Military Review

Naval dramas: about politics, war and expediency

379

“Now that the Russian Federation has inherited a significantly smaller and much less active naval force, the US Navy again has no serious rival at sea - American aircraft carriers are protected from any enemy attack, but not from domestic critics who point out the enormous cost of aircraft on aircraft carriers in the opposite of their land-based counterparts. Once again, the US Navy responded by removing defensive aircraft from aircraft carriers, replacing them with fighter-bombers; again he emphasizes his ability to attack ground targets from the open sea ... "


- Edward Nicolae Luttwack. "Strategy. The logic of war and peace ”.

Military construction is an extremely complex area of ​​intellectual activity. Alas, it just so happened that she does not forgive mistakes, emotions, fantasies and enthusiastic amateurism.

Otherwise, citizens pay severely for them - first with income, way and standard of living, and then with their own blood.

The pages of the "Military Review" are again shaken by discussions about the advisability of the presence of aircraft-carrying ships in the fleet Russia. This topic is undoubtedly hackneyed, but still not losing its relevance in the community - carriers of deck aviation are seen by many as an object of a coveted fetish, but for others they act only as floating targets.

Alas, both are wrong.

This material will be devoted to the answer to the article by A. Timokhin "A few questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers", which, in turn, became the answer to "Inconvenient Questions for Supporters of the Aircraft Carrier Lobby".

To be honest, it is somewhat difficult to take seriously the arguments of a person who did not bother to clarify the name of the opponent (what then can be said about the quality of his factology?), But still I will consider the material of the respected A. Timokhin - though not on his terms.

Unfortunately for the aircraft carrier lobbyists, any weapon designed and built under immediate needs state - first of all, we are talking about its foreign policy and, accordingly, political ambitions.

Certainly, история has examples of "cults" of certain types of weapons - at one time the world experienced a "battleship boom", and after the end of World War II, aircraft carriers became one of the symbols of state prestige. However, this class of ships is too complicated even in operation (not to mention construction), and therefore, over the next decades, the "aircraft carrier club" has significantly thinned out - in it, for the most part, there are only those countries for which carrier-based aircraft became an object of military necessity, it is closely related to foreign policy.

Dear supporters of the aircraft carrier lobby, unfortunately, have not yet understood this fact - they continue to use this class of warships as an object of technological fetish, adjusting it to their own inappropriate fantasies. One of the striking examples of this are many articles by Alexander Timokhin, who regularly tries to promote the interests of the fleet (or, perhaps, those interested in increasing its funding of persons) in accordance with his fantastic scenarios, in spirit more suitable for the definition of magical realism.

"Magic realism (mystical realism) is an artistic method in which magical (mystical) elements are included in a realistic picture of the world."

A. Timokhin very often appeals to the combat value of aircraft carriers, constantly trying to sum up the need for their construction within the framework of tasks that have no real justification. Avoiding serious questions regarding the real state of affairs in Russian politics, he charms the gullible public with stories of incredible naval battles in the Red Sea or off the coast of Africa.

Why try to argue with populism and unscientific fiction? Let's try to look at the root - in the very expediency of the connection between the military necessity of an aircraft carrier and our political capabilities and ambitions!

So, let's start, starting from the materials of the respected A. Timokhin.

I would like to start with the fact that in one of the moments Alexander is really right - our state, civil and political thinking really froze somewhere at the level of bygone eras. Perhaps it will not be a mistake to say that we (on a national and global scale) are guided by criteria that are more suitable for the reign of the unforgettable Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev. In such conditions, Comrade Timokhin feels confident - he, enchanted by the power of the United States of the 1980s, thinks in the framework of the late Cold War era.

However, these are still stereotyped fabrications of bygone times, and they have nothing to do with the current state of affairs.

Syria


Alexander very often appeals to the Syrian operation of the RF Armed Forces, pointing out that the aircraft carrier could, if something happened, be our forward airbase in Syria:

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

Perhaps, this cannot be called anything more than a direct insult to the intellectual abilities of the officers of our General Staff.

Alas, it just so happened that such operations are not planned overnight - and the Syrian one was no exception.

Preparations for it began back in 2013 - it was then that monitoring of the situation, intelligence, establishing ties with Iranian forces and working out plans began. A year before the start of the operation, active training of the Aerospace Forces began at the Chelyabinsk Shagol airbase, which lasted until September 2015. Earlier reports of the presence of small groups of Russian special operations forces, as well as our advisers in Syria, date back to 2014.

Even without a detailed analysis of the chronology of events, one can understand that our Armed Forces did not suit any "impromptu" - it was a professional, thought out and calculated action in advance.

Moreover, the initial burden of hostilities fell on our strike aircraft stationed at the Iranian Hamadan airfield, where the Tu-22M3 and Su-34 were based.

