if anyone is interested, I will write how).


      You first put this in the comments, there are pilots and technicians to be checked, otherwise it may be embarrassing.

      And what I wanted to ask: if at the MIG one of the struts will be able to lengthen telescopically by 20-30 centimeters, so that on the deck the plane is tilted by one wing (thus leaving the folding wing).


      Well, tilt the front view of the MiG and see how far there is a departure from the folding wing.

      And yes - there were carrier-based aircraft WITHOUT folding wings.

      In general, you'd better put your original ideas in the comments first.
      1. Arthur 85
        Arthur 85 April 7 2021 21: 04
        0
        Thanks. That's why I actually posted it. I had this idea a couple of years ago. Alas, I received almost no answers - probably everyone runs past without paying attention.
        And the idea is actually this: to shorten / lengthen one landing gear by such an amount that the wing tilt angle allows them to be parked on the wing-over-wing deck. Not to lengthen forever, of course, but only while the plane is parked. Then the liquid from the jack goes down, from the aircraft takes off normally.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 7 2021 21: 07
          +3
          It is pointless. Have you seen the MiG-29 live? Even with a non-folding wing, this is not a very large aircraft. With a foldable, it's so easy to small. folding is a simple process, done right while taxiing. This is not something worth saving on.
        2. Rusticolus
          Rusticolus April 8 2021 09: 11
          +1
          shorten / lengthen one landing gear by such an amount that the wing tilt angle allows them to be parked on the wing-over-wing deck.
          Not effective. Weighting the aircraft with such a telescopic landing gear will lead to an increase in weight (strut, hydraulics), far from the fact that it will come out easier than the folding mechanism. And the weight for an aircraft is very critical. In contrast to the weight AB. This idea is easier to implement with a parking lift on AB itself. I parked in a parking space, lifted the aircraft on a lift, and voila. We got a win in both width and length.
          1. Arthur 85
            Arthur 85 April 8 2021 12: 01
            -1
            The rack can be "air-inflated" with a deck compressor. Significant weighting due to the compressor or hydraulics on the aircraft itself is not needed. And the descent, if you need to start urgently, can be done from the cockpit.
        3. anzar
          anzar April 8 2021 11: 49
          +3
          ... so that the angle of the wing allows them to be parked on the wing-over-wing deck

          Like that? An interesting idea, but all the same, land vehicles cannot be used on AB - no village. hook and strength of the airframe under it and the landing gear, covering ... As you answered, you should not save on folding the wing.
          But on land ... you can put two Mig / Su-35 in 1 shelter bully
          1. Arthur 85
            Arthur 85 April 8 2021 11: 55
            0
            Yes, I considered it as an alternative to the "shortened" rack - such "bumps" in the parking spaces of the deck. But I thought that the rocking of the aircraft would creep. But thanks.
            1. anzar
              anzar April 8 2021 12: 01
              +1
              But I thought that the rocking of the aircraft would creep.

              Why? No more usual)) and AV shakes weakly ... But it is better to use this on land in shelters.
              1. Arthur 85
                Arthur 85 April 8 2021 12: 05
                0
                It's just that when I came up with this, I was thinking about the concept of AB, I didn't think about anything else.
                But if this idea helps to save money on the construction of shelters, or if more aircraft can be placed in existing shelters, I will only be glad.))
          2. max702
            max702 April 8 2021 15: 20
            0
            Shelters long ago are orders of magnitude cheaper than aircraft standing in them ...
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. Arthur 85
            Arthur 85 April 15 2021 16: 19
            0
            I have finally prepared the promised article while on Yandex disk. If it doesn't bother you, I would ask you to read it and drop a few lines: I wrote complete nonsense, or still not.
            https://disk.yandex.ru/edit/disk/disk%2FПерспективный%20Авианосец.docx?sk=y434d96c58216e576fe28785e4afa21e5
      2. Arthur 85
        Arthur 85 April 7 2021 21: 07
        0
        If you want, I can send you for reading first. The article is short - two pages, but, I dare to think, interesting.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 7 2021 21: 11
          0
          Send key points in PM
  • rocket757
    rocket757 April 7 2021 07: 50
    +3
    Where to build?

    When the prepared / suitable place of construction is ONE, and it is useless to think ahead with the construction lines of even one building (well, there is no single clear system for the implementation of large-scale defense orders for the State Planning Commission, to the wall for waste, failure to meet deadlines, etc.), it can happen like this, that the construction of the next building will be completed when the first one already starts to rot (corrode), and until the next, the first product will not survive !!!
    This is a pessimistic vision, but what if our industry does not accelerate ???
  • Woodman
    Woodman April 7 2021 07: 52
    0
    About
    Where to base?
    in my opinion it sounded somehow not very convincing. And the point here, most likely not in the price of the issue, but in geography ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 08: 00
      +7
      Quote: Lesovik
      in my opinion, it sounded somehow not very convincing.

      Kuznetsov is now based at the plant :)))))) Because there is all the necessary infrastructure. Generally speaking, there is not so much of it - there must be an equipped parking place, the supply of electricity, steam, water, fuel, weapons and other cargoes to the ship. At the same time, not only the aircraft carrier needs this, but all ships in general, so such an infrastructure will be needed in any case. Of course, the more ships and the larger they are, the more productivity is needed, but ... I would not call it some kind of aerospace spending.
      1. Woodman
        Woodman April 7 2021 08: 30
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I would not call it some kind of aerospace waste.

        I'm not talking about costs
        Quote: Lesovik
        And the point here, most likely not in the price of the issue, but in geography ...

        But if you already pretended not to understand me, I will give an example from the article about "uncomfortable questions"
        many people like to talk about "the longest maritime border in the world", forgetting, however, that most of it lies in freezing waters, and all other water areas are blocked by natural barriers that are successfully used by our enemy: the Danish straits, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, the Faroe Islands and Iceland , Aleuts and Japan. Our fleets are locked in closed seas

        taking into account the absence of a network of foreign naval bases in our country.

        This concerns a clash with an adversary of the US / NATO / China level. But it is through the prism of such a collision that we consider the need for aircraft carriers. And to impose its will with the help of weapons on some overseas limitrophes, Russia, unlike the United States, does not seek and has not tried so far.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 7 2021 08: 41
          +4
          Quote: Lesovik
          But if you already pretended not to understand me

          Lesovik, I do not need to "pretend", as I am ready to answer any of your questions regarding AB. Of course, the answer to some questions will be “I don’t know”, but there will always be an answer.
          Quote: Lesovik
          Our fleets are locked in closed seas

          It's right. But the question is that in the case
          Quote: Lesovik
          clashes with an enemy of the US / NATO level.

          we will not have to go to the ocean, we will have to fight in the far sea zone, that is, 500 km from the coastline and further, but not much. The maximum task that a promising Russian Navy can try to solve (namely a promising one, and not in its current state) is to prevent the impact of cruise missiles and carrier-based aircraft on important military and infrastructure facilities, troops, etc. And this will require fighting the enemy, which is roughly 1000 km from our coastline.
          Quote: Lesovik
          China.

          China does not control
          Quote: Lesovik
          Danish straits, Bosphorus and Dardanelles, Faroes and Iceland, Aleuts and Japan.

          So the AB as part of the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet is quite important and necessary.
          1. Woodman
            Woodman April 7 2021 09: 10
            +7
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            since I am ready to answer any of your questions regarding AB. Of course, the answer to some questions will be “I don’t know”, but there will always be an answer.

            This makes me happy. Moreover, you, unlike some authors, have not yet become personal and have not descended to outright rudeness hi
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            So the AB as part of the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet is quite important and necessary.

            I would not refuse AB in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Indian Ocean. I am not questioning the importance or the need for AB. I just think about the expediency of AB, as they say, here and now.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 7 2021 09: 20
              +14
              Quote: Lesovik
              Moreover, you, unlike some authors, have not yet become personal and have not descended to outright rudeness

              Alas, in some cases it has already dropped, but it shouldn't be. Nerves are naughty.
              Quote: Lesovik
              I just think about the expediency of AB, as they say, here and now.

              From this point of view, as for me, it would be correct to finally learn to adequately use the Kuznetsov, and then, to build the first aircraft carrier to replace it.
              Actually, if we lay the ship closer to 2030, something like this will turn out
              1. Woodman
                Woodman April 7 2021 09: 31
                +11
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                From this point of view, as for me, it would be correct to finally learn to adequately use the Kuznetsov, and then, to build the first aircraft carrier to replace it.

                I think many will agree with this position.
                1. Niko
                  Niko April 7 2021 10: 17
                  +3
                  Quote: Lesovik
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  From this point of view, as for me, it would be correct to finally learn to adequately use the Kuznetsov, and then, to build the first aircraft carrier to replace it.

                  I think many will agree with this position.

                  Andrei expressed this idea several years ago, if I am not mistaken, and he expressed it clearly and clearly. However, people "asking uncomfortable questions" either do not read, or simply ignore what they have read, and continue to assert that everyone here wants to ruin the country by laying down an aircraft carrier squadron or even two.
                  1. Woodman
                    Woodman April 7 2021 10: 29
                    +5
                    Quote: Niko
                    continue to argue that everyone here wants to ruin the country by laying an aircraft carrier squadron or even two

                    You just need to more clearly define your position. For, proceeding from the article polemic, this is exactly the impression that is created: the "FOR" lobby wants a lot right now, the "AGAINST" lobby is afraid of exorbitant costs and unresolved issues with the use and basing.
                    If we take as a basis the position “to finally learn to adequately use Kuznetsov, and then build the first aircraft carrier to replace it,” most of the contradictions disappear by themselves.
                    1. Niko
                      Niko April 7 2021 10: 56
                      +3
                      Quote: Lesovik
                      Quote: Niko
                      continue to argue that everyone here wants to ruin the country by laying an aircraft carrier squadron or even two

                      You just need to more clearly define your position. For, proceeding from the article polemic, this is exactly the impression that is created: the "FOR" lobby wants a lot right now, the "AGAINST" lobby is afraid of exorbitant costs and unresolved issues with the use and basing.
                      If we take as a basis the position “to finally learn to adequately use Kuznetsov, and then build the first aircraft carrier to replace it,” most of the contradictions disappear by themselves.

                      I agree, but with a proviso. Theoretically, you are right, in practice, many people continue to argue without even bothering to familiarize themselves with the question and positions (right there on the VO), and 10-fold repetition will not help them.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 7 2021 11: 11
                      +3
                      Quote: Lesovik
                      You just need to more clearly define your position.

                      Alas, this is not possible. I wrote a lot about aircraft carriers in the VO, and this, in principle, cannot be crammed into one article. That is, within the framework of the article, I cannot fully cover this issue from all sides, otherwise this is no longer an article, but a whole book will turn out
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 April 7 2021 10: 23
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Lesovik
        in my opinion, it sounded somehow not very convincing.

        Kuznetsov is now based at the plant :)))))) Because there is all the necessary infrastructure. Generally speaking, there is not so much of it - there must be an equipped parking place, the supply of electricity, steam, water, fuel, weapons and other cargoes to the ship. At the same time, not only the aircraft carrier needs this, but all ships in general, so such an infrastructure will be needed in any case. Of course, the more ships and the larger they are, the more productivity is needed, but ... I would not call it some kind of aerospace spending.

        I will not insist, but it seems that the Far East has not yet made the infrastructure for new strategists
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 7 2021 10: 25
          +2
          Quote: Pilat2009
          I will not insist, but it seems that the Far East has not yet made the infrastructure for new strategists

          And that's why I wrote in the previous article
          The only caveat is that I would not start such construction right away, but initially I would take care of the bases and maintenance of the fleet. I would take a delay of several years, during which I would send less to ships, planes and missiles, but more to all the necessary infrastructure. Thus, within three to four years, at least 300-400 billion rubles could be spent on these purposes. Which, in principle, could be enough for a lot.
      3. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 7 2021 17: 55
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        therefore, such an infrastructure will be needed anyway

        She ALREADY needed it. About 50 years ago. Or more. And nothing has changed. And there will be as many more. Until the aircraft carriers become obsolete as a class.
        1. max702
          max702 April 8 2021 15: 32
          0
          They have already outlived as sailing ships and battleships .. Generals are preparing for past wars, admirals for the before last .. They were effective while there was poor air defense and the complete absence of anti-ship missiles and space navigation / reconnaissance .. Today, at the cost of the most sophisticated anti-ship missiles at a price of 0,01 % of the cost of the AUG and the satellite constellation in 5% of the price of the same AUG, all this idiot does not make sense .. But after all, romance! Handsomely! It is necessary to invest a couple of trillions in a long-outdated project so that later (about 30 years later) all this splendor can be drowned in the Crimean one, because in the ocean, people can also die. brick is no longer cleaned!
  • donavi49
    donavi49 April 7 2021 07: 58
    +15
    In the meantime, spears are being broken here - for the first time in many years, some country not the United States, at the same time brought 2 AUGs on a military campaign. One to Spritely, the other to the Pacific Ocean.



    1. Niko
      Niko April 7 2021 08: 50
      +13
      They didn't think about it wassat They would like to read our experts on the topic: "why the aircraft carrier is not needed, is outdated, expensive, and in general where do we go to the states"
  • rocket757
    rocket757 April 7 2021 08: 01
    +9
    And as a result of all of the above, we live in a real theater of the absurd - our own shipbuilding industry is idle, and we order the same gas tankers in Korea
    ... So we have obscenities at every step, around every corner, and you can't find enough Shoigu to solve all of them ... it's not that they don't exist, they are not allowed upstairs, because the places have already been taken, by loyal "nukers" ...
    Vaughn has already reached the physical science ... it will be raised for Livanov !!! for a long time then you will have to look for it, will we find it ???
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 08: 02
      +7
      Quote: rocket757
      So we have obscurity at every step, around every corner

      Can not argue with that
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 April 7 2021 08: 10
        +3
        I AM NOT AGAINST specific, important tasks !!!
        I am against the idea that THIS SYSTEM, these managers, would be engaged in such a serious, financially costly business ... because they are capable / will surely ruin any business !!!
        I advise everyone to listen Militarist Hour on VestiFM, yesterday. It is very useful for understanding what is happening now in the military industry.
  • Niko
    Niko April 7 2021 08: 08
    +4
    Another good article. Qualitative argumentation, calm tone. Thank you Andrey.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 April 7 2021 08: 09
    +3
    To be honest, a weak article based on
    media reports, speeches by officials,
    and their own speculations.
    It's time to understand that you can't believe what they say
    officials, they are incompetent, and they only say
    what is needed at the moment, or not possible
    hide. A striking example of this is the statements of the deputy
    MO about the repair of the TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov".
    In general, as far as I understand, for the construction of AVM at
    there is nothing of us, and there is an explanation for this - AVM is nobody and
    is not going to build, in the long term - "development" of money
    at various TK, R&D, and similar events.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 08: 22
      +8
      Quote: Bez 310
      To be honest, a weak article based on
      media reports, speeches by officials, and their own speculation.

      Okay. But still, please tell me, where do you see the weakness of the article? I missed constructive criticism.
      Quote: Bez 310
      It is time to understand that you cannot believe what the officials say, they are incompetent, and they say only what is necessary at the moment, or it is impossible to hide.

      One may ask - which of the theses of my article are questioned based on the position of officials?
      The development of TK is not evidenced by "officials", but by unnamed TASS sources, that is, people not in the media. In principle, there are statements by officials about the possibility of building an AV at Sevmash, but the fact is that the 55th was really built with the expectation of large ships (in fact, like the 50th, battleships were going to be built in it). There is also a staff at Sevmash, and upon completion of the construction of Boreyev, it will need to be oriented towards something.
      It is not our face that speaks about "Vikramaditya", but the Indian one.
      Quote: Bez 310
      In general, as far as I understand, we have nothing to build AVM

      Could you expand on this thesis? What do we don’t have, and why? If technologies - then which ones? If there are places - why is Sevmash not suitable? If air groups - what exactly is the problem?
      Quote: Bez 310
      AVM nobody and
      is not going to build, in the long term - "development" of money
      at various TK, R&D, and similar events.

      Of course, this is also possible. But you must agree that "not wanting" and "not being able" are fundamentally different things. It is one thing if we are not able to build AB, another - we can, but we do not do it for some reason.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 April 7 2021 08: 33
        -4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I missed constructive criticism.

        Sorry, I won't add anything to my comment,
        tired of pouring from empty to empty.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 7 2021 08: 49
          +9
          Quote: Bez 310
          Sorry, I won't add anything to my comment,
          tired of pouring from empty to empty.