Where, dear readers, do you see a place for an aircraft carrier in these events? Or, perhaps, if needed, the leadership of the RF Armed Forces would not have prepared "Kuznetsov" in the 2 years that the operation was planned?

Whether A. Timokhin deliberately distorts the facts and misleads his fans, or sincerely does not understand the complexity of preparing any military action of this magnitude is an open question.

Africa


Considering examples of protecting our investments in other countries, respected A. Timokhin, alas, only demonstrates his complete lack of understanding and incompetence in these matters.

Quite frankly, such issues are closely linked to complex international politics and influence, including soft power. If the solution to all problems was as simple as Alexander wants to present us, even such strong powers as the United States would not suffer from all sorts of nonsense - private military companies, diplomacy, cultural influence, humanitarian missions, establishing ties with the elites ...

Why all this? They drove an aircraft carrier to the shore, landed a regiment of marines and bomb the damned Papuans ahead!

All modern powers with corresponding foreign policy ambitions strive to implement their military presence in other countries with the most compact units and mercenaries. Even the aforementioned America moved away from the practice of introducing large military contingents, in particular, after the battle in Mogadishu. Now the forward presence of AFRICOM (African Command of the US Armed Forces) is represented mainly by special forces of no more than two squads (excluding logistics).

A similar situation is observed with France, Great Britain, Turkey and China: small highly mobile MTR groups with light armored vehicles and UAVs.

Below are maps of the economic and military presence of the PRC on the African continent:



Naval dramas: about politics, war and expediency

As you can see, Chinese investments in Africa are extremely extensive, but Beijing is not eager to send its aircraft carriers there. Why, if all issues of investment protection are solved by economic pressure, technological assistance, diplomacy and military advisers?

The Chinese are not stupid - they know very well that a hammer cannot replace a microscope, and they build their AUG to solve a very specific task - to prevent a naval blockade by the United States and its allies. And for the PRC with their monstrous sea freight traffic, this is a really pressing problem, and not an empty desire to play soldiers.

Russia, despite the inertia of our political system, is doing well in the general trend. Our PMCs and military advisers are excellent at ensuring the presence of the Federation in our areas of interest.

And yes, there is a future behind this strategy.

A. Timokhin's fantastic proposals have no relationship with real foreign policy - by no means, he suggests that we take a step back, moreover, dragging the country into an arms race and lowering the threshold for entering military conflicts.

Here, however, it would be appropriate to digress and talk about another country that once had a powerful navy and an imperial past - about Great Britain, which is much closer to us in its historical path than it might seem.

After the total reductions of the armed forces in the 60s, Britain was completely out of work - political defeat during the Suez crisis, chronic lack of money, falling international reputation, complete absence of military levers of pressure ... does it remind you of anything?


Britain is returning to a permanent military presence in the oceans, but prioritizes its modest strategic nuclear forces, not aircraft carriers. Photo source: news.sky.com

It is worth giving the London politicians their due - they soberly assessed their capabilities and began to carefully and methodically promote their influence by economic methods, and used the legendary British SAS for regularly emerging military tasks, which operated all over the world - from Indonesia to Oman.

As we can see, this strategy turned out to be successful - now, 55 years later, having strengthened its position, Great Britain is once again returning to the club of world powers.

An aircraft carrier is not a substitute for politics and diplomacy.

As, however, and the fleet.

Naval war with the NATO bloc


To be honest, it is extremely dubious pleasure to analyze these fantastic scenarios.

“Politically, it will be very beneficial for the United States to show brutally knocking out the“ Russian support ”from under China. They do not consider us a significant enemy and are much less afraid than North Korea or Iran. "

I think, after reading this remark, you, dear readers, will understand my dislike.

Alas, in his desperate desire to prove the value of the fleet, Alexander descends to some absolutely incredibly ridiculous arguments. Sorry, but someone really thinks that the staff of military analysts and strategic planners at the Pentagon are quite often mentally disabled people who will be guided in their chosen concepts not by the size of the nuclear arsenal of a hypothetical adversary, but by ... emotions?

On this, perhaps, one could put an end to the discussion, but we will continue anyway.

A. Timokhin deliberately misleads the readers of the Voenny Obozreniye by trying to set the Navy with such tasks as a hypothetical prevention of a nuclear strike.

In general, this logic is absurd in itself for a number of reasons:

1. Warheads of reduced power W76-2 (to which Alexander appeals so much) were not designed for "high-precision" strikes, but primarily because of the problems associated with the renewal of the American nuclear arsenal and its political status. You can read more about this in the article. "Rotten US nuclear shield".

2. The Russian nuclear arsenal has full numerical parity with the American one, but has more advanced types of delivery vehicles. There is no real guarantee that the first disarming strike can work.

3. In the highest military and political circles of the United States, there is no consensus even about whether it is worth developing a nuclear arsenal and whether it is worth abandoning it altogether. In such conditions, to talk about the fact that the Americans will decide to go crazy and, for the edification of China (!!!), inflict an atomic strike on Russia, which has the world's first arsenal of strategic nuclear forces, is utterly stupid.

4. A. Timokhin does not at all understand the realities of relations within the NATO bloc - for some reason he seriously believes that in the event of a direct military threat, the countries of the alliance will be divided by contradictions. Well, as a simple and understandable argument, I will give the following example: in connection with the inspections and exercises of the Strategic Missile Forces, which the West saw as a gesture of threat related to the events in Ukraine, the United States made "electronic launches" of ICBMs at the Minot base, and France on the same day held the exercise "Poker" with the full use of the nuclear triad. Add to this the new British defense strategy, in which the United States is named as a key military partner of London, and the picture becomes quite clear.

The prevention of a nuclear strike is ensured by our strategic nuclear forces, and by no means hypothetical aircraft carriers.

By the way, now we don't have them (and even if we start building them tomorrow, there won't be at least 15-20 years) - why are American nuclear warheads still not falling on our heads? ..


This is what the current US military presence in Africa looks like. No regiments of marines or aircraft carriers. Photo source: africom.mil

There are no dreamers or fools in the NATO bloc - there are a lot of military professionals and analysts who are successfully waging a war with us on our own territory. While comrade Timokhin proposes to build aircraft carriers in order to defend overseas distances that do not yet belong to us, we lose in every battle in its own zone of influence.

We have lost the Baltics, Georgia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan. They gave away Central and Central Asia, which are divided among themselves by the Chinese, Koreans and Turks. We are losing Armenia and Syria right now. And all this happens only because our state thinking is stuck in the era tank armies and battles of squadrons of missile cruisers.

The enemy has been operating in our underbelly for a long time - and even 15 aircraft carrier strike groups will not save us from losing influence in Tajikistan.

Military construction is based on real tasks и real funds - and not on dreams of a new Jutland and landings in Africa in the spirit of "Omaha Beach".

About technical difficulties


Most of the problems of building aircraft carriers in Russia were discussed in the article "Inconvenient Questions for Supporters of the Aircraft Carrier Lobby".

Unfortunately, dear opponents - both Alexander Timokhin and Andrey from Ch. - did not bother to answer the technical difficulties indicated there, limiting themselves, in essence, to replies in the spirit of patriotic chants.


By the time the aircraft carrier is built, we will probably need to develop a new carrier-based aircraft - who knows if the Su-2037 will be relevant in 57 ... Photo source: US Navy

Let's briefly consider the problem areas of this discussion:

1. Unfortunately, opponents stubbornly avoid the question of the duration of all worksincluded in the construction of the aircraft carrier fleet. Here “magic realism” is turned on - the FSB forced all contractors and military officials to work on an emergency basis, here we have an incredible groundwork for carriers of carrier-based aircraft from somewhere, here are engineering personnel (by the way, the training of engineers serving ship reactors takes 7 years), here are thousands of skilled workers (with whom we still have a deficit today - and we will have even more in 10 years, given the low demographic indicators and the "brain drain") ... One way or another, the reality is that our defense industry has been repairing "Admiral Nakhimov", and on April 1999, 6 it was announced that the commissioning of the TARK was postponed again. And this, for a minute, is not even a building from scratch ...

2. Appeal to the example of the restructuring of the Vikramaditya. In this case, we are dealing with a partial restructuring of a Soviet aircraft-carrying cruiser, which disrupted the construction time of three nuclear submarines for our fleet and drove Sevmash into losses. Yes, the ship was prepared in a short time, but USC was forced to look for specialists throughout the country and even beyond its borders. It is not difficult to assume that building an aircraft carrier from scratch will become a project that will take away much more resources from the country and will almost certainly affect the provision of real defense capabilities.

3. Avoiding the R&D problem. You can talk as much as you like about experimental Soviet catapults and the ease of adaptation of icebreaking nuclear reactors, but this only emphasizes the lack of understanding by opponents of the entire technical complexity of various aspects of shipbuilding. The battleship is not a Lego constructor. It is impossible to take and easily adapt the old technical documentation (if, of course, we really do have it), developed, for example, for AV "Ulyanovsk" into a promising project. For example, the KN-3 reactor plant for the Kirov missile cruiser was made on the basis of the well-run icebreaker OK-900 - however, work on the KN-3, nevertheless, took as much as 7 years. And this is just one particular example!

4. Underestimation of the complexity of modernization of shipbuilding facilities. As an alternative, voluntaristic solutions are constantly offered - such, for example, as the construction of AB at the Baltic plant or in the 55th workshop of Sevmash. We remind you that the first is engaged in the construction of icebreakers (which are vital for our only strategically important sea artery - the NSR), and the second - SSBNs (which have been providing the country's defense capability for more than a decade). However, even if the country's leadership falls into madness, starting to build aircraft carriers instead of priority projects, one cannot do without billions of dollars in investments in the shipyard - at the same Sevmash at least a deepening of the basin and an expansion of the bathoport are required. Remind me how many years we have been tormenting the dry dock for Kuznetsov?