          Your business, of course. In the end, comments exist for this, so that the reader can express his attitude to the article.
          The authors can only dream of a better world in which readers will argue reasonably, but I understand that these dreams cannot be realized in our reality.
          1. Soldatov V.
            Soldatov V. April 7 2021 10: 25
            +2
            Andrey from the very beginning I read you on the site, I agree with everything. About the construction of an aircraft carrier. From the experience of world shipbuilding, to divide the ship into parts and build at different shipyards or in different shops. The experience of the Mistral for example. The feed was made in St. Petersburg. You can make the bow, stern, engine room, cylindrical insert separately, and then connect. The flight deck can be placed against the outfitting wall. Transportation has also been worked out on the Mistral and British aircraft carriers. While waiting for your next articles.
          2. 2 Level Advisor
            2 Level Advisor April 7 2021 11: 42
            -1
            1. Andrey, why did you decide that after the construction of Boreyev the 55th will be idle? and the modernization and repair of other nuclear submarines? and the construction of new ones if it goes on? this is just your assumption that it will be idle and that it will be decided to occupy it with an aircraft carrier for ten years ...
            2. About AWACS planes - you have not written anything concrete at all, like - in principle, this is probably possible ... but in fact? zero work on deck AWACS, and the A-100 is, well, generally different ...
            3. And about the carrier-based aircraft is about the same .. although in theory, the situation is a little better ..
            4. And all the same, the main question is its goals .. if only in order to chase enemies behind the gate is at least expensive for such a task: aircraft carrier + aircraft wing + AWACS + escort .. (development, construction, creation - how many years it will take and funds?) and all for the sake of the 500 km zone to try to keep?
            In total, it would be nice to have an aircraft carrier, of course, I will not argue .. but right now if we pull it, only to the detriment of everything, not even the Navy, but in general the RF Armed Forces .. and the end will not justify the means .. I repeat, I mean today's realities .. And in the future, of course, we need him, and not one .. how we pull ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 7 2021 12: 37
              +2
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              ... Andrey, why did you decide that after the construction of Boreyev the 55th will be idle? and the modernization and repair of other nuclear submarines?

              Other factories are engaged in modernization, and the 50th will cope with multipurpose nuclear submarines, plus, as I said, if you focus on a small PLAT, this can also load other enterprises
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              About AWACS planes - you have not written anything concrete at all, like - in principle, this is probably possible ... but in fact? zero work on deck AWACS, and the A-100 is, well, generally different ...

              If you have a "big" AWACS, on which a lot of problems have been solved that can be directly retransmitted to "small" and 19 years before the AV is put into operation - there are no fundamental problems
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              Still, the main question is its goals ..

              In the next article, with your permission :))))) Well, it didn't fit into this one :))))
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              In total, it would be nice to have an aircraft carrier, of course, I won't argue .. but right now, if we pull it, only to the detriment of everything, not even the Navy, but the Russian Armed Forces in general ..

              This is not the case https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
              1. 2 Level Advisor
                2 Level Advisor April 7 2021 13: 35
                -4
                "If you have a" large "AWACS, on which a lot of problems have been solved that can be directly retransmitted to a" small "one and 19 years before the AV is put into operation - there are no fundamental problems"
                absolutely disagree .. if you have a computer - occupying a large operating room, it does not mean that you can make a laptop according to the same principles .. and do not forget about the absent of the word at all - the carrier of all this equipment ...
                "They are engaged in modernization at other factories, and the 50th will cope with multipurpose nuclear submarines, plus, as I said, if you focus on a small PLAT, other enterprises can be loaded with this, 19 years before the commissioning of AB"
                So it turns out we do not even lay new SSBNs for the next many years (19 years)?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 7 2021 13: 44
                  +1
                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  absolutely disagree .. if you have a computer occupying a large operating room, this does not mean that you can make a laptop according to the same principles ..

                  The only question is that AWACS in the dimension of the Yak-44 will not require miniaturization of all equipment, as is the case in a laptop. The same communication systems, the same CIUS, RTR stations can remain the same, as well as many other things.
                  .
                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  So it turns out we do not even lay new SSBNs for the next many years (19 years)?

                  And where do you want to marinate them or what? :)))))) 12 SSBNs behind our eyes, the first 2 boreas were handed over to the fleet in 2013, respectively, they will need replacement in 2053, even after laying 7 years for construction, we get the date of the bookmark is 2046. Taking into account the fact that it is realistic to build 12 Boreis before 2028 (the latter will be launched, but not completed), we have 18 years of free slipway for the construction of AB. I'm not saying that by that time, the 50th workshop can also be vacated
              2. Silhouette
                Silhouette April 7 2021 18: 03
                -3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                If you have a "big" AWACS, on which a lot of problems have been solved that can be directly retransmitted to "small" and 19 years before the AV is put into operation - there are no fundamental problems

                An aircraft carrier is not needed without AWACS aircraft. And the AWACS planes have never been there. And not even foreseen. But the aircraft carrier must be built ..... Nonsense.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 7 2021 18: 08
                  +2
                  Quote: Silhouette
                  And the AWACS planes have never been there. And not even foreseen. But the aircraft carrier must be built ..... Nonsense.

                  Nonsense is to assume that with the experience of the A-100 behind us and almost 20 years for the creation of the AWACS aircraft, we will not be able to do this.
                  1. Silhouette
                    Silhouette April 7 2021 19: 31
                    -3
                    If we haven't, then we can't. We could have done it.
                  2. bk0010
                    bk0010 April 7 2021 21: 09
                    0
                    Delirium is to think that having the experience of the A-100
                    Ask what happened to him. Something is rumored that it is not and will not be any more: because of the sanctions, the components were covered, and with ours the equipment in the Il-76 does not fit.
                2. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 7 2021 19: 04
                  +1
                  Let's buy this one
                  1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Exval
        Exval April 7 2021 08: 52
        0
        But still, please tell me, where do you see the weakness of the article?

        I can try to answer this question if interested.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 7 2021 09: 01
          +3
          Quote: Exval
          I can try to answer this question if interested.

          Of course. I always welcome criticism when it is constructive.
          1. Exval
            Exval April 7 2021 09: 07
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: Exval
            I can try to answer this question if interested.

            Of course. I always welcome criticism when it is constructive.

            Okay. I will try to do this a little later.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 7 2021 09: 17
              +5
              Quote: Exval
              Okay. I will try to do this a little later.

              No question, I have been looking at the comments on my articles for at least a few days, or even more. So - when it is convenient for you.
              By the way, if I have nothing to object to any of your arguments, in the next article on the topic I admit that I am wrong and indicate your huge contribution :)))))) I have already had to do this more than once. It's not good to brag, but I haven't forgotten how to admit my mistakes yet :))))
  • Niko
    Niko April 7 2021 08: 15
    +2
    I am always surprised that the development and modernization of existing shipbuilding facilities, the creation of new ones, the transition to modern technologies in this industry, the creation of infrastructure is not perceived by some readers as "DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECONOMY." There is no dispute, the economy consists of many, many parts and its development can go in different ways, but improving and tidying up its components is one of the most obvious ways
  • Exval
    Exval April 7 2021 08: 33
    -5
    A very unconvincing article, in my opinion. None of the arguments, which she claims to refute, in fact, has not been refuted. More like trying to put on a good face when playing bad.
  • Tired
    Tired April 7 2021 08: 59
    -3
    The main question for lobbyists of the aircraft carrier theme is where to get the billions (or rather tens of billions) of killed raccoons for its construction and maintenance? I would like to receive an answer to this main question.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 09: 03
      +6
      Quote: Tired
      I would like to receive an answer to this main question.

      The answer to this question is given here https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
      In short, the construction of a powerful fleet along AV inclusive is available to us even with the current spending on defense.
      1. Tired
        Tired April 7 2021 09: 28
        -2
        You did a good calculation, but, in my opinion, you missed two points.
        First: not the fact that it will be possible to spread the total amount in an even layer over the entire chart. Rather, contractors and other contractors will demand to lay out significant amounts immediately so that they can be used immediately. Not to mention all kinds of urgent investments, outbids and other rush jobs and force majeure inevitable at such a significant enterprise.
        The second factor: the stable retention of fleet costs in the region of 30-35% of the strictly required amount, can also easily be called into question. Both because of the more pressing requirements of the army and aviation, and because of the targeted changes in the budget structure.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 7 2021 10: 05
          +6
          Quote: Tired
          First: not the fact that it will be possible to smear the total amount in an even layer over the entire chart.

          And it does not need to be smeared, it will smear itself, taking into account the specifics of the state defense order pricing
          Quote: Tired
          Rather, contractors and other contractors will demand to lay out significant amounts immediately so that they can be used immediately.

          And there everything is according to the law, as much as the advance payment is due, and will pay as much. Usually it happens like this - 50% advance at the beginning of the year, 50% - upon the delivery of the product or its stages. That is, the same aircraft carrier will be built for at least 12 years, with its cost (ship) of 280 billion in the current one, it will require (very roughly, just to show the principle) 23,34 billion a year. of which 11,67 will be paid at the beginning and 11,67 at the end.
          Quote: Tired
          The second factor: the stable retention of fleet costs in the region of 30-35% of the strictly required amount, can also easily be called into question.

          Maybe, but so far it doesn't seem to be. In any case, this is a matter of budget balancing, but 30-35% for the fleet, generally speaking, is very little
          1. Tired
            Tired April 7 2021 15: 41
            0
            The problem is that you assume an even spending of 23,34 billion each year. This is not always possible. And the possibility of pressure on contractors from the state is limited, if only by the fact that some of the equipment will have to be taken from abroad. That is, you assume ideal conditions. And such conditions obviously should not be expected in the coming years. But there is also a lot of associated expenses and their cost can also change in the process. 30% off the fleet for a country with tens of thousands of kilometers of land borders and neighbors such as NATO, China, India and the Islamist south is the limit of the possible.
  • Hog
    Hog April 7 2021 09: 06
    -2
    I read the article and for me the author's conclusions confirm the exact opposite. There is no opportunity or desire to build aircraft carriers, and they are unlikely to appear.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 April 7 2021 10: 02
      +7
      No opportunities


      Well, if you sit in the tube 70s in the industry, then they will not appear at all, even in the aspect of at least some kind of fleet.

      The Turks have left the world arena of leaders of shipbuilding since the time of Mehmedie.


      And now they have a compact shipbuilding industry and competitive pricing and timing. Russia orders large-tonnage machines.


      Well, and fresh - that is, Turks with higher salaries in the industry are building a floating dock faster and much cheaper than any Russian shipyard:
      Turkish shipyard to build a floating dock for Russian nuclear icebreakers
      Kyzey Star will build it for Atomflot for 5 billion rubles ", the Turkish shipyard Kyzey Star Shipyard won the tender for the construction of a floating dock for 5 billion rubles for nuclear icebreakers Atomflot. The contract is scheduled to be signed next week. Not a single Russian shipyard has applied for the competition. According to Kommersant's sources, only the direct costs of building a ship in the Russian Federation exceed its maximum cost.

      Builds all sorts of auxiliary, and were able to knock out a combo, built a supply for Pakistan

      And they sold the project + 1 ship is being built in Turkey + 4 on the HSL (a large Hindu shipbuilding cluster)


      There are no shipyards with a modern production structure in Russia yet. So far, the First Star can boast only a slight lag behind the schedule and the collection of ships from Korean vehicle kits (yes, if the first one was 95% from Korea, and a small unsaturated section was cooked on the Star, now only super-saturated stern, nose, and kits for assembling main sections and equipment - 4% + localization will be achieved on the 5th ship). Pella could, but she is being pressed by the USC. Other shipyards are in a sad state and cannot produce competitive products.
      1. max702
        max702 April 8 2021 15: 42
        0
        Well, firstly, Turkey is part of the world bourgeoisie as a loyal vassal, therefore, it has no obstacles to the development of the shipping industry, and secondly, their geography is clearly better than ours, which also significantly affects the price and timing, and in the third they did not have perestroika and everything connected with it .. We are only just starting to rake everything (yes, 20 years is not enough for this), and the tasks where it is vital for us to have time by an order of magnitude more than in Turkey .. So everything is logical ..
  • Alexey V.P.
    Alexey V.P. April 7 2021 09: 37
    +3
    great article! everything on the shelves!
  • Exval
    Exval April 7 2021 10: 29
    +2
    Quote: Exval
    I will try to do this a little later.

    As promised, I am publishing a short review of the article. In fact, the author, declaring his intention to challenge the arguments of the enemy of the construction of aircraft carriers, albeit with a lot of reservations, but recognizes that he (the enemy of aircraft carriers) is right. The author confirms that TODAY there are no objective prerequisites for a project of such scale and complexity to be successfully implemented in Russia. True, not wanting to give up, the author every time makes a reservation that in the FUTURE the implementation of such a project will become possible. Well, as one well-known politician likes to say, "in the beautiful Russia of the future", perhaps everything will be so fine that even aircraft carriers will begin to grow on the stocks as if by wave of the hand. But, I repeat, with regard to the present day, the author has not refuted a single argument of his opponent.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 10: 46
      +7
      Quote: Exval
      As promised, I am publishing a short review of the article.

      Thank you.
      Quote: Exval
      In fact, the author, declaring his intention to challenge the arguments of the enemy of the construction of aircraft carriers, albeit with a lot of reservations, but recognizes that he (the enemy of aircraft carriers) is right.

      I don't even know where you read it
      Quote: Exval
      The author confirms that TODAY there are no objective prerequisites for a project of such scale and complexity to be successfully implemented in Russia.

      Where? Please quote
      Quote: Exval
      But, I repeat, with regard to the present day, the author has not refuted a single argument of his opponent.

      Alas, what you wrote is completely unlike constructive criticism.
      I refuted Voskresensky on the part of the "incomprehensible TK" - you have no objections to this point.
      I refuted Voskresensky on the part of the fact that there is nowhere to build AV, and indicated a place where it can be built. One objection from you
      Quote: Exval
      IN THE FUTURE, the implementation of such a project will become possible

      Yes, as soon as the Northwind episode ends. This is by no means
      Quote: Exval
      "in the beautiful Russia of the future"

      by the end of the 20s, it will not come for sure.
      I refuted Voskresensky in the part that there was no one to build - you have no objections to this point.
      I denied Voskresensky in terms of the basing infrastructure, in terms of the air group, in terms of the insufficient seaworthiness of the escort ships, and so on and so forth. - You have no objections to any of these points.
      That is, excuse me, but you did not write anything except
      Quote: Exval
      But, I repeat, with regard to the present day, the author has not refuted a single argument of his opponent.

      Quote: Exval
      The author confirms that TODAY there are no objective prerequisites for a project of such scale and complexity to be successfully implemented in Russia.

      This is neither constructive nor criticism. These are common words that have very little to do with the text of the article.
      1. Exval
        Exval April 7 2021 12: 03
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Alas, what you wrote is completely unlike constructive criticism.


        OK. Not wanting to be considered unfounded, I will nevertheless undertake more thorough work and comment on each paragraph of your article, not limiting myself to a general conclusion.
        So, item 1. You undertake to refute the statement that "the fleet has not yet been able to formulate the requirements for a promising aircraft carrier." And what do you end up with? Here is your conclusion: "There are still no" intelligible "or" unintelligible "terms of reference for the creation of a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy." However, the opponent did not use the word "terms of reference", he used the more general expression "requirements". And you acknowledge that such requirements are, indeed, still absent. Those. admit the correctness of the thesis, which you undertook to refute.
        Item 2 concerns the location where a full-size aircraft carrier could be built. Naturally, you begin your answer with the fact that this thesis is also erroneous. And you end with this: "Thus, Russia already has a place for the construction of aircraft carriers, although it requires a certain" finalization with a file. " It is clear that behind the humorous clause about "file revision" is actually the need for a significant expansion of the existing shipbuilding capacities. Moreover: you even express the following wish: "Nobody bothers to build a completely new shipbuilding complex for an aircraft carrier, like the Far East" Zvezda "". What is this if not recognition of the correctness of your opponent in this matter too?
        Clause 3 concerns the personnel of shipbuilders and designers. Here your conclusion is also optimistic: "Thus, without a doubt, we obviously have qualified personnel for the construction of an aircraft carrier." Like this: "without a doubt." The only source of such optimism is incomprehensible. It would be entirely justified if it were possible to show examples of large (very large!) Warships designed and built in Russia in recent years. But there are no such examples. Which, again, is not capable of shaking your belief that they will, of course, appear in the future.
        Clause 4 concerns the basing of the future aircraft carrier, if built. In this aspect, your conclusion is unambiguous and fits well into the general tendency of the article: "Here it is necessary to fully agree with the esteemed A. Voznesensky - today there is nowhere to base aircraft carriers." No comment.
        P.5 - on the composition of the carrier-based air group. Here you, turning the conversation to the thrust-to-weight ratio of modern Russian fighters, for some reason compare it with the American "Tomcat" half a century ago. Nice polemical move, yes. Okay. Then you talk about the AWACS aircraft and here you issue the following passage: “Regardless of how successful the work on the creation of the A-100“ Premier ”is (officially, everything is successful there, but the project is secret, and who knows how things are going on really?), it is obvious that we have gained tremendous experience in its creation, and this experience will greatly simplify and facilitate the work on the "people's" aircraft AWACS ". That is, even leaving "out of brackets" the difference between the A-100 and a carrier-based aircraft of a similar purpose in, so to speak, standard sizes, you acknowledge the absence at the present time not only of such a machine in Russia, but even of its project.
        Item 6 - about escort and supply ships. Your summary on this issue: "All this is true." Again, no comment.
        Thus, I responded to your request to expand my criticism and accompany it with appropriate quotes from the text of your article.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 7 2021 12: 31
          +4
          Quote: Exval
          So, item 1. You undertake to refute the statement that "the fleet has not yet been able to formulate the requirements for a promising aircraft carrier." And what do you end up with?