5. Avoiding issues of timing and cost of developing advanced weapons. Even in the case of the most optimistic scenario, it can be assumed that our first aircraft carrier will be laid down sometime in 2030 (taking into account the completion of all current defense programs). Its construction will take at least 7-10 years. By that time, the MiG-29K will become an exhibit for aviation museums, and what else, even the Su-57 will not be considered a new machine (after some 15-20 years!). You can deny reality as much as you like, but the development of new aircraft will be simply necessary, and this is a new investment. As a reminder, the cost of the Gerald R. Ford air wing exceeds the cost of the ship itself ...

6. Basing issues. This factor is ignored entirely. Given the above pace of work on the shipbuilding infrastructure, even the modernization of the existing naval base may be delayed indefinitely.

Conclusion


Any discussions about the Russian aircraft carrier fleet do not carry at least some expediency - the foreign policy of the Federation is infinitely far from the concept of a permanent military presence in the World Ocean, and our urgent needs lie in the countries located on our borders.

Unfortunately, most Russians to this day believe that weapons are the essence of a substitute for politics. Perhaps this is true only in relation to the nuclear arsenal - it is really capable of providing a serious factor of influence even for technologically backward rogue countries (such as the DPRK).

Should we consider hypothetical clashes at all when coming up with hypothetical targets for hypothetical weapons?


Libyan cadets flying the Turkish flag. Yes, this is what real political influence looks like - alas, in Africa and even without aircraft carriers. Photo source: arabnews.com

The construction of an aircraft carrier itself should not become an end in itself for the country - it is by no means a universal and extremely expensive tool. Take Libya, for example, where the interests of Paris and Ankara clashed: France has an aircraft carrier, but has it given it a political advantage over Turkey?

By no means.

Ankara seized the initiative, strengthening ties with an internationally recognized government, introduced its PMCs, MTRs and deployed UAV squadrons into the country. Egypt, which initially opposed Turkey, has now become its ally (for example, it recognizes the Turkish version of the demarcation of the maritime boundaries, not the Greek one). Now the Libyan army is undergoing training under the guidance of military advisers from Ankara, and Libyan oil is sent to Turkey, which provides the ruined country with investments and goods.

This is real politics.
This is a real strategy.
This is a real impact.


And for that not required aircraft carriers.
Author:
Photos used:
news.sky.com US Navy ravision2030.com arabnews.com africom.mil
379 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 April 13 2021 05: 53
    +27
    I agree with the author, China relies on economic power and spreads influence by providing aid and investing, Turkey uses religion to a greater extent, and we are Russian capitalism, in which we have 20 million below the poverty line, we have problems with the economy and we have no ideology, if not consider the cult of enrichment by any means.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter April 13 2021 07: 13
      +1
      Quote: Pessimist22
      and we are Russian capitalism, in which we have 20 million below the poverty line, we have problems with the economy and there is no ideology, except for the cult of enrichment by any means.

      That's it. It seems that the whole dispute revolves around the Russian Federation of the present and the Russia of the future. Present-day Russia does not need an aircraft carrier fleet, because aircraft carriers cannot contribute in any way to the export of money and raw materials abroad, besides, given the degree of bribery and embezzlement, we can confidently say that Now to build an aircraft carrier is like casting it out of pure gold. But when this era ends, and sooner or later it ends, the development concepts of the state will change accordingly, and it is likely that the new Russia will simply need an aircraft carrier fleet.
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx April 13 2021 08: 30
        +10
        Quote: Stroporez
        , because the export of money and raw materials abroad, aircraft carriers cannot contribute in any way,

        What are the claims to the export of raw materials abroad? Do you offer to store all oil and gas at your place?
        Quote: Stroporez
        But when this era ends, and sooner or later it will end, the concept of the state's development will change accordingly, and it is likely that that new Russia will simply need an aircraft-carrying fleet.

        Dear Author says that even today Russia is practically devoid of personnel for the construction of such ships. But, as follows from the article, still not to the end.
        Do you really think that "when this era is over" specialists of this level will simply materialize out of thin air? And then - when will "this era" end? All discussions agree that even start designing AB now, it will appear no earlier than 20 years later) Maybe "that very epoch" will already come? drinks Personally, I would like to believe it ...
        1. Soldatov V.
          Soldatov V. April 13 2021 15: 39
          +8
          Here is one of the complaints - Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Kemerovo, and a number of Siberian cities are suffocating from coal-fired CHP plants that burn brown coal. Each city needs at least 6 billion cubic meters of gas per year to improve the environmental situation. And we ask for it not for free, it is even more expensive. what we drive abroad. And what is the price of gasoline, we have between cities and villages from 400 to 1000 kilometers.
          1. max702
            max702 April 13 2021 22: 33
            +4
            And the miners that produce this coal on what will they live on? If the oil and gas industry was put in order, in Rosatom it did not disappear in the coal industry and the collapse of the universal, in the mind it would be for export (there is a particularly coking one) but there is no logistical possibility and everything must be built in huge quantities (less not profitable) so it's not so easy to throw the pipe and go ..
            1. lazy
              lazy April 14 2021 06: 48
              +3
              in the Far East there is probably no such port where there is a railway, so that coal is not loaded for export Vanino, Nakhodka, Posyet and even in the center of Vladivostok opposite the seaport a coal terminal, and the transshipment is carried out in an open way in the vicinity of coal dust.
              1. max702
                max702 April 14 2021 07: 15
                +2
                Even these capacities cannot cope with the demand, therefore I say NO necessary logistics! Everything is outdated and it is necessary to invest in everything and it is necessary because it will pay off and very quickly .. But is AUG more important to us?
            2. Soldatov V.
              Soldatov V. April 14 2021 17: 23
              +4
              This is where order was put in order in the gas and oil sector? What country do you live in? As the owner of the Siberian coal mines and thermal power plants in Monaco?
              1. max702
                max702 April 14 2021 17: 33
                0
                Compared to coal, order ...
        2. Oleg ratay
          Oleg ratay April 18 2021 17: 51
          0
          Yes, not to store oil and gas, but to process, with which we have big problems.
      2. Basarev
        Basarev April 13 2021 10: 29
        +5
        Quote: Stroporez
        But when this era ends, and sooner or later it will end

        Will it end? It may well be that Russia will end. And this is a really serious problem.
      3. yehat2
        yehat2 April 14 2021 16: 42
        +2
        Quote: Stroporez
        the new Russia will need an aircraft carrier fleet.

        Our aircraft carrier fleet was built to cover the groupings that were solving the security problems of our submarines and catching the enemy in the scenario of a global conflict.
        Now this does not require large fleets or aircraft carriers to cover them.
        In addition, the future RF will face the same problem of the geographical inconvenience of basing the Avik.
        So I'm not sure that an aircraft carrier similar to the US heavy aircraft carriers will ever appear in our country.
        And here is a floating base for improved maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft (primarily drones), reconnaissance boats, submarines, a network of automatic buoys, etc. may well appear. And this technical solution is much simpler than Avik.
    2. Civil
      Civil April 13 2021 08: 09
      +4
      We have lost the Baltics, Georgia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan. They gave away Central and Central Asia, which are divided among themselves by the Chinese, Koreans and Turks. We are losing Armenia and Syria right now. And all this happens only because our state mentality is stuck in the era of tank armies and battles of squadrons of missile cruisers.

      Syria in the current political and economic realities is infinitely distant. The Armenians blamed Russia for everything. What remains is Ukraine, which also blames Russia for all its troubles.
      1. max702
        max702 April 14 2021 09: 37
        -1
        They did not lose But they got rid of the freeloaders pulling Russia to the bottom of the kettlebell .. That’s why now the car has nowhere to park, the shops are filled up with ALL, many have millions of hobbies, and foreign tourism for 50 billion dollars a year .. We live badly ...
    3. Boris55
      Boris55 April 13 2021 08: 23
      -2
      Quote: Pessimist22
      but no ideology

      We have a variety of ideologies.

      Parties are the bearer of ideology. In the USSR, this was the Marxist ideology, the bearer of which was the CPSU. Today we have many parties with different ideologies, and at the elections we have the opportunity to choose one or another ideology, which was not the case under the USSR.

      Ideologies of the Duma parties:
      EP - human-human exploitation;
      The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is obscene;
      Liberal Democratic Party - Liberal Democratic;
      SR - Social Democratic:
      Homeland - social patriotism.

      All registered parties in the Ministry of Justice do not go beyond the dominant concept. In the fall, we will all have to choose one or another ideology, which will be implemented by the victorious party through the adoption of appropriate laws. The ideology of the winning party is the state ideology. Today, the state ideology is the ideology of the United Russia - the exploitation of man-man. Guess why they don't talk about her openly.

      On this topic.
      Air carriers are the privilege of independent, independent states. Is the current government doing that thread in this direction? Yes, the current government, represented by the president and the clan of security officials, is taking the country out of the clintonoids, but the fifth column does not agree with this ...
      1. ramzay21
        ramzay21 April 17 2021 05: 21
        +5
        Ideologies of the Duma parties:
        EP - human-human exploitation;
        The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is obscene;
        Liberal Democratic Party - Liberal Democratic;
        SR - Social Democratic:
        Homeland - social patriotism.