          Let's start with the fact that I refuted an ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT THESIS: that the fleet had issued several incomprehensible terms of reference for AB. Why do you ascribe to me what I did not do?
          At the same time, let's refute yours too :))))
          The wording "the fleet failed" means that it was required TK, but the fleet was unable to create it. I am writing about the fact that the fleet has just begun to develop these requirements and is preparing them by 2023. That the TK is not, this is true. That the fleet "failed" - no, just the development of technical specifications earlier would have been premature
          Quote: Exval
          Item 2 concerns the location where a full-size aircraft carrier could be built. Naturally, you begin your answer with the fact that this thesis is also erroneous. And you end with this: "Thus, Russia already has a place for the construction of aircraft carriers, although it requires a certain" finalization with a file. "

          At the same time, I write that such a "file revision" can be carried out in parallel with the construction of AB and does not interfere with it. I write
          And no 5 years of waiting for results is needed. Firstly, they will take much less time, and secondly, such work can be carried out in parallel with the construction of an aircraft carrier.

          Therefore, Voskresensky's thesis is erroneous.
          Quote: Exval
          Clause 3 concerns the personnel of shipbuilders and designers. Here your conclusion is also optimistic: "Thus, without a doubt, we obviously have qualified personnel for the construction of an aircraft carrier." Like this: "without a doubt." The only source of such optimism is incomprehensible.

          Sorry, but before writing this conclusion, I have written all the rationale for it. And it consists in the fact that (in short) if we have mastered Vikramaditya after 9 years of plant downtime, then by the end of the 20s we will have both production capacity (workshop 55) and workers who are building Borei today. If this is not an argument for you, then refute it with something :)))
          Quote: Exval
          It would be fully justified if it were possible to show examples of large (very large!) Warships designed and built in Russia in recent years.

          That is, neither the restructuring of Vikramaditya, nor the simultaneous construction of 4 SSBNs with a total displacement of under 60 thousand tons. in the shop where I propose to build AB is not an example for you. What is an example for you then? :)))
          Quote: Exval
          Clause 4 concerns the basing of the future aircraft carrier, if built. In this aspect, your conclusion is unambiguous and fits well into the general tendency of the article: "Here it is necessary to fully agree with the esteemed A. Voznesensky - today there is nowhere to base aircraft carriers." No comment.

          Didn't you read that in order to correct the current situation we do not need to create a separate naval base at the suggestion of Voskresensky?
          Quote: Exval
          P.5 - on the composition of the carrier-based air group. Here you, turning the conversation to the thrust-to-weight ratio of modern Russian fighters, for some reason compare it with the American "Tomcat" half a century ago. Nice polemical move, yes.

          Sorry, but this is no way at all. I do not compare with Tomcat, but with Su-33, with Tomcat I compare only in terms of mass. And in what you saw a polemical move here, I don’t understand for the life of me. Don't you understand that when starting from the same springboard, everything will rest on the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft?
          Quote: Exval
          That is, even leaving "out of brackets" the difference between the A-100 and a carrier-based aircraft of a similar purpose in, so to speak, standard sizes, you acknowledge the absence at the present time not only of such a machine in Russia, but even of its project.

          I admit. And let me remind you that at least 19 years will pass before the aircraft carrier is commissioned, if we lay it down by the end of the 2000s, that is, we have 19 years to create such an aircraft.
          Quote: Exval
          Item 6 - about escort and supply ships. Your summary on this issue: "All this is true." Again, no comment.

          Excuse me, how did you read the article? And have you read it at all?
          Voskresensky said that the frigates are unsuitable for escorting aircraft carriers due to their small displacement. I have shown by examples that ships of a similar displacement in the past successfully accompanied AB and / or proved to be excellent in ocean voyages. That is, Voskresensky is wrong from the word "absolutely". And you ascribe to me that I agreed with him? wassat
          Quote: Exval
          Thus, I responded to your request to expand my criticism and accompany it with appropriate quotes from the text of your article.

          Thank you for your response, of course. But you have argumentation, forgive me ...
          1. Exval
            Exval April 7 2021 15: 05
            +4
            To begin with, I refuted a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THESIS: that the fleet issued several incomprehensible terms of reference for AB. Why do you ascribe to me what I did not do?

            Ok, let's do the following. Please answer this question. Can we say that there is a common understanding in the fleet of what the future Russian aircraft carrier should be like? I deliberately ask this question in the most general form, without going into details: is this understanding expressed in TK, concept, etc. I am talking about the common understanding and I want to hear your opinion on this matter.
            At the same time, let's refute yours too :))))

            I would only be glad. Moreover, in order to facilitate this task for you, I will formulate this thesis again. It consists in the following: I believe that the current state of affairs in the country does not allow us to speak about the presence of prerequisites for the successful implementation of such a complex and expensive project as a full-size aircraft carrier. Can you refute this?
            And it consists in the fact that (in short) if we have mastered Vikramaditya after 9 years of the plant's downtime, then by the end of the 20s we will free up both production capacity (workshop 55) and workers who are building Borei today. If this is not an argument for you, then refute it with something :)))

            Yes, for me this is not an argument - and here's why. Building submarines is NOT equal to building an aircraft carrier. For the latter requires completely separate competencies and capabilities that do not automatically "grow" from the experience of building submarines. This is my refutation.

            That is, neither the restructuring of Vikramaditya, nor the simultaneous construction of 4 SSBNs with a total displacement of under 60 thousand tons. in the shop where I propose to build AB is not an example for you. What is an example for you then? :)))


            In part, I answered this question above. The mechanical summation of the displacement of submarines under construction does not at all mean the possibility of building an aircraft carrier, whose displacement is equal to this total displacement of submarines. What could serve as a relevant example for me? I will answer. Such an example could be the successful construction of ever larger surface ships. For example, destroyers, UDC, etc. This argument would be understandable and close to me. The industry successfully builds ships one larger than the other. It's time to proclaim in the voice of the late artist Yevstigneev: "But shouldn't we, my friends, aim at our William, so to speak, Shakespeare (that is, the strike aircraft carrier)?" But you can't give me such an example, can you?
            Didn't you read that in order to correct the current situation we do not need to create a separate naval base at the suggestion of Voskresensky?

            This is a word game - nothing more. TODAY, and the condition of basing the aircraft carrier (if it had already been built), ALSO is not fulfilled. This is precisely my thesis, which I formulated especially for you at the beginning of this post. Thus, this paragraph complements the others, and does not contradict them.

            Don't you understand that when starting from the same springboard, everything will rest on the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft?


            Now I do not want to get bogged down in technical details, but draw attention to the general logic of your reasoning; how it relates to real facts. And the facts are as follows: even with the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" in service (at least formally), the domestic aviation industry has not created a new generation of aircraft for it. Therefore, if we proceed from the fact that they will be created in parallel with the new aircraft carrier, then this means an increase in the "coefficient of novelty" of the entire given complex of weapons to a critical level, beyond which its successful implementation becomes simply impossible.

            And let me remind you that at least 19 years will pass before the aircraft carrier goes into operation, if we lay it down by the end of the 2000s, that is, we have 19 years to create such an aircraft.


            And how does this explain the fact that at the PRESENT TIME there is no such aircraft and work on it has not even begun?

            Voskresensky said that the frigates are unsuitable for escorting aircraft carriers due to their small displacement. I have shown by examples that ships of a similar displacement in the past successfully accompanied AB and / or proved to be excellent in ocean voyages. That is, Voskresensky is wrong from the word "absolutely". And you ascribe to me that I agreed with him?


            I didn’t get the impression that he was wrong precisely because of the word “absolutely”. For I agree with the general logic of his reasoning (at least in your retelling of it, because I have not read his article in the original). I see this logic as follows. He outlines the colossal scale of the task of creating a new domestic AV and draws attention to the fact that many of the ASSOCIATED tasks have not even begun to be solved yet. You point out that many of these tasks require their solution regardless of the construction of AB, that the fleet needs it anyway? Fine, but why, in this case, we do not see their decisions, but only hope that the aircraft carrier is going to be engaged only in 2023? After all, it is obvious that with such an attitude to the matter, this will not happen either in 2023, or in the 24th, or in the 25th ...

            Thank you for your response, of course. But you have argumentation, forgive me ...


            In my humble opinion, my argumentation is quite correct, and everything depends on your immunity to criticism. In particular, the abundance of criticism of the article in the comments and from other people suggests this idea.
            However, I will wait with interest for the promised second part. And it is quite possible that I will also publish my opinion about it.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 7 2021 15: 52
              +2
              Quote: Exval
              Can we say that there is a common understanding in the fleet of what the future Russian aircraft carrier should be like? I deliberately ask this question in the most general form, without going into details: is this understanding expressed in TK, concept, etc. I am talking about the common understanding and I want to hear your opinion on this matter.

              I have no exact answer to this question. I assume that the fleet has an understanding.
              Quote: Exval
              I would be glad.

              So already :)))
              Quote: Exval
              I will formulate this thesis again. It consists in the following: I believe that the current state of affairs in the country does not allow us to speak about the presence of prerequisites for the successful implementation of such a complex and expensive project as a full-size aircraft carrier. Can you refute this?

              Sorry, but you mixed up 2 questions at once in this thesis, which should not be interfered with. So I'll have to answer both
              1) We have the necessary scientific and technical potential, and all the necessary financial, production and labor resources both for the construction of an aircraft carrier and for the creation of its air wing and infrastructure. That is, we can create an aircraft carrier, the details are described in the article.
              2) BUT! With the existing hierarchy of power, we can easily fail this project, because, to put it simply, it may turn out to be too difficult for our "effective managers" in power, the level of the same Rogozin & Serdyukov.
              Quote: Exval
              Yes, for me this is not an argument - and here's why. Building submarines is NOT equal to building an aircraft carrier. For the latter requires completely separate competencies and capabilities that do not automatically "grow" from the experience of building submarines. This is my refutation.

              I repeat, life itself refuted you - Sevmash, which never built aircraft carriers or other large surface ships (TAVKR, RKR), coped quite well with Vikramaditya.
              Quote: Exval
              What could serve as a relevant example for me? I will answer. Such an example could be the successful construction of ever larger surface ships. For example, destroyers, UDC, etc. This argument would be understandable and close to me.

              I understand, but, as practice shows, including the world one, this is a completely optional condition. If you don’t want Vikramaditya, remember the same Englishmen who built the Queen Elizabeth-type AV after the wildest break in the construction of large ships.
              Quote: Exval
              This is a word game - nothing more. TODAY, and the condition of basing the aircraft carrier (if it had already been built), ALSO is not fulfilled. This is precisely my thesis, which I formulated especially for you at the beginning of this post.

              This is really a word game, since the lack of TODAY infrastructure for basing AV does not interfere in any way with its construction. Well, there is no such necessary condition for the construction of AB - the infrastructure can be built in a few years, and AB will be laid in a few years, and it will be built for at least 12 years
              Quote: Exval
              And the facts are as follows: even having in service (at least formally) the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov", the domestic aviation industry has not created a new generation of aircraft for it. Therefore, if we proceed from the fact that they will be created in parallel with the new aircraft carrier, then this means an increase in the "coefficient of novelty" of the entire given complex of weapons to a critical level, beyond which its successful implementation becomes simply impossible.

              Common words. The facts are that the USSR / RF has created two quite successful modifications of land-based fighters for deck-based - Su-33 and MiG-29KR. There can be no difficulties in adapting the Su-57, what is the "coefficient of novelty" here? AWACS - yes, it is difficult. But we have almost 20 years.
              Quote: Exval
              And how does this explain the fact that at the PRESENT TIME there is no such aircraft and work on it has not even begun?

              So these facts are generally not related to each other :))) The fact that we have all the prerequisites to create a small AWACS and the fact that they did not start to do not contradict each other.
              Quote: Exval
              He outlines the colossal scale of the task of creating a new domestic AV and draws attention to the fact that many of the ASSOCIATED tasks have not even begun to be solved yet. You point out that many of these tasks require their solution regardless of the construction of AB, that the fleet needs it anyway? Fine, but why, in this case, we do not see their solutions

              Sorry, but the work on 22350M just shows that a number of related tasks are being solved. Yes, not all, but there is no need to do it all at once right now.
              Quote: Exval
              In my humble opinion, my argumentation is quite correct, and everything depends on your immunity to criticism.

              This is a common point of view for most of the people participating in the discussion :)
              1. Exval
                Exval April 7 2021 22: 12
                +1
                I have no exact answer to this question. I assume that the fleet has an understanding.

                Ok, accepted. (Although I am skeptical about this version).

                Sorry, but you mixed up 2 questions at once in this thesis, which should not be interfered with. So I'll have to answer both
                1) We have the necessary scientific and technical potential, and all the necessary financial, production and labor resources both for the construction of an aircraft carrier and for the creation of its air wing and infrastructure. That is, we can create an aircraft carrier, the details are described in the article.
                2) BUT! With the existing hierarchy of power, we can easily fail this project, because, to put it simply, it may turn out to be too difficult for our "effective managers" in power, the level of the same Rogozin & Serdyukov.


                Thank you for the detailed disclosure of these two theses. But, nevertheless, I do not quite agree with them. First of all, I want to ask: what is your confidence in the truth of the first of them based on?
                Further. It is hardly fair to put Rogozin and Serdyukov on the same board, for these are figures of too different sizes. Serdyukov went down in history forever as a man under whose auspices one of the most significant and successful reforms of the Russian army in recent decades was carried out. Rogozin, on the other hand, is an outspoken rogue, whom Putin, nevertheless, provides "unsinkability". However, this is a separate topic. I will ask you to answer my question regarding item 1.

                I repeat, life itself refuted you - Sevmash, which never built aircraft carriers or other large surface ships (TAVKR, RKR), coped quite well with Vikramaditya.


                Sevmash coped with the MODERNIZATION of "Vikramaditya", but the "Gorshkov" was built in Soviet times. In modern Russia, there is no experience in building such large ships.

                I understand, but, as practice shows, including the world one, this is a completely optional condition. If you don’t want Vikramaditya, remember the same Englishmen who built the Queen Elizabeth-type AV after the wildest break in the construction of large ships.


                What does the British have to do with it? Show me examples of the construction of modern large ships in today's Russia! Without this, excuse me, all statements about the feasibility of such a task for her look completely unfounded.

                This is really a word game, since the lack of TODAY infrastructure for basing AV does not interfere in any way with its construction. Well, there is no such necessary condition for the construction of AB - the infrastructure can be built in a few years, and AB will be laid in a few years, and it will be built for at least 12 years


                Everything is possible, but for some reason nothing is done. You propose to ignore the real state of affairs for the sake of speculative projects. This inevitably gives rise to thoughts that their only purpose is to cut funds, which you rightly point out in these comments.
                The facts are that the USSR / RF has created two quite successful modifications of land-based fighters for deck-based aircraft - the Su-33 and MiG-29KR.

                Very good. Now let's remember: WHEN were these machines created?

                So these facts are generally not related to each other :))) The fact that we have all the prerequisites to create a small AWACS and the fact that they did not start to do not contradict each other.

                I still insist that there is a direct and immediate connection between them. The same connection exists with another fact: in recent years, ANY complex high-tech project has not been implemented in the Russian Federation. In this area, general stagnation and degradation reigns, all high-profile announcements end in continuous "zips". I can name specific examples if necessary.

                Sorry, but the work on 22350M just shows that a number of related tasks are being solved. Yes, not all, but there is no need to do it all at once right now.

                Yes, now we need to focus on solving specific and not so large-scale projects, and postponing the creation of AV for a long, uncertain prospect.

                This is a common point of view for most of the people participating in the discussion :)

                And you belong to this majority?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 8 2021 06: 50
                  +1
                  I will answer later, there is no time at all today, sorry!
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 8 2021 11: 29
                  +2
                  Quote: Exval
                  But, nevertheless, I do not quite agree with them. First of all, I want to ask: what is your confidence in the truth of the first of them based on?

                  I wrote about the financial ones in the previous article, and added already here that neither the revision of Sevmash, nor the creation of infrastructure for AV will require any extra costs. About production - I talked about Sevmash. About labor - there will be a release of a large number of personnel upon completion of "Boreyev". On the technical prerequisites - at the present time we have everything for the AV (special deck covering, aerofinishers, take-off / landing control systems, the latest generation reactors (RHYTHM), etc.) except for catapults, but there are also good groundwork for them.
                  Quote: Exval
                  It is hardly fair to put Rogozin and Serdyukov on the same board, for these are figures of too different sizes.

                  One size. Both effectively destroyed what they were entrusted with, but Rogozin, at least, out of his inability to work (as far as I understand, he tried sincerely).
                  Quote: Exval
                  Serdyukov went down in history forever as a man under whose auspices one of the most significant and successful reforms of the Russian army in recent decades was carried out.

                  This is a very misleading statement. Serdyukov's reforms turned out to be so catastrophic for the Armed Forces that in some areas the RF Ministry of Defense has not been able to recover to this day, or maybe not at all.
                  Yes, there is such an opinion about Serdyukov - a good reformer. But when you read the argument, the following is visible. The fact is that Serdyukov was put in charge of the Minister of Defense when funding was finally poured into the Armed Forces. Of course, this funding had a beneficial effect on the Armed Forces. And this is what is usually credited to Serdyukov, which is fundamentally wrong, since it was not he who made the decision to increase the budgets of the RF Ministry of Defense and it did not depend on him. For the rest, I know ONE useful reform of Serdyukov (in the pricing of the state defense order, the rule is "20 + 1"). The harm that he inflicted by defeating military education and military science, and by turning the weapons development system that had been worked out for centuries on its head, we have not shattered today.
                  But let's not talk about Serdyukov - we would have to deal with AV :)
                  Quote: Exval
                  Sevmash coped with the MODERNIZATION of "Vikramaditya", but the "Gorshkov" was built in Soviet times. In modern Russia, there is no experience in building such large ships.

                  Look at the volume of this modernization :)))))
                  Replacement of boilers, alteration of the hangar and aircraft lifts, installation of a springboard, alteration of the flight deck, (increased dimensions), installation of launch positions, installation of an aerofinisher, installation of a new flight / landing control system, communications, radio engineering - new, GTZA dismantled, sorted out and put back, cable -traces were re-laid in a variety, etc. etc. This "modernization" is practically a new ship in a partially old hull.
                  And the hull is the simplest element of the ship, from the point of view of shipbuilding.
                  Quote: Exval
                  What does the British have to do with it? Show me examples of the construction of modern large ships in today's Russia! Without this, excuse me, all statements about the feasibility of such a task for her look completely unfounded.

                  You are just sure that without experience in building large surface ships, the construction of AB is impossible. I explain to you by examples that this is absolutely not the case. Those shipyards that built the British AV ... I don't even know when they last built large warships. Their maximum is 14-ton DKVD, well, our SSBNs are of the same size, and much more complex in design.
                  Quote: Exval
                  Everything is possible, but for some reason nothing is done. You propose to ignore the real state of affairs for the sake of speculative projects.

                  Tell me, why now build the infrastructure for a ship that will go into operation well if in 20 years? This is the first question. The second is that you again interfere with "not done" and "cannot be done". Today we can build a powerful fleet, but this is not being done. This is what I am writing about. And you answered me - if it is not done, then it is impossible. Are you so confident in the competence of our authorities? :)
                  Quote: Exval
                  Very good. Now let's remember: WHEN were these machines created?

                  Su-33 - by the end of the 80s, MiG-29K - already in the Russian Federation, work on it began in 1999 and was mainly completed in 2008, when the first production aircraft for India was produced. And then it was further refined to the MiG-29KR / KUBR. Yes, in the USSR there was also a MiG-29K (tested in parallel with the Su-33), but these are different machines.
                  Quote: Exval
                  I still insist that there is a direct and immediate connection between them. The same connection exists with another fact: in recent years, ANY complex high-tech project has not been implemented in the Russian Federation.

                  I still apologize, but you are wrong a little more than completely.
                  PAK FA is a Russian development, work on it began in the early 2000s. Tu-214. The Poliment-Redoubt air defense system is a Russian development, the fundamental difference from the previous air defense systems is the use of AGSN. SJSC "Irtysh-Amphora" is actually made in the Russian Federation. Active passive GAS with towed antenna "Minotaur" - made in Russia. "Mace". "Liner". "Vanguard". You can continue for a long time.
                  Quote: Exval
                  And you belong to this majority?

                  Taking into account the fact that I sometimes give refutations to the materials of my own articles (under the influence of arguments in the discussions) - probably, nevertheless, to the minority :)))
                  1. Exval
                    Exval April 8 2021 23: 31
                    +1
                    I wrote about the financial ones in the previous article, and added already here that neither the revision of Sevmash, nor the creation of infrastructure for AV will require any extra costs. About production - I talked about Sevmash. About labor - there will be a release of a large number of personnel upon completion of "Boreyev". On the technical prerequisites - at the present time we have everything for the AV (special deck covering, aerofinishers, take-off / landing control systems, the latest generation reactors (RHYTHM), etc.) except for catapults, but there are also good groundwork for them.

                    Clear. Let us then leave this question for now. I would like to focus now on other aspects raised during the discussion.
                    Yes, there is such an opinion about Serdyukov - a good reformer. But when you read the argument, the following is visible. The fact is that Serdyukov was put in charge of the Minister of Defense when funding was finally poured into the Armed Forces. Of course, this funding had a beneficial effect on the Armed Forces. And this is what is usually credited to Serdyukov, which is fundamentally wrong, since it was not he who made the decision to increase the budgets of the RF Ministry of Defense and it did not depend on him. For the rest, I know ONE useful reform of Serdyukov (in the pricing of the state defense order, the rule is "20 + 1"). The harm that he inflicted by defeating military education and military science, and by turning the weapons development system that had been worked out for centuries on its head, we have not shattered today.
                    But let's not talk about Serdyukov - we would have to deal with AV :)

                    Hmmm, I see. On the one hand, you are, of course, right that an appeal to assessing Serdyukov's figure is a kind of distraction from the topic AB. But, however, on the other hand, reading your opinion, I see that with this level of understanding, the problem can, of course, be developed with a “blue eye” on the idea of ​​the grace of creating an aircraft carrier for the Russian fleet ;-)
                    Look at the volume of this modernization :)))))

                    Sorry, but I don't want to look at the scope of the upgrade. Perhaps you will consider this a whim, but I want the words to be used in their strict meaning, not arbitrary. And the expression "building a ship" means exactly the creation of a NEW SHIP HULL, and not something else.
                    You are just sure that without experience in building large surface ships, the construction of AB is impossible. I explain to you by examples that this is absolutely not the case. Those shipyards that built the British AV ... I don't even know when they last built large warships. Their maximum is 14-ton DKVD, well, our SSBNs are of the same size, and much more complex in design.

                    Yes, I am sure of this and I do not see how your examples can shake this confidence .. For the English experience fits well into this scheme. They mastered in production the entire range of surface combat ships (corvettes, frigates, destroyers - plus the DKVD you mentioned) - and only then moved on to AB, crowning it both in size and complexity. The domestic industry has so far mastered only corvettes and frigates - and stopped there. Moreover, even in the case of corvettes, there are cases of "rollback" back. (What, for example, is said here in this publication on this site, published the day before: https://topwar.ru/181672-tehnicheskij-spusk-korvet-proekta-20386-ubrali-iz-jellinga-chtoby-ne-meshal .html)
                    Tell me, why now build the infrastructure for a ship that will go into operation well if in 20 years? This is the first question. The second is that you again interfere with "not done" and "cannot be done". Today we can build a powerful fleet, but this is not being done. This is what I am writing about. And you answered me - if it is not done, then it is impossible. Are you so confident in the competence of our authorities? :)

                    Sorry, of course, but this passage is just some kind of nonsense. Of course, for the purposes of this discussion, “not done” and “cannot be done” are synonymous. For, according to the old (but not outdated) truth, practice is the criterion of truth. Or, to put it another way, we can consider only what is real as valid. Ignoring this rule is, in my opinion, the weakest link in your creative method. For you simply ignore the real situation that takes place, and instead begin to construct some kind of speculative constructions, claiming that it is they that are in fact the only true ones. At the same time, resorting to numerous substitutions designed to prove the truth of these constructions. Examples of this are before our eyes.
                    Su-33 - by the end of the 80s, MiG-29K - already in the Russian Federation, work on it began in 1999 and was mainly completed in 2008, when the first production aircraft for India was produced. And then it was further refined to the MiG-29KR / KUBR. Yes, in the USSR there was also a MiG-29K (tested in parallel with the Su-33), but these are different machines.

                    Perfectly. Then why hasn't a new generation of deck-mounted vehicles been created to replace them (for example, for the same Kuznetsov, who, as it is still officially asserted, will certainly someday finish the repair and return to service)?
                    I still apologize, but you are wrong a little more than completely.
                    PAK FA is a Russian development, work on it began in the early 2000s. Tu-214. The Poliment-Redoubt air defense system is a Russian development, the fundamental difference from the previous air defense systems is the use of AGSN. SJSC "Irtysh-Amphora" is actually made in the Russian Federation. Active passive GAS with towed antenna "Minotaur" - made in Russia. "Mace". "Liner". "Vanguard". You can continue for a long time.

                    Well, how wrong? Let's take a look at civil aviation and rail transport, two areas that I follow especially closely. So. Sukhoi Superjet virtually failed commercially. MS-21 - the terms of serial construction are constantly shifting; the last time - actually until 2025. Then the IL-112T made two test flights in two years. IL-114-300 (modernization of the liner, which made its first flight in 1990 (!): Made three test flights; the first new fuselage is still being built). This is with regard to aviation. Now - railway mega-projects. The main "toy" of Russian Railways, with which they "rush" from the moment of their creation: the HSR. Bottom line: not a single kilometer has been laid. Further. The idea of ​​building a bridge from the mainland to Sakhalin died before it was born (which, however, did not prevent high-ranking officials and experts affiliated with government agencies from coming together in support of this delusional idea expressed by Putin). The northern latitudinal passage - not a single kilometer was built either, although, judging by the initial plans, it should have been commissioned long ago.
                    Something like that. Well, and of course, specific units and systems for warships, such as those listed by you, are being created - I don’t argue with that. By the way, about the units for the Navy. Several years ago, the Kolomensky Zavod, which was the parent enterprise for the construction of diesel locomotive diesel engines, was redesigned to produce power units for the Navy. As a result, the locomotive builders were left without modern diesel engines, and the sailors were left suitable for their own needs. Yes, everything indicates that it's time to seriously think about the construction of AB - you will not say anything ...
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 9 2021 09: 59
                      +2
                      Quote: Exval
                      But, however, on the other hand, reading your opinion, I see that with this level of understanding, the problem can, of course, be developed with a “blue eye” on the idea of ​​the grace of creating an aircraft carrier for the Russian fleet ;-)

                      I can only recommend talking to the professional military about Serdyukov. For example, those who are retired, so that there is no reason to believe that Serdyukov has infringed upon them in some way.
                      I bet you will learn a lot
                      Quote: Exval
                      Sorry, but I don't want to look at the scope of the upgrade. Perhaps you will consider this a whim, but I want the words to be used in their strict meaning, not arbitrary.

                      And they are used in strict. You have invented for yourself the conditions that, in your opinion, are necessary for the successful construction of AB. I explained to you that these conditions are incorrect. Whether you accept it or not is up to you, but the point is that now your reasoning boils down to the fact that "you did not prove that my conditions were met," although I explain to you that your conditions are false.
                      Quote: Exval
                      I don’t see how your examples can shake this confidence .. For the English experience fits well into this scheme. They mastered in production the entire range of surface combat ships (corvettes, frigates, destroyers - plus the DKVD you mentioned) - and only then moved on to AB, crowning it both in size and complexity. The domestic industry has so far mastered only corvettes and frigates.

                      To this, I once again explain to you that Project 955-955A SSBNs, which Sevmash mastered, are almost an order of magnitude more difficult than British DKVD in construction, and that it is much easier to switch from them to aircraft carriers than from DKVD, which is smaller than Borei. displacement.
                      Quote: Exval
                      Sorry, of course, but this passage is just some kind of nonsense.

                      For you, it seems that everything that does not fit into your vision of the world is nonsense.
                      Quote: Exval
                      Of course, for the purposes of this discussion, “not done” and “cannot be done” are synonymous.

                      Another utterly erroneous thesis. In the USSR, TAVKR were built and were put into operation, and the lack of infrastructure did not prevent this - it has nothing to do with the possibility of building an AB. Our ability to build such infrastructure facilities, in principle, is confirmed by a lot, and at least the construction of a naval base in Novorossiysk. Situations when production was modernized with the simultaneous construction of ships did not happen many times - for example, the same battleships of the "Sevastopol" type (the slipways were rebuilt simultaneously with the construction of battleships), etc. etc. In your case, any shortage kills the idea in the bud :))) And to the question "Why do we need to build the infrastructure for a ship that will enter service in 20 years" I never heard a clear answer
                      Quote: Exval
                      Perfectly. Then why hasn't a new generation of deck-mounted vehicles been created to replace them (for example, for the same Kuznetsov, who, as it is still officially asserted, will certainly someday finish the repair and return to service)?

                      What, sorry, new generation do you need this time? :))))) The Su-57 will not sit on Kuznetsov's deck, the TAVKR is not designed for such loads, and the plane has just gone into production for the Air Force. And we have not created any other MFIs of the new generation. Today, a MiG-29KR / KUBR regiment has been built for Kuznetsov, this generation "4 ++" is quite capable of fighting the same Peppers of the last series. If they are equipped with modern radars for some kind of modernization, they will be completely surpassed.
                      Quote: Exval
                      Well, how wrong?

                      You yourself admit
                      Quote: Exval
                      Well, and specific units and systems for warships, such as those listed by you, of course, are being created - I do not argue with that.

                      And there is a bunch of modern developments
                      Quote: Exval
                      Several years ago, the Kolomensky Zavod, which was the parent enterprise for the construction of diesel locomotive diesel engines, was redesigned to produce power units for the Navy. As a result, the locomotive builders were left without modern diesel engines, and the sailors were left suitable for their own needs.

                      H ... what? :))))) Do you even go to Kolomna's website before writing this
                      1. Exval
                        Exval April 10 2021 06: 25
                        -1
                        I can only recommend talking to the professional military about Serdyukov. For example, those who are retired, so that there is no reason to believe that Serdyukov has infringed upon them in some way.
                        I bet you will learn a lot

                        Well, apparently, if I, following your advice, talk with representatives of the military service that was abolished by Serdyukov, I will learn even more new things. 
                        Okay, seriously speaking, I ask you to answer one question. Tell me: what was the main, fundamental difference from the Russian army after he left the post of defense minister, from the times when he took this post? I repeat: try to name the main difference that affects the way of its practical combat use.

                        And they are used in strict. You have invented for yourself the conditions that, in your opinion, are necessary for the successful construction of AB. I explained to you that these conditions are incorrect. Whether you accept it or not is up to you, but the point is that now your reasoning boils down to the fact that "you did not prove that my conditions were met," although I explain to you that your conditions are false.

                        No, you haven't shown. Ie, of course, you TRIED to do it, but this attempt was unsuccessful. I repeat my argument. The successful creation of such a complex and largest warship in modern fleets as AB is possible only after mastering in the construction and operation of warships of all the main previous classes, such as corvettes, frigates and destroyers. (Landing ships, all the more so - such a rather exotic modification as an air cushion, we can leave it alone for simplicity). But, nevertheless, tell me the country and the fleet, which immediately proceeded to create AB BEFORE they built the ships of the smaller classes I have listed. If you give such an example, it will mean that my argument is completely refuted. Well, no, no.

                        To this, I once again explain to you that Project 955-955A SSBNs, which Sevmash mastered, are almost an order of magnitude more difficult than British DKVD in construction, and that it is much easier to switch from them to aircraft carriers than from DKVD, which is smaller than Borei. displacement.


                        I have already answered this in my previous remark and am looking forward to refuting my thesis. Please, we will not need to be distracted and prove things that have nothing to do with what I am writing.

                        For you, it seems that everything that does not fit into your vision of the world is nonsense.

                        Not at all. I quite calmly make adjustments to my own picture of the world. Provided that they flow from a scientific, critical, materialistic way of knowing this world. And not emotional, religious, jingoistic or other, which is just as subjective and uncritical. Therefore, you have every opportunity to convince me; for this you just need to use the same method, which is the only authoritative for me.