        Ideologies of the Duma parties:
        EP - support for a small group of people robbing Russia
        Communist Party - support for United Russia for a small share and chatter about communist ideas
        LDPR - United Russia support for financial support of the most expensive artist of our time Zhirinovsky
        SR - EP support for financial support, and incomprehensible conversations about the incomprehensible.
        Motherland - support for the United Russia for supporting the United Russia
    4. antivirus
      antivirus April 19 2021 12: 12
      0
      This is real politics.
      This is a real strategy.
      This is a real impact.

      And it doesn't require aircraft carriers.

      CONTROL OF EURASIA - EVERYTHING ELSE AFTER. at 1-2 thousand km from the borders of the Russian Federation, control of everything is confident, then at least lunar rovers in a number of 1999 pieces.
      not for Timokhin, "the sands of Karakum and Takla-Makan. But" friend China "respects the Caucasus because of the Caucasus and up to Lake Van how to cover?
      A.T. need a tan and beaches overlooking AB
  2. Hwostatij
    Hwostatij April 13 2021 05: 57
    +20
    Guaranteed astronomical costs for construction and operation on the one hand. Non-obvious benefit on the other. That's all there is to know about aircraft carriers.
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 April 13 2021 06: 23
      +10
      .
      Quote: Hwostatij
      Guaranteed astronomical costs for construction and operation on the one hand. Non-obvious benefit on the other.

      Let's briefly consider the problem areas of this discussion:
      There are six points in the article.
      For the followers of "10ABpo100000" I will add one more, namely:
      http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/ru/uAFi5nvux2twaqjftS5yrIZUVTJan77L.pdf
      "Marine doctrine of the Russian Federation". There are 46 pages and on none of them I saw targets for aircraft carriers.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus April 19 2021 12: 13
        +1
        For the followers of "10AVpo100000" I will add more ...

        - did I create a meme?
        1. NDR-791
          NDR-791 April 19 2021 12: 37
          +1
          wassat wassat wassat I don't remember who created it, it appeared about three months ago. But I liked it, I accept it good
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 19 2021 19: 16
      -1
      laughing that's why the USA, England, France, India, China, Japan, Taiwan are the same to build aircraft-carrying ships .. but stupid Russians don't need them ..
      1. Hwostatij
        Hwostatij April 19 2021 20: 15
        0
        In terms of price / benefit ratio, of course, they are not needed.
        stupid Russian

        Where do we care about you, the keeper of the Absolute Truth laughing
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 19 2021 20: 40
          -2
          And what is better in terms of price / benefit ratio - to launch an expensive Caliber rocket or drop a cheap KAB-500? I am not saying that the Aircraft Carrier Ship is a panacea, I am saying that this is one of the tools that allows for more flexible policy and combat operations, and I repeat, we are not talking about the construction of an AK now, in the best cases, the first AK will be received in the second half. 30s ... And by this time, half of the claims against AK will be resolved by itself ..
          1. Hwostatij
            Hwostatij April 19 2021 20: 52
            -1
            I am not saying that the Aircraft Carrier Ship is a panacea, I am saying that it is one of the tools that allows for more flexible policy and warfare.

            Well, name at least one situation in the last 30 years of Russian history in which the use of an aircraft carrier would justify the monstrous costs of its creation / operation.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 19 2021 22: 07
              -1
              laughing And for 30 years ours have set the task of the "power" level? You can of course bring Syria, but there will be a lot of shouts about "few sorties and we have a base." exactly on the basis of when you will NOT have a base, BUT there will be interests .. Or do you think that we cannot move further than 1 km from the border?
              1. Hwostatij
                Hwostatij April 19 2021 22: 39
                -1
                laughing and for 30 years ours have set the task of the "power" level?

                That is, you agree that we have no missions for aircraft carriers. At the same time, you claim that we need the aircraft carriers themselves. Amazing logic.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 April 19 2021 22: 45
                  -1
                  I already wrote ... the aircraft carrier is a tool, and the tasks for it are cut by the GSh ... with the same success we can say that Russia has no missions for frigates ... and what? Will we write off frigates and refuse to bookmark new ones?)
                  1. Hwostatij
                    Hwostatij April 19 2021 22: 54
                    -1
                    How cleverly you dragged the General Staff here. He's just not ordering aircraft carriers. Maybe due to the fact that tasks for them cannot be cut?
                    1. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 19 2021 22: 59
                      -1
                      laughing Well, as if because first you need to shape the look, and then order .. and yes .. How are we frigates, are we going to dispose of?
                      1. Hwostatij
                        Hwostatij April 19 2021 23: 13
                        -1
                        well, as if because first you need to shape the look, and then order

                        And how are you going to shape the image, even if there are no tasks that need to be solved? : laughing
                        In general, can you give a concrete answer to at least one question, without taking the topic aside, without entangling unrelated entities and without slipping into demagoguery?
                      2. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 19 2021 23: 18
                        -1
                        laughing look is "not about tasks", but about what option in terms of price-speed of construction / air wing makes sense to build, and tasks will be cut for any aircraft carrier .. So the answer to when to start cutting frigates will be or will we play a fool?
                      3. Hwostatij
                        Hwostatij April 19 2021 23: 29
                        -1
                        Clear. I received the answer to my question. Good luck hi
                      4. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 19 2021 23: 31
                        -1
                        laughing that's what I'm talking about ... when I screwed up ... put on a smart face and run away ... tongue
                      5. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 19 2021 23: 35
                        -1
                        have a nice one you too hi
  • Dangerous
    Dangerous April 13 2021 06: 12
    +14
    Listen, well, the topic of these aircraft carriers has already begun to eat up. Not tired of seriously discussing what will not happen in the next 10-15 years? Is there nothing more to discuss, or there are no more problems in the military sphere than non-existent ships?
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 April 13 2021 08: 20
      +9
      Quote: Dangerous
      Not tired of seriously discussing what will not happen in the next 10-15 years?

      Yes, you are an optimist, as I can see ...
  • tone
    tone April 13 2021 06: 17
    -20%
    The author immediately rejects a possible war with NATO or the United States. If this is so, then we do not need an aircraft carrier, but then we do not need the Strategic Missile Forces. Give then an article about the rejection of the Strategic Missile Forces!
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 April 13 2021 06: 25
      +10
      Quote: tone
      If this is so, then we do not need an aircraft carrier, but then we do not need the Strategic Missile Forces.

      Try to PROVE this statement !!! Better right here so that everyone understands clearly
      1. dzvero
        dzvero April 13 2021 09: 59
        -2
        smile
        In theory, the Strategic Missile Forces (the ground-based component of the strategic nuclear forces) can be abandoned. But then it is necessary to compensate with long-range bombers and SSBNs. In the first case, you need an extensive network of large aerodromes, air defense, continuous radar field, etc. In the second case, SUDDENLY need a powerful fleet, including aircraft carriers ...
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 13 2021 10: 02
          +7
          In theory, the Strategic Missile Forces (the ground-based component of the strategic nuclear forces) can be abandoned. But then it is necessary to compensate with long-range bombers and SSBNs. In the first case, you need an extensive network of large aerodromes, air defense, continuous radar field, etc. In the second case, SUDDENLY need a powerful fleet, including aircraft carriers ...


          Comrade, why should we give up the most powerful component of our strategic nuclear forces?)
          1. dzvero
            dzvero April 13 2021 10: 07
            +3
            There is no need. I just wondered how it would look like smile And the argument for a pro-aircraft lobby is serious - that there will be 10AV x 100000 tons + 40-50 SSBNs and the missile forces can be abolished ... smile
            1. NDR-791
              NDR-791 April 13 2021 10: 46
              +3
              Quote: dzvero
              In the second case, SUDDENLY needs a powerful fleet, including aircraft carriers ...

              This does not explain the almost imperceptible, but most important letter in the TON post:
              If so, then we do not need an aircraft carrier, but then we И the Strategic Missile Forces are not needed.
              Quote: dzvero
              And the argument for a pro-aircraft lobby is serious - that there will be 10AV x 100000 tons + 40-50 SSBNs and the missile forces can be abolished ...

              If yes ... good So I, too, do not mind to take out shock funds for the flight time of 5 minutes. But, unfortunately, I am a realist. Therefore, in the absence of a countess, we will have a groom request
              1. dzvero
                dzvero April 13 2021 11: 40
                +7
                but then we don't need the Strategic Missile Forces

                I looked. Unclear. PMSM there is no logical connection. 60 years of the USSR / RF Strategic Missile Forces lacked aircraft carriers and suddenly ... I reread my first post - just abandoning the Strategic Missile Forces will require the construction of aircraft carriers and not only. But the opposite does not fit in any way. Although, if you mean "paws up and relax to get at least some pleasure", then it is quite beating ...
              2. Alien From
                Alien From April 13 2021 19: 41
                +1
                Tough, but fair!
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 15: 16
          -2
          Quote: dzvero
          In theory, from the Strategic Missile Forces (ground-based components of the strategic nuclear forces)

          how is it? a member of your sect already wants to abandon the SSBN, but your main goal is clear, you let it slip, you got caught, you were caught red-handed ... do you (the aircraft carrier's supporters) want to abandon both the SSBN and the Strategic Missile Forces? and from the 160 that Timokhin unfairly sprinkles with mud ..... Yurgens hired you? or the US CIA? ...
          1. dzvero
            dzvero April 13 2021 15: 29
            +1
            did Jurgens hire you? or the US CIA? ...