                        Another utterly erroneous thesis. In the USSR, TAVKR were built and were put into operation, and the lack of infrastructure did not prevent this - it has nothing to do with the possibility of building an AB. Our ability to build such infrastructure facilities, in principle, is confirmed by a lot, and at least the construction of a naval base in Novorossiysk. Situations when production was modernized with the simultaneous construction of ships did not happen many times - for example, the same battleships of the "Sevastopol" type (the slipways were rebuilt simultaneously with the construction of battleships), etc. etc. In your case, any shortage kills the idea in the bud :))) And to the question "Why do we need to build the infrastructure for a ship that will enter service in 20 years" I never heard a clear answer


                        I welcome your reference to the Soviet experience in every possible way. In fact, I welcome recourse to any REAL HISTORICAL experience that is far more productive than ignoring it for the sake of abstract schemas and ahistorical inference. Both the Soviet and pre-Soviet experience contains convincing examples of what attempts to create large warships lead to, which is not confirmed by the real capabilities of the country. (By the "capabilities of the country" in this case I mean the whole complex of resources, both material and human, the competence of the leadership, the presence of a certain "school", etc.). And so, welcoming in general that you have decided to turn to such an experience in our discussion, I cannot but express my bewilderment about which of my theses you are trying to refute with your address. Let me clarify that the absence of ANY component in the chain listed above, necessary for the successful implementation of the construction of the largest warships, puts an end to the possibility of the successful completion of such construction and therefore is critically important. Do you really think that there is no such "weak link" today and that all the prerequisites for starting construction of AB have been created? Then just write about it and I'll think about what arguments can shake such confidence.
                        Well, as for your reproach that my position “kills any idea in the bud,” I will answer it like this. My idea is that it is necessary to CONSISTENTLY solve the tasks of building warships as the size and complexity of these ships increase. And even if we cannot decide on the appearance of promising corvettes (as stated in an article published here by your fellow-thinker; the link to which I gave and which you, I note, simply ignored, which can hardly be regarded as the correct way discussion), it only means that the creation of AV in modern Russia is clearly "too tough." Even without regard to the question of the usefulness of such a ship and the availability of real combat missions for it. Since you promised to touch upon this issue in your next article, it will probably be correct if we discuss this in the same place.
                        What, sorry, new generation do you need this time? :))))) The Su-57 will not sit on Kuznetsov's deck, the TAVKR is not designed for such loads, and the plane has just gone into production for the Air Force. And we have not created any other MFIs of the new generation. Today, a MiG-29KR / KUBR regiment has been built for Kuznetsov, this generation "4 ++" is quite capable of fighting the same Peppers of the last series. If they are equipped with modern radars for some kind of modernization, they will be completely surpassed.
                        It seemed to me that I made it clear - what I mean by the new generation of carrier-based aircraft. If not, then I will explain. I proceeded from your idea that the task of creating a PRINIPIALLY NEW air group for the same new AB, about the possibility (and even the need) of creating which you speak, is completely real and feasible. To this I answer (in the form of a question): if this is so, then why does the modernization of Kuznetsov, which he is undergoing (as, at least, officially approved), do not imply re-equipping it with new aircraft? After all, this is so logical: if the main weapon of Kuznetsov is its carrier-based aircraft, then why is it not provided for its renewal during the modernization, i.e. the same upgrade? Can you answer this question?

                        And there is a bunch of modern developments


                        Once again - I'm not talking about that. It is clear that new units and new combat systems being introduced on modern ships of the Russian Navy contain new developments. It would be absurd to doubt this. However, the whole point lies in the SCALE of these updates, in what (very conditionally, of course) is usually called the "novelty factor". And in this regard, I drew a parallel with large-scale national economic projects. I believe that you will not object to the fact that the creation of an aircraft carrier is a task of a truly national scale, both in complexity and in cost. And in this regard, it is interesting to see how successful civil projects of a similar scale turned out to be, about which a lot was said in due time. I cannot simultaneously follow what is happening in all areas, but I gave you examples from the one that I am watching closely enough - transport. And he showed that almost all of them are either failed or hopelessly "thwarted" in time. By the way, I forgot to mention one more sphere, which, both in technological terms and in terms of national prestige, is in no way inferior to the naval, and even, perhaps, surpasses it - space. It also contains many examples of enchanting fails, but there are not many undoubted achievements. And it also evokes a certain pessimism regarding the prospects that you described in your article.
                        Although, maybe I'm wrong and it's not all that bad? And examples of successful implementation of nationwide projects of similar complexity and cost do exist in reality, but I just forget about them all the time? In this case, again, I will be glad if you correct me.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 10 2021 14: 00
                        +1
                        Quote: Exval
                        Well, apparently, if I, following your advice, talk to representatives of the military service that was abolished by Serdyukov, I will learn even more new things.

                        Military what? :))) Are you talking about military acceptance or what? :)))
                        Quote: Exval
                        Okay, seriously speaking, I ask you to answer one question. Tell me: what was the main, fundamental difference from the Russian army after he left the post of defense minister, from the times when he took this post?

                        Sorry, but I don't understand your question. What did you want to ask? And why? Do you think that Serdyukov did something useful, so tell me what.
                        Quote: Exval
                        I repeat my argument. The successful creation of such a complex and largest warship in modern fleets as AB is possible only after mastering in the construction and operation of warships of all the main previous classes, such as corvettes, frigates and destroyers.

                        France. Formally, before Charles de Gaulle, they built destroyers, but they were smaller in size than our frigate
                        Quote: Exval
                        I have already answered this in my previous remark and am looking forward to refuting my thesis.

                        No, you did not explain why the Boreas did not please you.
                        Quote: Exval
                        To this I answer (in the form of a question): if this is so, then why does the modernization of Kuznetsov, which he is undergoing (as, at least, officially approved), do not imply re-equipping it with new aircraft?

                        Because it has already been carried out - the MiG-29Kr / KUBR regiment received the ship as part of the 2011-2020 GPV execution.
                        Quote: Exval
                        However, the whole point lies in the SCALE of these updates, in what (very conditionally, of course) is usually called the "novelty factor"

                        Which the aircraft carrier, oddly enough, is relatively low, and much lower, for example, than that of the same frigate 22350
                      3. Exval
                        Exval April 11 2021 07: 12
                        0
                        Military what? :))) Are you talking about military acceptance or what? :)))

                        I beg your pardon - I missed the word "science". I meant it.
                        As for the rest, I do not refuse to answer the questions you asked, but first I want to hear the answer to my own, which I have already repeated twice. The question (or rather, a request) is the following: name examples of large-scale CIVIL projects successfully implemented in recent years, which would indicate that modern Russia, both in terms of its technological level and the level of management, is at the forefront, allowing it to successfully cope and with the task of building aircraft carriers.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 11 2021 11: 13
                        +1
                        Quote: Exval
                        The question (or rather, a request) is the following: name examples of large-scale CIVIL projects successfully implemented in recent years, which would indicate that modern Russia, both in terms of its technological level and the level of management, is at the forefront, allowing it to successfully cope and with the task of building aircraft carriers.

                        I answer - the question is incorrect by definition, since "large-scale civil projects" and the construction of an aircraft carrier are not connected from the word "in any way." With the same success, one could ask for examples of flights to other planets, for example.
  • Niko
    Niko April 7 2021 15: 36
    -1
    Quote: Exval
    Quote: Exval
    I will try to do this a little later.

    As promised, I am publishing a short review of the article. In fact, the author, declaring his intention to challenge the arguments of the enemy of the construction of aircraft carriers, albeit with a lot of reservations, but recognizes that he (the enemy of aircraft carriers) is right. The author confirms that TODAY there are no objective prerequisites for a project of such scale and complexity to be successfully implemented in Russia. True, not wanting to give up, the author every time makes a reservation that in the FUTURE the implementation of such a project will become possible. Well, as one well-known politician likes to say, "in the beautiful Russia of the future", perhaps everything will be so fine that even aircraft carriers will begin to grow on the stocks as if by wave of the hand. But, I repeat, with regard to the present day, the author has not refuted a single argument of his opponent.

    Delirium
    1. Exval
      Exval April 7 2021 21: 33
      0
      Substantially
      1. Niko
        Niko April 7 2021 21: 57
        -2
        Quote: Exval
        Substantially

        With all due respect, MUCH more meaningful than your attempt to analyze the article.
  • lopuhan2006
    lopuhan2006 April 7 2021 10: 58
    0
    Yeah, how straightforward everything is! Yes, one AWACS for 5 years should be brought up. Since these are catapults, then naturally there should be electromagnetic steam turbines in the 21st century mauvais ton, we do not have any design experience at all, let alone the operation of catapult aircraft carriers. This is related technology and huge amounts of R&D. WE DO NOT HAVE ANTI-UNIT HELICOPTER !!! BUT 5-6 NEW TYPES OF AIRCRAFT WILL CREATE EASILY AND UNNECESSED FOR A FEW YEARS! The author is a bit of an optimist, or a lobbyist. For us, this aircraft carrier is like a cruiser for Ukraine. If you want to ruin the country, give it a cruiser, or let the aircraft carrier build. We have everything, I repeat EVERYTHING !!! communications within the mainland are also allies (which none). Can we first put the Air Force and Ground Forces in order? And what about the mine-sweeping ships with us? And how about minerafts? If we are inferior in forces at sea, can it be logical to develop mine-sweeping forces? And what about PLO? How are the systems for early warning and illumination of the underwater environment? Maybe you need to finish your chicken coop first, and then take on the farm ?! For the layman, an aircraft carrier is a boat with airplanes. And this includes tankers, PLO, and transport workers, and maintenance equipment on the aircraft carrier itself, I'm not talking about new application methods, and all this in a unique and piece quantity without any optimization of production and serial production. Can it be good to offer cuts?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 11: 08
      +4
      Quote: lopuhan2006
      Yeah, how straightforward everything is!

      Hard. But probably
      Quote: lopuhan2006
      Yes, one AWACS for 5 years must be brought up.

      Let's count. If AV is laid at Sevmash, say, in 2028, then it will go into operation with the best layouts in 2040, or even later. Is 19 years old enough to create an AWACS?
      Quote: lopuhan2006
      we do not have any experience in designing, let alone operating ejection aircraft carriers.

      We have experience in designing both steam (one installed on THREAD) and electromagnetic catapults. The latter were developed in the USSR, the groundwork remained
      Quote: lopuhan2006
      WE DO NOT HAVE ANTI-UNIT HELICOPTER !!! BUT 5-6 NEW TYPES OF AIRCRAFT WILL CREATE EASILY AND UNNECESSED FOR A FEW YEARS!

      And let's not attribute to the author what he did not say. Today we have 2021, as I said above before the AV was put into operation - at least 19 years, what 2 years? :))) And what are the "5-6 new types" when I wrote about the creation of AWACS and deck modification of the Su -57? :)))))
      Quote: lopuhan2006
      If you want to ruin the country, give it a cruiser, or let the aircraft carrier build. We have everything, I repeat EVERYTHING !!! communications within the mainland are also allies (which none). Can we first put the Air Force and Ground Forces in order? And what about the mine-sweeping ships with us? And how about the minesagi? If we are inferior in forces at sea, can it be logical to develop mine-sweeping forces? And what about PLO? How are the systems for early warning and illumination of the underwater environment? Maybe you need to finish your chicken coop first, and then take on the farm ?!

      You are here https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
      The construction of a powerful fleet with all of the above (and those that were not included in your list) is possible even at the current costs of the state armaments program.
      Quote: lopuhan2006
      Can it be good to offer cuts?

      Or maybe you still start to pay attention to what the author of the article writes, if you really undertake to criticize him? :)))
  • slm976
    slm976 April 7 2021 11: 07
    +5
    Well-argued and interesting article.
    I always read with great pleasure the texts of Andrey from Chelyabinsk, occasionally it happened that I did not agree with the author, but it never happened that it was not interesting.
    As for the arguments given in the article, I completely agree with them, and indeed, Andrei once again lucidly and in detail spelled out the argumentation, which has been heard more than once in forum disputes, and which, by the way, comrade Voskresensky has already been cited in the comments to his article on coastal aviation ...
    Unfortunately, A. Voskresensky is ready to listen only to himself and some fans of his work)) .....
  • lopuhan2006
    lopuhan2006 April 7 2021 11: 23
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: lopuhan2006
    Yeah, how straightforward everything is!

    Hard. But probably
    Quote: lopuhan2006
    Yes, one AWACS for 5 years must be brought up.

    Let's count. If AV is laid at Sevmash, say, in 2028, then it will go into operation with the best layouts in 2040, or even later. Is 19 years old enough to create an AWACS?
    Quote: lopuhan2006
    we do not have any experience in designing, let alone operating ejection aircraft carriers.

    We have experience in designing both steam (one installed on THREAD) and electromagnetic catapults. The latter were developed in the USSR, the groundwork remained
    Quote: lopuhan2006
    WE DO NOT HAVE ANTI-UNIT HELICOPTER !!! BUT 5-6 NEW TYPES OF AIRCRAFT WILL CREATE EASILY AND UNNECESSED FOR A FEW YEARS!

    And let's not attribute to the author what he did not say. Today we have 2021, as I said above before the AV was put into operation - at least 19 years, what 2 years? :))) And what are the "5-6 new types" when I wrote about the creation of AWACS and deck modification of the Su -57? :)))))
    Quote: lopuhan2006
    If you want to ruin the country, give it a cruiser, or let the aircraft carrier build. We have everything, I repeat EVERYTHING !!! communications within the mainland are also allies (which none). Can we first put the Air Force and Ground Forces in order? And what about the mine-sweeping ships with us? And how about the minesagi? If we are inferior in forces at sea, can it be logical to develop mine-sweeping forces? And what about PLO? How are the systems for early warning and illumination of the underwater environment? Maybe you need to finish your chicken coop first, and then take on the farm ?!

    You are here https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
    The construction of a powerful fleet with all of the above (and those that were not included in your list) is possible even at the current costs of the state armaments program.
    Quote: lopuhan2006
    Can it be good to offer cuts?

    Or maybe you still start to pay attention to what the author of the article writes, if you really undertake to criticize him? :)))

    But you are not a stupid and educated person! Are you seriously proposing this utopia? With the success and progress that is now going on in the field of drones, hypersound, lasers, etc., you are offering an already obsolete tool. In 20 years it will be Gangut, which had time to the Second World War ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 7 2021 18: 58
      +2
      With the success and progress that is now going on in the field of drones, hypersound, lasers, etc., you offer an already obsolete tool


      Aircraft carriers will only become obsolete when combat aircraft become obsolete, in principle, as a class.
      Not earlier.
      1. lopuhan2006
        lopuhan2006 April 7 2021 19: 59
        0
        In the medium term, the presence of a maximum of 1-2 aircraft carriers will not change anything in the balance of forces, and resources will draw out colossal numbers. But 10-20 extra! frigates would be a very compelling addition. China can accumulate in its theater a permanent presence of 1-2 AUG, with a rotation of 4-5 aircraft carriers. And how many do we need to mold them then? 4 for three theaters? These are unrealistic numbers. The Pacific Fleet cannot handle even 3 AUG with its infrastructure. And less, these are 3 aircraft carriers in 5 years will be under repair. I repeat once again that aviation and coastal forces, both land and sea (mine sweeping, coastal, naval aviation, PLO, etc.), are more important to us. So, aircraft carriers are a utopia, but a sufficient number of the same Gorshkovy M, and Ash (or cheaper) will be much more useful.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 7 2021 20: 45
          +1
          2 aircraft carriers will not change anything in the balance of forces, and will draw out colossal numbers of resources


          780 billion in 10 years, if you do not pull.

          On average, 78 per year.
          Only twice as expensive as the "Ash-M" series. 1,5 Olympics in Sochi, together with the restructuring of the city.
          We won't even notice.

          For the rest - the article has already been written, it will be released in a day or two.
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich April 7 2021 11: 35
    0
    It is undoubtedly necessary to develop the ship industry, related industries and the basing system. But first, to ensure the serial production of boats and smaller ships than aircraft carriers. When the development reaches a more or less acceptable level, it is worth looking at whether aircraft carriers are needed at this stage or whether military-political goals are effectively achieved by other means. The greatest achievements in terms of scientific and technological progress are now visible not in shipbuilding.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart April 7 2021 12: 00
    +2
    Well, everything is still at the level of "We can do it, but everything turns out to be painfully drawn" - why should we strain so much? Judging by the set of information from all these polemical articles, one might get the impression that at stake is a project of top-priority importance in the style of an atomic or ballistic one.
    A large-scale reconstruction of an already rather decrepit building, the body of which has already celebrated its 50th anniversary .. modernization work on the pool, which will probably take some time, during which the pool and part of the infrastructure around it will not be used ... aircraft carriers masses of specialists from other ongoing projects ..
    No, really, if this brings some kind of powerful dividends to our security, then perhaps it is justified, but I do not yet really understand what dividends this could be. We do not yet have a modern carrier-based aircraft - we can certainly develop it or be content with old ones - but what needs to be developed must also be manufactured, and if we are talking about generation 4+, will these aircraft be effective "for their intended purpose" - I have in view of air opposition to enemy aircraft. In previous articles, a picture emerged that this is a rather costly business - will this construction not become a threat to the renewal of the underwater part of our fleet for decades?
  • bandabas
    bandabas April 7 2021 12: 08
    0
    Thus, Russia already has a place for the construction of aircraft carriers, although it requires a certain "file refinement".
    Better not to touch what works. Because the "saws" will deal with this. The money will evaporate, the old will be broken, they will continue to cut the loot on alterations, finishing touches.
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra April 7 2021 12: 15
    +2
    Well, there is no question. But all the same - I answer. Currently, the Russian Federation has a place where you can build aircraft carriers. This is, of course, Sevmash. And to be more specific - shop number 55.


    If Andrey from Chelyabinsk believes that it is enough for the Russian Navy to receive in the future no more than one nuclear submarine (of any type) per year, considers it permissible to reduce the number of the domestic nuclear submarine fleet in the foreseeable future to ~ 30 units, then of course it is possible and shop No. 55 adapt for the construction of aircraft carriers.

    If Andrey from Chelyabinsk believes that the Russian Navy should have at least 60 nuclear-powered submarines, then Sevmash's workshop No. 55 cannot be redesigned.

    Thus, there is really nowhere to build a nuclear aircraft carrier today. And there will be nowhere until the Baltiysky Zavod, as a result of reconstruction, receives a 350-400 meter dock covered by a boathouse. The project for such a reconstruction was developed 5 years ago, but the work has not begun.



    Other domestic construction sites suitable for the construction of an aircraft carrier: the notorious workshop No. 55 of Sevmash, the completed dry dock of the Far East Shipbuilding Complex Zvezda in the city of Bolshoy Kamen, a 360-meter dry dock of the Zaliv shipyard in Kerch, are occupied for many years to come.

    Building a brand new factory from scratch? See the construction time frame of the Zvezda SSK This construction began in 2009. The phased commissioning of the entire complex of production facilities of the Zvezda SSK will be completed by the end of 2024.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 7 2021 13: 18
      +5
      Quote: AlexanderA
      If Andrey from Chelyabinsk believes that it is enough for the Russian Navy to receive in the future no more than one nuclear submarine (of any type) per year, considers it permissible to reduce the number of the domestic nuclear submarine fleet in the foreseeable future to ~ 30 units, then of course it is possible and shop No. 55 adapt for the construction of aircraft carriers.

      I have already written my thoughts on this matter - for my IMHO the fleet should have 44 multipurpose nuclear submarines at its disposal.By the end of the 20s (the time of the AB laying), 8 Ash-M will be built of them, respectively, until 2061 (when the first 2 ash trees -M will be scrapped) it is necessary to hand over another 35 MAPLs to the fleet. The 50th workshop will cope with this task easily; it will also have to be reoriented to other ships. The construction of strategists can be resumed in the 55th after the construction of 2 AB - we will just have time to replace Borei-A
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 7 2021 13: 46
        +3
        36 mappl, at first I counted with Severodvinsk
      2. Alexandra
        Alexandra April 10 2021 16: 19
        0
        I think that you should not proceed from the 40-year service life of the Yasen-M SSN and you should not forget about nuclear deep-water stations (AGS) for the GUGI. Also until 2061. It will be necessary to build not only SSNS and AGS, but also strategic submarines, both carriers of SLBMs and carriers of Poseidons.

        In general, shop 50 alone, in my humble opinion, will definitely not cope.

        And then, the Russian Navy does not need single "white elephants". To acquire at least by the end of the 2030s the smallest "fleet" of 4 medium multipurpose aircraft carriers, you need to build two orders in fact at the same time ... as the British did when building a pair of Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, and how it has already been done we have during the construction of two UDC project 23900.

        Therefore, Sevmash is definitely not an option. There is no other option except for the construction of a dock covered by a boathouse (and preferably two docks at once) at the Baltic Shipyard IMHO.

        Another option, building a new shipyard from scratch on Kotlin Island:

        https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3336349

        "BG: Does St. Petersburg need production facilities for the construction of large-tonnage vessels, taking into account their availability in Bolshoy Kamen, Severodvinsk and Kerch?

        MA: Even taking into account the capacities of the first stage of "Zvezda" and "Zaliv" with annual metalworking volumes of 90 and 50 thousand tons, respectively, to build at least 60% of the ships and ships of the possible program at our factories, it is necessary to build another shipyard with a volume metalworking up to 180 thousand tons. In 2013, TsTSS performed work on the analysis and selection of a site for the construction of a universal shipyard on Kotlin Island. We consider the construction of such a shipyard to be relevant today. "2017

        But this is for a long time.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 7 2021 18: 57
      +1
      On the slipway A, you can build 40 thousand tonnes, Alexander. And we even discussed it once.
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra April 10 2021 16: 30
        0
        On the slipway A, the fourth and fifth icebreakers of project 22220 will be tortured for a few more years. Yes, on slipway A you can also drag out 40 thousand tonnages. But the Navy, in my humble opinion, needs 60 thousand. "We're not rich enough to buy cheap stuff." And 40 thousand ton, even in the version of a semi-catamaran from KGNC - this is the very "cheap thing". The fact that the total displacement of the project 23900 UDC, as announced, will reach 40 thousand tons, IMHO finally marks the refusal of the Navy from attempts to acquire "cheap things". In my opinion, we have not discussed this idea with you yet, Alexander.
  • borys
    borys April 7 2021 13: 13
    +1
    The question is not whether Russia needs aircraft carriers. Recent hikes
    to the shores of North Korea and Syria with all the evidence
    prove one simple truth. Namely - aircraft carriers have ceased
    be an effective tool of foreign policy and conduct
    war. As two American aircraft carriers sailed, they sailed away.
    With "De Gaulle" and "Kuznetsov" also went wrong. Output
    obvious - the era of aircraft carriers is actually over. For
    any states. Construction of such ships by China,
    India and some other countries prove nothing.
    There are ambitions, money and production capacity, so
    build. But even there they are already seriously thinking about the need
    such construction.
    1. Alexandra
      Alexandra April 10 2021 16: 35
      0
      The era of aircraft carriers will end with the era of military aviation. While military aviation is needed, airfields for it, including floating ones, are also needed.
  • vanavatny
    vanavatny April 7 2021 13: 43
    0
    Thank you to both authors for their work, for me personally it is absolutely obvious that it is needed, and all the disputes among all the authors run into one thing - money, and here you can remember that some parasite-colonel found so much dough that an aircraft carrier could to form somewhere before the waterline ... so the question of the effectiveness of public administration, this is the answer to everything ...
    1. max702
      max702 April 8 2021 16: 03
      -1
      They found money from the colonel for lifeboats for the Aircraft carrier and no more .. Be friends with the numbers ..
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets April 7 2021 13: 43
    0
    Thank you, Andrey, for another useful article.
    I read it with great interest, but the controversy was not impressed.
    Perhaps, it is a rare case when everyone is right, both the "aircraft carrier lobbyists" and "aircarrierfobs".
    From the very beginning, the statement of the problem is lame: do we need in modern conditions to build another reincarnation of the unsinkable (aha) "Yamato" or demonstrating the indisputable advantages of the socialist system (aha) "Soviet Union". That is, something that makes an impression on our potential adversary. The answer is definitely no!
    In modern realities, back office specialists cannot be scared by the displacement, speed, number of aircraft on board. Unlike the frontoffice politicians, they know their business, and those, using a pack of mass media, will be able to interpret the situation in their favor.
    On the other hand, leaving the fleet without an "umbrella" and "long arm" is stupid and even criminal. Naval aviation provides the navy with dominance in the operational area and decides the outcome of major naval battles. So the fleet needs aircraft carriers.
    Hence the conclusion: the fleet needs floating airfields that will allow to lift into the sky powerful strike air formations and forces providing air defense and anti-aircraft defense of the fleet. But, the most important quality of such a ship: it must be modern in terms of weapons.
    The time of the Forrestal-class aircraft carriers (and all subsequent American CVNs are simply its development) is a thing of the past along with manned combat aircraft. Alas, today a superfighter piloted by an assom will be shot down cheaply by an unmanned fighter with artificial intelligence. Any target will be destroyed by a swarm of network-centric drones (including absolutely fearless kamikaze). So modern floating airfields absolutely do not need giant flight decks, no phenomenal full speed, no numerous crews. What will be left for people? - VKP, AWACS and PLO. The main thing will be required of these aircraft - to ensure the work of unmanned robots that start on call from numerous aircraft carriers, approaching in quality to the escort ones of the WWII. A tanker with a flight deck and a hangar is the look of an aircraft carrier in the mid-XNUMXst century.
    So the thesis is absolutely correct that we have where to build modern aircraft carriers, but there are a lot of questions about the rest of the composition of such a squadron.
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 7 2021 19: 17
      +1
      Forgotten about electronic warfare
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets April 8 2021 12: 45
        0
        You are right, but electronic warfare can also be unmanned.
    2. anzar
      anzar April 7 2021 19: 50
      0
      A tanker with a flight deck and a hangar is the look of an aircraft carrier in the mid-XNUMXst century.

      Well, this is too much! The rest (unmanned) is true. But the leading aircraft (AWACS with laser self-defense)) will not be able to take off from the tanker. Or do you think they are from the coast (intercontinental) and only unmanned aircraft will take off from cheap aviks?
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets April 8 2021 12: 50
        0
        Take off is easy, the turboprop catapult will accelerate to takeoff speed at once. Landing question. However, such a "tanker" - it also may not be too small.
        The alternative is the reincarnation of Catalina.
        1. anzar
          anzar April 8 2021 13: 04
          0
          Take off is easy, catapult ...

          "tanker" with a catapult? but no finisher ?? And with hangars ... fuel and ammunition depots ... deck crew ... Ie. get Kuznetsov, but with a catapult)), AWACS and unmanned aerial vehicles
          And the classic AWACS (E-2) are too bogus and noticeable for the future. There, either from land, something like E-3 but with a laser for self-defense, or deck-type two-seat Su-57 with a large radar - the leader of the swarm (behind)) bully
  • Ptolemy Lag
    Ptolemy Lag April 7 2021 14: 24
    +3
    Great article with HUGE arguments!
  • Ivan Polozhy
    Ivan Polozhy April 7 2021 14: 57
    +1
    I suggest that all supporters and opponents of aircraft carriers start from the stove, from the tasks and areas where the tasks of the future aircraft carrier will be performed. And against which opponent. Without answering these questions, articles like this are absolute graphomania. Any weapon is made for the task. The mission can be offensive, defensive, or deterrent. And how much will it cost to carry out the tasks of an aircraft carrier in our country? Trillion? I think more. We will not pull.
  • Nirvanko
    Nirvanko April 7 2021 15: 13
    0
    Not a hat. Russia with the current leadership and without aircraft carriers under its belly is giving up its position as it was in 2014 in Ukraine.

    Why does she need aircraft carriers if we are merging Armenia in the Transcaucasus in 2020? We allocate 1% of GDP for science, while other countries - 2-4%. What aircraft carriers?

    It is an instrument of a country that is ready to defend its geopolitical positions.
    1. max702
      max702 April 8 2021 16: 08
      +1
      Why are you sitting on the couch? Let's run to the LDNR there and show it how it should be, or you can rush to Armenia so that it is not drained, and the Arturchiks will eat that barbecue for you and console your wife .. He does not like the leadership ...
      1. Nirvanko
        Nirvanko April 8 2021 20: 23
        -3
        A typical answer from a kremlebot. Well, with an autark, it's all the more understandable.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 April 7 2021 15: 40
    +1
    uncomfortable questions are not settled.
    1.Network of construction suppliers, industrial capacity
    I pointed out that pulling the construction of an avik, even in theory, is possible, in practice it will turn out to be a very heavy burden. in addition, there are more problems with the quality of suppliers, their diversification and the lack of significant reserve capacities, as well as the sane ability to replenish production capacities with loans. To put it in two words - the industry simply does not have enough size. This is necessary so that construction does not turn into a long-term construction with a wild cost overrun, which is already required a lot.
    2. operation of the su-57 from the deck without significant alterations is simply ruled out. We now have neither a modern base fighter for the deck, nor an AWACS aircraft. Among other things, this problem can be solved already during the construction of the ship.
    3. The Article Mentioned the Qingdao base. Our aircraft carrier also needs a base, or better two. In addition, the issue of safe access to the operational space has not been resolved.
    4. The article admits that in fact there is no shipyard. But we need not only a shipyard, we need a whole city of infrastructure nearby.
    5. Personnel. The article says very little about this. There are not enough experienced engineers and workers with the necessary qualifications for construction. Moreover, it will be more difficult to assemble engineers than an aircraft carrier.
    etc.
    It just follows from the article that there are no questions left. But in fact, just a small part of them are being solved, and how to solve the rest is not at all clear.
    There are also questions about displacement and, in general, TK. 70 tons is actually the minimum for a heavy avik.
    Do we need a minimal ship? Exactly?
    Personally, it seems to me that now the construction of an avik is not advisable.
    Not because it is not needed, but because its construction is not sufficiently supported by the industry.
    No one is interested in how much $ they bargained for resources, the question is - where and what kind of workers and means of production we have and can be involved. I will just remind you that the record for the mobilization of the economy in the past decades was set by the USSR, but even it could not send more than 40% of GDP to the war. And it is worthwhile to understand that the industry must have many times more capacity than is needed for 1 avik, in order for such a construction to become possible in general. Do we have it?
  • demiurg
    demiurg April 7 2021 16: 01
    0
    The fact that an aircraft carrier is needed is beyond doubt.
    Thanks to Andrey.
  • looker-on
    looker-on April 7 2021 16: 27
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The answers were given in the order of the questions asked. It's not my fault that uv. Voznesensky began with the questions "where to build?", "By whom to build?" etc. And the answer to "Why build?" - this is the topic of a separate article, or even more than one, so it was not worth starting with it.
    You see, if I was now undertaking to write a justification for the need for AB, I had to start with "why". But the format of the article is different - I answered the questions asked. So wait, please, there will of course be a rationale. In the next article


    Andrey, with my great respect for you, your article does not contain the most important answer to the question. The question of money. Our money with you. And will not "master" this money, but spend it on the Motherland and (in this case) the Russian fleet.

    The current budget is not just classified, it is much more convenient. You understand what the convenience is. In Russia there is money for anything, but not for the aircraft carrier (s). As there are none for space ... and somewhere even for science.

    In some cities, the infrastructure of housing and communal services works with the help of prayers. Several times a year, cars fall through the asphalt due to the fact that everything is rotten. Sometimes - with victims (The fleet is the most difficult logistic issues. And with this we have been very bad for a long time.
    And in general it has always been.
  • JD1979
    JD1979 April 7 2021 16: 51
    +4
    So "many letters" and so little meaning .... The author is a graphomaniac ...
    As a result, it turns out that the "refutation article" only confirmed what it was supposed to refute)))
    The author did not even bother to collect for himself all the conditions under which the start of construction would be justified ...
    I was especially touched by 2 points:
    1. Where to build? - And over there! there is a closed hangar!))) only it is small)) and an aircraft carrier can only be built there))) ... but it will be almost impossible to get it out of there))) Well, this is nothing you can work with a FILE!))))) And over shipyard and above avik))) And in general, you can build a new plant!))))
    2. Yak-44 .... Hand-face, I haven't whinnied like that for a long time ... Really ?! just like that, take and start riveting an aircraft that has already turned 50 years old since the start of the project?))) And besides, it was never brought to readiness in due time ... Has the design documentation been preserved for it? Has Ukraine already agreed to sell the D-27 for it? Well, the author, as it were, half a century has passed, new materials have appeared, equipment, taking into account the crap with engines, 100% absence by now of both the production line and the suppliers and nomenclature of the entire avionics, it is cheaper to design a completely new aircraft. But again))) TTZ from MO where? Has the financing already been pledged until 2027 for the project? Here the naval version of Altius would be more suitable, well, or something larger, with a side-view AFAR.

    Well, everything else ... Base locations? No! URO ships (not the coastal zone :))) to form a full-fledged AUG? No! and no projects. And the Ministry of Defense did not issue TTZ and funding for them)) Supply vessels? Somewhere over the horizon) Well, in fact, the most important thing that distinguishes an aircraft carrier from other ships is the planes)) WE DO NOT HAVE THEM))) MiG-29K is not offered)) It is, and that is very conditional and it has no prospects. And the Ministry of Defense, again, TTZ for the development of a deck boat, taking into account all the technologies of the 5th generation, what? right! DOES NOT GIVE OUT))

    The result of this long article - the author refuted himself).

    PS: I understand that I really want the aircraft carrier)), by the way, too, but I have to be realistic. In the next 10 years, we will definitely not see him. And in solving pressing problems, it is not very much needed, in contrast to the same multipurpose submarines and normal destroyers, which are not afraid to let go away from the coast from under the cover of coastal air defense.
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 7 2021 19: 24
      +2
      The author is not a graphomaniac, but an idealist, far from the real situation in the country and in the navy. He has not yet imagined what kind of horror film could be made about the service of sailors and officers, warrant officers on the former aircraft carrier Kuznetsov. We have not mastered it to the level of operation of the aircraft carriers of our potential enemy. But that's a topic for another article.
  • Denis Rumyanny
    Denis Rumyanny April 7 2021 17: 56
    -2
    For now, America is changing its aircraft carriers to Poseidon and continental-range UAVs.
    In the northern swamps, they argue whether we should aim at steam catapults, and maybe even electric ones.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 7 2021 18: 54
      0
      Doesn't change and is not going to change.
  • ccsr
    ccsr April 7 2021 17: 57
    +2
    Author:
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    The conclusion is simple.
    There are still no "intelligible" or "unintelligible" terms of reference for the creation of a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy. Currently, the Russian Navy is slowly creating a technical specification for a promising aircraft carrier. Given the fact that they are going to start designing it only in 2023 - there is still more than enough time. And, contrary to A. Voznesensky's opinion, this aircraft carrier, according to the data that TASS is inclined to trust, will be nuclear, its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons, and Ulyanovsk's developments will be used in its design.
    This is my first response to the "uncomfortable questions for the aircraft carrier lobby."

    My answer to the author will also be simple - all his fantasies that the design of a new aircraft carrier will begin in 2023, fortune-telling on coffee grounds, because he has no idea what the Main Headquarters of the Navy will lay out to the leadership of the Ministry of Defense in order to allocate money for this project. And the point is not that this is my assumption, but that the time of aircraft carriers is gone, and the General Staff are not stupid enough not to understand this from an operational point of view. Now for our strategists, the main thing is the creation of such weapons systems against which the American missile defense system will be powerless, and not huge floating monsters that will be destroyed either at the berths or not far from them.
    So the author's hopes that it will be in 2023 that they will start designing an aircraft carrier are most likely not supported by anything at all, except for his imagination.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 7 2021 18: 53
      -5
      My answer to the author will also be simple - all his fantasies that the design of a new aircraft carrier will begin in 2023, fortune-telling on coffee grounds, because he has no idea what the Main Headquarters of the Navy will lay out to the leadership of the Ministry of Defense in order to allocate money for this project.


      Ensign, the creation of a naval aircraft carrier complex is laid down in the PK-2050, and spelled out in the "Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030".

      Putin signed, you know?

      Stop talking nonsense on the Internet!
      1. JD1979
        JD1979 April 7 2021 19: 04
        +4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Putin signed, you know?

        Putin signed the May decrees how many years ago, and what? Did they all blew up and ran to execute? And a lot of things signed have remained on paper, or the deadlines have shifted to sometime later, maybe. And if you take specific examples in the army ... how many there and in what year should the T-14 be in service according to the originally announced plans? And how much did you divide in the end?
        And in the light of the events taking place now, I would like to live until 2030, here very quickly it may not be up to aircraft carriers.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 7 2021 19: 07
          -3
          You are simply not aware of the history of communication with this character. It is clear that the Decree does not guarantee anything and that there were precedents.

          I just want to wait for the warrant officer to deny the existence of the "Shipbuilding Program until 2050" and "Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period until 2030" and the Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, which approved all this.

          The ensign may well soak it off.
          1. JD1979
            JD1979 April 7 2021 19: 23
            +1
            What's the point in denying? If here it is. Here one can only argue about the completeness and timing of its implementation. Although with regard to aircraft carriers, yes ... and the main question: do they need them to solve any tasks only available to them? Or is it mainly a matter of prestige - we all have and we need.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 7 2021 20: 00
              0
              ... and the main question: do they need them to solve some problems only available to them? Or is it mainly a matter of prestige - we all have and we need.


              The article has already been written and posted on VO, in a few days it will apparently be published. There this question is solved.
              In the meantime, here's an analysis of one of the use cases.
              https://topwar.ru/150467-avianosec-beregovoj-oborony.html
          2. Denis Rumyanny
            Denis Rumyanny April 7 2021 19: 36
            -1
            The "sawmill of shipbuilding" can be changed. Sawing on two UDCs until 2036 is quite successful. (after 2036 it is not necessary) If only the propagandists did not disappoint. And they are already coping to the limit.
          3. Silhouette
            Silhouette April 7 2021 19: 50
            +5
            Not a single shipbuilding program has been implemented over the past 200 years, either in Russia or in the Soviet Union. It is foolish to deny it. It is naive to hope for otherwise in the near future.
            1. Denis Rumyanny
              Denis Rumyanny April 7 2021 20: 11
              -1
              Destroyer "Leader" was replaced by "almost destroyer" 22350M "SuperGorshkov" The aircraft carrier was replaced by two UDC "almost an aircraft carrier"
              There is a huge field for "mastering" the budget. Starting with helicopters, ending with UAVs and explosive planes.
              They will still torment Kuznetsov at the extreme. Will be welded to the pier so as not to drown, but the budget will "Master"
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst April 7 2021 18: 08
    +1
    Only on one point I disagree with the author. With the commissioning of the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Enterprise (commissioned in 1961 / displacement 93400 tons), the Americans were forced to match its speed and seaworthiness and the corresponding retinue, which was supposed to play the role of king. The decision to build nuclear-powered escort ships with the seaworthiness of cruisers was obvious and logical. The first test balloon was the Long Beach nuclear missile cruiser URO (air defense and anti-aircraft defense) (1961/16600 tons), by the way, with an autonomy of 56 days. This was followed by two URO-class nuclear-powered cruisers of the "California" type (1974-1975 / 10150 tons) and four nuclear-powered URO-type cruisers of the "Virginia" type (1976-1980 / 11000 tons). At this time, the construction of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type (1975 / from 100.000 tons and more), Eisenhower (1977), Vinson (1982), etc. was gaining momentum. And only realizing that "Bolivar will not stand two" financially (two types of nuclear ships), the Americans were forced to start saving on URO cruisers 27 units of the "Ticonderoga" type (1983-1994 / 9800 tons) in a well-proven the hull of a Spruance-class destroyer. The latter, too, not one by one accompanied the aircraft carriers and were part of the core of the AUG being formed. 31 units of Spruance-class destroyers (1975-1983 / 9250 tons) were built that fully met the requirement to escort aircraft carriers with a maximum speed of 33 knots, a cruising range at a speed of 8000/17; 6000/20; 3300/30 and autonomy for stocks of provisions for 45 days. So even modern destroyers of the Arleigh Burke class are somewhat inferior to their predecessors in these parameters. Thus, our frigates of Project 22350 can be put into a group with a promising aircraft carrier with a big stretch.
    1. anzar
      anzar April 7 2021 20: 01
      0
      ... meeting the requirement to escort aircraft carriers with a maximum speed of 33 knots, ..... Thus, our frigates of Project 22350 with a big stretch can be put in a group with a promising aircraft carrier.

      Why would a "promising aircraft carrier" need 33 knots? 28 (like the British) is not enough?
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 7 2021 20: 48
        +1
        No, when you break contact with the enemy, speed superiority is critical.
        1. anzar
          anzar April 7 2021 21: 06
          0
          when contact with the enemy is broken, superiority in speed is critical.

          Superiority in speed over time. an aircraft carrier? What for? "breaking contact" (escape from a known location)) from vr. unmanned? It will not work, they are much faster than ships. A few knots will not make the weather more (15%).
          And from 28 to 33 knots. the required power doubles, as it were. That is why the shaves ... And in general EVERYTHING is sovr. surface warships have moderated the speed ... it is no longer so relevant, as well as the over-maneuverability of fighters)).
          In addition, we are (probably) not talking about applications in a conventional war with the United States - there, 2 AUG (albeit 40 nodal) will not be enough. And others are not so fast))
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 7 2021 21: 09
            -1
            from time. unmanned aircraft Will not work, they are much faster than ships.


            It is important not to get inside the combat radius of carrier-based attack aircraft, and all of them, without refueling in the air. This is what speed is for.
            And the drone does not give a damn, knock it down and the edge.

            Yes, in general, EVERYTHING is modern. surface warships slowed down


            1. The payback for this mistake will be dire.
            2. Look at the new Japanese frigates.
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 April 7 2021 21: 18
        +1
        Quote: anzar
        Why would a "promising aircraft carrier" need 33 knots? 28 (like the British) is not enough?
        In addition to purely naval advantages (to be in the right place on time and quickly dump from there), full speed is used when launching aircraft (full speed upwind simplifies takeoff and allows you to take more fuel). The Britons have VTOL aircraft, it is not so important for them.
  • Dmitry Chelyabinsk
    Dmitry Chelyabinsk April 7 2021 18: 09
    +3
    Good evening.
    Andrey, let me clarify a few things.
    1. All submarines of the 4th generation, including project 885, are being built in workshop No. 55 of Sevmash. See, for example, the newspaper "Vedomosti" dated June 16, 2010. In publications about the launching of the nuclear submarines "Severodvinsk" and "Kazan" there are pictures on which the withdrawal from the boathouse of the 55th shop.
    2. The length of the 55th shop is 432 meters, including the length of the slipway plate 373,6 m. That is, even the Nimitz (333 m) will fit.
    The width of the EXIT GATE is 78 meters, the width of the workshop itself is larger - 130 meters.
    Boathouse height 73,2 m.
    3. In addition to the dimensions of the filling basin, there is another technical issue. The point is that the floor height of workshop No. 55 is higher than the water level in the filling basin. The submarine is withdrawn from the workshop on rails into the floating dock, after which it is submerged and the submarine is launched into the water of the filling pool.
    The mass of Project 941 when it was removed from shop 55 was about 20 tons, but the mass of a normal AB hull, even without the superstructure, will exceed 000 tons. That is, there will already be a need for a floating dock such as the sunken PD-50.

    The foregoing led me to the following reasoning (I am interested in your opinion): and is it possible to build an AB from two parts of the same length (let's conventionally call them bow and stern), say 170 meters each (length 941). Then, with the help of the existing floating dock, they descend one by one into the loading basin, then they are taken out to the water area of ​​the Northern Dvina. And then, in a floating dock of the PD-50 type (or maybe in a dry dock at another shipyard, if one is built), they are connected by welding, and the ship is completed afloat.
    In this version of construction, the reconstruction of the loading basin, it seems to me, will not be required - it is only necessary to expand the outlet from the loading basin to the water area of ​​the Northern Dvina.
    1. S. Viktorovich
      S. Viktorovich April 7 2021 19: 53
      +4
      The pace of construction of boats at Sevmash is insufficient. There is no need to come up with an additional burden for him.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr April 7 2021 20: 33
      +3
      Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
      The foregoing led me to the following reasoning (I am interested in your opinion): is it possible to build an AB from two parts of the same length (we will conventionally call them bow and stern), say 170 meters each (length 941).

      The Zaliv plant built supertankers under three hundred meters in dry dock and a nuclear-powered lighter carrier back in Soviet times. So there are shipbuilding opportunities, but there is no money and there will not be money, because the idea of ​​creating an aircraft carrier fleet is being discussed by the main headquarters of the Navy, but in the General Staff they look at this whole venture with a grin - these are just coffins on the water and nothing more. And if only the naval forces try to push through their construction at the military council in the Ministry of Defense, then they will simply be smeared there for their ambitions and explained on their fingers that aircraft carriers will not bring any benefit in a nuclear confrontation with America and China. From here, draw your own conclusion.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 7 2021 20: 47
        -3
        but in the general staff they look at this whole venture with a grin - it's just coffins on the water and nothing more.


        Prapor, you could only walk in the distance past the General Staff building, and only when you were on vacation, how can you know how it is there?

        in a nuclear confrontation with ... and China


        And you still claim the right to be called adequate? Blimey!
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 21: 12
          +4
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Prapor,

          This is not the first time I notice your rudeness, first of all I respect ensigns, warrant officers, the fleet is supported by warrant officers! secondly, the pilots are not warrant officers, there are all officers, thirdly, your rudeness, you only prove your inability to argue and your wrong ... amen ... I urge you to be polite and respectful of your interlocutors, young man ..
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 7 2021 22: 31
            -2
            I call him a warrant officer simply to emphasize his real level and outlook, otherwise his comrade claims a lot.
            He is not a pilot.
            As for my arguments, Vladimir, you simply refuse to see them, and not only mine.
            This makes you related to a person with the nickname CCSR.
            By the way, a short description - type CCSR in Russian, rate with whom you are communicating and at the same time think about whether this is an alarming sign that you at least agree with this person in some way.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 22: 36
              +2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              I call him a warrant officer simply to emphasize his real level and outlook, otherwise his comrade claims a lot.

              this is called "calling names" in the sandbox, the kindergarten is a nursery group, I did not find any technical arguments or tactical techniques in this, they simply cheated a person,
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 7 2021 22: 45
                -2
                This man deserved much more rudeness.
                Look what he's carrying.
                He here already taught MRA pilots to fight, and submariners, and listen to him, so he knows everything about the General Staff, and the GRU served, but the trouble is - he thinks that VUS is a masculine abbreviation, he carefully hides his specialty, the speech turns of a civilian uses, like instead of "situation" he has "situation", etc.

                I just want to ask: "where were you taught to speak?"

                Plus a nickname. Dial your nickname in Russian.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 22: 54
                  +2
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Plus a nickname. Dial your nickname in Russian.

                  I'm not going to discuss the personal qualities of this or that, the more unfamiliar to me person, the words "situation or situation", like the ceiling, compass, walk = walk. tongue I do not think it is important, this is all bravado for the rookies, as they used to say, if a person served in the GRU as an analyst, he can speak as he wants, and not like an infantry officer, if you disagree with someone, then explain your position and argue, and do not turn the tape into a banal squabble, a tram squabble and a communal kitchen and a gadyushnik with shouts and insults, behind which the essence of the military-technical issue is lost
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 7 2021 23: 41
                    -3
                    if a person served as an analyst in the GRU, he can speak as he wants, and not like an infantry officer, if you disagree with someone, then explain your position and give reasons


                    How can you argue with nonsense? That is, a person does not understand absolutely elementary things. Absolutely.
                    As for bravado, this is not bravado Vladimir, military service changes a person, he has specific habits, jargon, a way of thinking and acting, that's what I mean.
                    I now use the word extreme instead of the last one because in those years for the "last" one could get quite robust.
                    There is nothing to be done about it.
                    Bravado for the rookies has nothing to do with it

                    By the way, I myself was an analyst, not in the GRU, really.
                    For this activity you need BRAINS.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr April 8 2021 11: 48
                      +2
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      By the way, I myself was an analyst, not in the GRU, really.

                      I think that the journalist Timokhin served in the Ukrainian army - a too primitive idea about the Russian armed forces, and even about the strategic link of our army, his deer are simply wild. That is why he so loves to hang noodles to ignorant people, and professionals immediately see what kind of bird it is.
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      For this activity you need BRAINS.

                      That is why people like Timokhin never get into the GRU in their life.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 8 2021 11: 55
                        -3
                        and professionals immediately see what kind of bird it is.


                        They see, and react quite favorably. Real professionals, I mean, not self-proclaimed ward 6.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 21: 13
        +1
        Quote: ccsr
        here in the General Staff they look at this whole venture with a grin - it's just coffins on the water and nothing more. And if only the naval forces try to push through their construction at the military council in the Ministry of Defense, then they will simply be smeared there for their ambitions and explained on their fingers that aircraft carriers will not bring any benefit in a nuclear confrontation with America and China. From here, draw your own conclusion.

        that's right! support
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 7 2021 22: 32
          -5
          Everything is wrong, the stupidity of an old man who has fallen into madness.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 22: 39
            +1
            you now insult me, "the old must be respected" live first before insulting, many of my peers have been in the cemetery for a long time, ... blessed memory of eternal peace ... In the elders - wisdom, and in the elderly - reason.
            Job 12:12 - Job 12:12: https://bible.by/verse/18/12/12/
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 7 2021 22: 42
              -1
              Vladimir, I did not write that it was you who fell into madness.
              Although what they write to you, it would be worth seeing sometimes.
              As for the rest, sometimes old age comes alone, without wisdom.
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 23: 19
      +2
      Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
      further already, in a floating dock of the PD-50 type (or maybe in a dry dock at another shipyard, if one is built)

      if there was a pd 50, then everything would be different, but it is not
    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 8 2021 11: 40
      +1
      Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
      1. All submarines of the 4th generation, including project 885, are being built in workshop No. 55 of Sevmash. See, for example, the newspaper "Vedomosti" dated June 16, 2010. In publications about the launching of the nuclear submarines "Severodvinsk" and "Kazan" there are pictures on which the withdrawal from the boathouse of the 55th shop.

      Well, all of them will not go there :))))) We now have 9 boats on stocks (6 Ash-M and three "Boreya-A"), they will not physically fit into the 55th :)))
      Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
      In addition to the dimensions of the filling pool, there is another technical issue. The point is that the floor height of workshop No. 55 is higher than the water level in the filling basin. The submarine is withdrawn from the workshop on rails into the floating dock, after which it is submerged and the submarine is launched into the water of the filling pool.
      The mass of Project 941 when it was removed from shop 55 was about 20 tons, but the mass of a normal AB hull, even without the superstructure, will exceed 000 tons. That is, there will already be a need for a floating dock such as the sunken PD-50.

      Or another method of launching into the water, when modernizing and expanding the filling pool.
      Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
      The foregoing led me to the following reasoning (I am interested in your opinion): is it possible to build AB from two parts of the same length

      Very interesting suggestion. Honestly, I didn't even think about it, I won't answer right away :))))
      1. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
        Dmitry Chelyabinsk April 9 2021 11: 20
        0
        I just remembered that "Ulyanovsk" in Nikolaev was also built in parts, feed separately.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa April 7 2021 18: 51
    +2
    Eh, Andrey was ahead of me.
    On April 2, I posted an article about an aircraft carrier on VO, but it has not yet been published, I myself asked them to let 20386 go ahead
    But she, soon, will be released, and there is just where to apply.

    Andrey, the pictures from the telegrams of the channel should have been taken to illustrate the restructuring of the pool at Sevmash, if you are defending Sevmash.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 8 2021 11: 32
      +1
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      But she, soon, will be released, and there is just where to apply.

      Well, I haven't taken up the next article yet, maybe I'll add something
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      Andrey, photos from the channel's telegrams should have been taken to illustrate the restructuring of the pool at Sevmash

      So which ones - which ones, what's the difference? And I do not "defend", I just say that it is possible to build at Sevmash. If you think that it is better on stock A is not a question, I am not going to argue about this at all. You know my opinion, but this does not mean that I reject your
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 8 2021 11: 54
        0
        So which ones - which ones, what's the difference?


        The volume of alterations is clear and their reason too.
  • Earthshaker
    Earthshaker April 7 2021 19: 17
    +1
    It remains to wait for the opponents to start throwing prints at each other. All this resembles a pre-planned multi-move, nevertheless I look forward to "answering questions" with impatience.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 7 2021 20: 00
      0
      There is no mnogohovochka, at least on the part of the supporters of common sense (aircraft carriers) definitely not.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 20: 35
    +4
    finally hurray, dear Andrey from Chelyabinsk tried to answer the questions posed, he tried and he did not succeed. 1) where to build Andrey, without blushing, offers attention! stop the construction of the main strike force of the fleet, that is, SSBNs, which was required to be proved! I wrote this for a long time and voiced that the construction of the AV would inflict a crushing blow on the defense, up to the cutting of one of the branches of the nuclear triad !!! ........... I want to put a couple of lines of ellipsis .... for me personally, as the main lobbyist of the nuclear submarine in the VO, the main guardian of the country's defense and the world around the world (provided almost exclusively by the SSBN of the Russian Federation), it even hurts to read, remember SSBNs the main task and purpose of the existence of the fleet. Remember, even the best system is vulnerable, and the number of large nuclear submarines is a guarantee of retaliation. There are no many nuclear submarines. They must be built continuously until real alternatives appear, such as unmanned SSBNs. Hands Away from Sevmash! we will not allow Sevmash to be loaded with non-core loads! Down with AB! 2) who builds ... well, Andrei's reasoning is useless, the answer does not count, AB is new and you will have to not only look for, but also re-train specialists for him (and first find those who will teach these cadres, in general, go there I don’t know where and find it, I don’t know what), there is a lot of things there, not only banal welding of steel structures, aerofinishers to design anew, there are no elevators, no planes, no catapults, Engines are for nuclear submarines, but we do the gearbox transmission scheme from scratch ( your Vakramidya is not atomic), and in general, the alteration of an existing ship is not a new construction! 3) Wakrmidia fiasco? I love Andrey for his honesty! in comparison with the new AB costs for Vakramidya flowers! He writes "unforeseen expenses ...." yes, the new ship will have an order of magnitude more ... everything is there for the first time, here is an example of Timokhin's article about krv 386, it just "didn't work out" ... so what? will we drive the carcass of the failed AB into the corner of the bay aka Mercury and will we wait for everyone to forget about this mistake? and there the probability "did not get it" is an order of magnitude more than 386, because everything is new for the first time .... everything is big and unique, this is not a corvette. 4) how to fight? everything is simple with Andrey! there are planes! yes we take off from the AB deck on the SU57 and A100 (il76) ..... and it's in the bag .... ????? !!!!! tongue Maximum takeoff weight: silt 76 210 t .... Takeoff / run length: SU57 350 m (100 m)
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 20: 40
    +3
    5) where to base, the answer is valid ... "nowhere", .... thanks for the honest answer
    6) who to accompany .. the answer is counted, now there is nothing and it is not known when those who accompany will appear and whether they will appear at all 7) the cherry on the cake ... the main question of the discussion, why AB? no answer, but there is a promise to answer later, in general "come back tomorrow" ... we are waiting for an answer!
    1. ccsr
      ccsr April 7 2021 21: 10
      +4
      Quote: vladimir1155
      5) where to base, the answer is valid ... "nowhere", .... thanks for the honest answer

      But what kind of "theorist" this author - does not know where to base the aircraft carrier, nor where to use it and against whom, but they still need to be built.
      In general, he cannot even formulate an operational-strategic rationale, but he has already allocated the money, and who will receive orders and for what. All that remains is to laugh at the whim of these "military experts" - these Timokhins and "Chelyabinsk residents" will plan for us such a country's defense capability that they will take us with their bare hands.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 21: 26
        +2
        Quote: ccsr
        In general, he cannot even formulate an operational-strategic rationale, but he has already allocated the money, and who will receive orders and for what.

        everything is right to the point
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 7 2021 21: 12
      -4
      Vladimir, it won't take long to set up the pier. All the same.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 21: 24
        +4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        the berth is not long to put. All the same

        total misunderstanding of the essence of the fleet, you are not a naval one ... so why did they build Ust Luga and Primorsk for 10 years? And that Primorsk and the pier for tankers, nothing else, it is impossible to load a container there, only a pipe ... and these are commercial projects where money flows like a river ... The pier is not a peg for a rubber boat, this is a suitable deep water area, it is unique for your case bay, they can be counted with two fingers Avachinskaya and Severomorsk, with a railway connected (we cross out Kamchatka), with a city for drugs. This is finally the berth wall, mind you, a very deep, high structure, it must support the loads and the ship, the berth is under pressure from the shore soil, the coast can fall into the water like a landslide, the more we cut it off to arrange a berth, or it is removed from the coast and then its height is from the soil is the depth of the bay plus the surface part, so let's say the skyscraper is the other way around, ... in general, for example, the USSR for 70 years has not been able to create it even once for the Navy ... and finally you need to understand that one bay for a ship that will not go somewhere decision, he always on every occasion across the oceans to return to Murmansk? He has nowhere to hide in this world, he is not expected anywhere, most ports in the world will not accept him, he is constrained by draft and dimensions, he will get stuck in the middle of the Suez Canal and shout the guard
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 21: 52
          +2
          the pier for the aircraft carrier is the Crimean bridge number two .... can you imagine driving piles for the foundation under water at a depth of 30 meters? this is not a shallow Kerch Strait, but our loads are like the bulls of the Kerch bridge, if not more ... then somehow, by the forces of divers, we begin to fasten the berth structures on the piles, the welding does not work, the water is dark cold .... we install on these fasteners supports, thousands of tons of steel ... we check the verticality we get from the floating crane exactly and vertically, then we fix the loose structure on the sea, the crane jumps, the divers do not see anything there, dregs ... or we drive Larsen's pile into the shore 40 meters high .... ?? then we dig and get the required depth at the shore, then we fix the pier ... well, everything is just the same as in a country house under a garden house ...
        2. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 7 2021 22: 26
          -1
          You are exaggerating a little, Vladimir. There would have been a PLACE for the berth.



          This is an example.
          And the city is nearby, and the railway is not far.
          The relief near the coast and the depths make it possible to build a mooring complex there, in the North, if that is also possible to find places.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 22: 33
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And the city is nearby, and the railway is not far.

            the children's approach is not an engineering one, a photo with boats, what is a railway junction and how does it differ from a "close railroad"? what is the depth, how many kilometers to the source of thermal energy, water conduit? what will be the height of the berth taking into account the depth of the bay?
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 7 2021 22: 39
              -2
              Vladimir, there is 20 km to the railway there, never a Crimean bridge, the depth is sufficient for two real aircraft-carrying cruisers to stand there, behind the photographer's back is a village with a boiler room, and a water conduit, whatever the pier will be built, this will be the height, Vladimir.

              Let you not tell me that a country with a coastal line of 1,5 equator and a coastal population of several million people will not find a place to stay for several ships with a draft of 10 meters.

              Please, Vladimir.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 22: 46
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                to the railway there is 20 km, not a Crimean bridge even once, the depth is sufficient for two real aircraft-carrying cruisers to stand there, behind the photographer's back is a village with a boiler room, and a water conduit, which pier will be built, this will be the height,

                20 km, ... just that? but I thought .. kemsk parish, kemsk parish ... and you know that trains do not run on stairs? these 20 km need to be created, smoothed, ballast slopes, tracks, and by the way, how will the train get to the pier? Where will we put the port crane? boiler room? capacity, how many backup gigacalories per hour does it have? (most likely not a single extra gigacalorie) Gas? Or will we carry firewood? you have a childish perception of reality and you have never built anything, so everything is simple for you
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 7 2021 23: 44
                  -1
                  20 km, ... just that?


                  It's just that, yes. It cannot be compared with the Crimean bridge.
                2. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 8 2021 11: 59
                  0
                  Vladimir.
                  I was building.
                  Therefore, I speak with confidence about such things. The train does not need to enter the pier. Have you seen how the Americans load ammunition on their aircraft carriers? But there are up to 3000 tons of weapons only.

                  You are simply defending your delusions, trying to resort to completely insane arguments, such as the fact that the entire Russian Federation will not be able to build a boiler room, a turbocompressor station, a transformer substation and a water pipeline.
                  He can, Vladimir.
                3. Victor Leningradets
                  Victor Leningradets April 8 2021 13: 07
                  0
                  Dear Vladimir!
                  In general, you are right, but you are exaggerating ...
                  This is a difficult, but quite feasible task. By the way, the Crimean Bridge is a serious, but by no means unique structure, PR is a bit too much.
                  Talks about the infrastructural poverty of the bases of the Soviet Navy were conducted in the 70s and 80s of the last century, but D.F. Ustinov, like a maniac, demanded instead of developing bases to build more ships, good and, most importantly, different. The result is obvious.
                  If you look at an aircraft carrier not as a sacred fetish, the great flagship of a beggarly navy, but as a means of providing carrier-based aircraft and building them in large batches (like escortmen), then the task of basing, maintaining and repairing, training crews will not look like magic, but as a routine work.
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 7 2021 23: 11
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                near a country with a coastline of 1,5 equator

                on the oceans outside the closed seas, there is only one point where there is a railway, and four points are conditionally close to the ocean
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 7 2021 23: 45
                  -1
                  This is what you think, but in reality there are bulk bases. The head only needs to be turned on.
            2. ccsr
              ccsr April 8 2021 11: 54
              +3
              Quote: vladimir1155
              the children's approach is not an engineering one, a photo with boats, what is a railway junction and how does it differ from a "close railroad"? what is the depth, how many kilometers to the source of thermal energy, water conduit? what will be the height of the berth taking into account the depth of the bay?

              You are asking purely professional questions to a person who does not even know what the infrastructure of the fleet is, how to create it and what it will cost. And therefore, everything is simple in his sandbox - he gave the command, and everything appeared by itself. In general, the manilovism is just as rushing from this uneducated journalist in military affairs, and all your attempts to explain the ELEMENTARY issues related to the appearance of aircraft carriers are doomed to failure - he simply does not understand what you are talking about.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 12: 57
                +2
                Quote: ccsr
                And therefore, everything is simple in his sandbox - he gave the command, and everything appeared by itself. In general, the manilovism is just like a rush from this journalist, uneducated in military affairs,

                rightly noticed! everything is simple for him, can Russia build a boiler room? how tricky is the question of squandering tens of billions of dollars on an unnecessary defenseless vessel requiring a unique shipyard, a unique berth and non-existent aircraft of non-existent escort ships ..... to reduce to the question of the possibility of building a boiler room ....., as well as to a railway which is physically impossible sometimes somewhere fail Timokhin at a wave of the finger ...... maybe the Russian Federation can, but by what means and why, there are many objects in the Russian Federation that need and do not have boiler rooms, and the main question and Andrey from CH and A Timokhin bypasses ... why do we need Aircraft carrier????????? and How much will all this together cost ??????????
                1. max702
                  max702 April 8 2021 17: 29
                  +2
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  How much will all this together cost ??????????

                  I think about a circle for a couple of trillion rubles and we'll pass .. And this is just a building .. Let's count it in dollars so easier, 7-10 billion for one Avik (we will redo a new unknown three times) at 15 billion for an air wing (at least, ), 15 billion for accompanying ships, 10-15 billion for one base (2-3 minimum is needed) another 10-15 billion for the crew for the AUG (they also need to be learned from scratch by organizing new training), a total of 70 billion, according to the most modest estimates. The annual budget of the Ministry of Defense of Russia in the fattest years .. And this is one AUG, but it is necessary if we are talking about a real confrontation with "partners", and not about a fetish in the form of a "White Elephant" 5-6 (if a vorog looking at our vanity to build will not start) a total of 500 billion will cost this dubious pleasure .. Well, all this splendor will have to be kept ... But it will be more interesting how long it will take 40-50 -70 years? Will this all be relevant? Reminds the race of battleships at the beginning of the twentieth century .. And yes, one must understand that the country's human resources (namely, human) are not unlimited, we are only 150 million people, and the country faces an abundance of tasks! Where will all these wonderful and competent people come from and will it not result in a critical lag in other areas of our country's development? Again, this reminds me of the situation before the Second World War, when they poked themselves into the Battleship Race, and even when they came to their senses, it was too late and it came back to haunt in the Second World War to the very liver ..
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 17: 32
                    +1
                    Quote: max702
                    total, according to the most conservative estimates, 70 billion. The annual budget of the Ministry of Defense of Russia in the fattest years ..

                    yes it will, if not more
                    1. max702
                      max702 April 8 2021 17: 47
                      +2
                      But now let them try to justify such expenses .. What should the fleet do to recoup this? The security of the country is not offered, it is provided differently ..
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 17: 53
                        +1
                        Quote: max702
                        The security of the country is not offered, it is provided differently ..

                        it is provided by the ICBM SSBN PVO-S400 VKS and SV, and the aircraft carrier is the fifth wheel in the cart
  • NAVY
    NAVY April 8 2021 09: 54
    0
    Competent, clear and unbiased analysis. Reading is a pleasure. Thanks!
  • exo
    exo April 8 2021 10: 48
    0
    Good and reasoned enough answer. Thank you!
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets April 8 2021 13: 19
    -2
    In connection with the unfolding discussion on the prospect of building next-generation aircraft carriers, it should be stated that today's Russia is not ready to solve this problem in its entirety.
    In this regard, it is necessary to carry out research work on the development of requirements for this type of weapon, taking into account all components (purpose, design, construction and maintenance, weapons, crew training, basing, etc.)
    One of the important tasks, among other things, is the training of crews and the development of actions in sailing conditions. In this regard, an urgent requirement is the earliest possible commissioning of a combat training aircraft carrier. There are two options:
    1. Modernization of the aircraft carrier "Admiral of the Fleet Kuznetsov" with its adaptation to training activities.
    2. Laying down of a training aircraft carrier based on a tanker at the Zvezda shipyard.
    After walking the oceans and flying over them, a lot will become clearer.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr April 8 2021 21: 13
      +1
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      In this regard, it is necessary to carry out research work on the development of requirements for this type of weapon, taking into account all components (purpose, design, construction and maintenance, weapons, crew training, basing, etc.)

      Before allocating money for such research, it is necessary, at least at the level of scientific and practical conferences of the Ministry of Defense, to determine the perspective of the aircraft carriers themselves in future wars for Russia. Naturally, in addition to the highest acting chiefs and scientific personnel of the Academy of the General Staff, to involve in such a discussion those who until recently wore epaulettes themselves, as well as those production workers who know the real picture of our shipbuilding capabilities. Otherwise, it will turn out that the military will plan everything so beautifully, and then it will turn out that it is necessary to transfer almost the entire shipbuilding industry for the construction of aircraft carriers.
      In general, as I see it, the time has not yet come when the country's top leadership realizes the usefulness of building aircraft carriers for the defense of Russia. And I guess that time will never come.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 22: 38
        -1
        Quote: ccsr
        the military will plan everything so beautifully, and then it turns out that it is necessary to transfer almost the entire shipbuilding industry to the construction of aircraft carriers.

        such a situation was, grief admirals Haller Kuznetsov Alafuzov Stepanov came to Stalin and planned dozens of outdated battleships, and hundreds of cruisers ... Stalin understood the danger of fools in power and put all four and rightfully, a little later his innocence became obvious stupid admirals destroyed the fleet so that Italian divers poured the battleship Novorossiysk, it was a shame of the fleet comparable to the terrorist attacks on the Battleship Petropavlovsk, Empress Maria, and Tsushima, in all cases the admirals are to blame, who did not establish the proper order, but squandered money for a fleet of huge clumsy monsters