            Read the entire list, please smile
            Would have bothered to read below on the branch, would have understood what I was writing about ...
          2. Victor Leningradets
            Victor Leningradets April 13 2021 15: 34
            +5
            Vladimir, you seem to have always been quite restrained, but here the "sect" ... "throws mud" ...
            In the fact that to abandon some component of the triad, there is no treason, no MISTAKE (according to Tyleran). If one of the components is hopelessly outdated and extremely vulnerable, and the state does not have the funds to bring it up to the required parameters, then - be it!
            By the way, the notorious Great Britain refused to deploy ground-based ICBMs immediately, and later from strategic aviation, but SSBNs (SSBNs) support.
            Placing an ICBM on its own territory is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is cheaper and full control, on the other hand, there is a bunch of support equipment and a threat to its own territory. RKPSN - the most costly weapons and security is not cheap, but it can operate outside the territory of the metropolis. Strategic aviation is the most flexible type of weapon in terms of the choice of target and methods of use, however, due to its high vulnerability, the future of this weapon is uncertain.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 15: 38
              +1
              Quote: Victor Leningradets
              If one of the components is hopelessly outdated and extremely vulnerable, and the state does not have the funds to bring it to the required parameters, then - be it!

              So let's abandon the aircraft carrier, and the RVSN is a reliable, inexpensive and necessary component, along with the SSBN and TU160
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 19 2021 19: 17
                -1
                laughing so the submarines and the 160s are "morally outdated and expensive" ...
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 19 2021 21: 58
                  0
                  Tu160M2 and Borey Ash are modern weapons at a level higher than the world level, created according to the latest science and technology
                  1. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 April 19 2021 22: 09
                    -2
                    laughing but I have come across the opinion that the Tu-160 is dull and outdated trash .. And we do not need Boreas .. we have mines with missiles ... So let's write off planes and boats .. * sarcasm * .. And if seriously, then following the logic about "outdated and vulnerable and no means", well, ok .. then Russia had to give up: tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, aviation, navy and army in general .. because in fact we only had enough funds to update the Strategic Missile Forces. ..Does it turn out that we are writing off? Or is it already different?)
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 April 20 2021 06: 41
                      +1
                      Quote: Barberry25
                      I met an opinion

                      I will honestly say someone else's opinion, an opinion that is not supported by logic by practice or by facts does not interest me, few people think, or speak, if he does not try to think objectively, he heard the ringing without knowing where he is, repeats every phrase like an ass ... the majority grinds nonsense, without understanding the issue ... here you first figure it out, try to evaluate this or that postulate, then give a balanced opinion based on reasoning, consideration of all aspects of the problem ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o59XSxaJX3A
                      1. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 20 2021 09: 59
                        -2
                        laughing But Topvar's experts will disagree with you ... Or if unloved aircraft carriers fall under the distribution, then it is possible, and if the favorite 160s, then it is no longer possible?
                      2. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 April 20 2021 17: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        unloved aircraft carriers fall under the distribution, then it is possible, but if the favorite 160s, then it is no longer possible?

                        it is absolutely objective that Russia does not need aircraft carriers, and there is an objective opinion of the majority of real experts that the TU160 is needed, I like the TU 160, although no more than other aircraft, although I like the submarine more ....... there is something beautiful in these contours, in feline stealth, or a frigate that is optimal in size and armament, here it sways on the waves, it will provide PLO, it will defend the fishermen ... and the aircraft carrier is too cumbersome, it is clear that the supporters of aircraft carriers are all mistaken and cannot think logically, and supporters of good weapons of all kinds are all smart, capable of objective thought, and deeply understand the issue .... even the leaders of the aircraft carriers have gone downhill, do not write anymore, although they promised, what facts they can cite? so much the worse for their "facts", aircraft carriers are not needed, this is as clear as a simple scale, and this is not some kind of fact, but the real truth ... tongue
                      3. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 20 2021 17: 22
                        -1
                        laughing so I don’t argue that the carcasses are beautiful birds .. I mean that aircraft carriers as an instrument of influence are useful things, especially when they are built on time .. And about "it is necessary or not" .. it is possible to agree that we do not need anything .. and give very objective arguments .. For a number of problems without aircraft carriers can not be solved by the word at all .. I repeat the question in terms - it makes sense to order aircraft carriers in the 30s in the version of light escort and you need to build at a new shipyard.
                      4. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 April 20 2021 17: 32
                        +1
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        aircraft carriers as a tool of influence

                        Explain what is an instrument of influence, on whom and how, why influence, when to influence, where to influence, and for how long? tongue
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        especially when built on time

                        well this is fantastic aircraft carriers are never built on time
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        because we can agree that we have nothing
                        so it became clear that the supporters of aircraft carriers do not think objectively, but like the inhabitants of the couch talkers, have an opinion (random emotional) and try to agree, the truth is not determined by contracts, it is objective
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        to punish in the 30s in the lung version
                        why? you did not explain, there are no arguments, so the idea is empty tongue
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        needed at the new shipyard.

                        that is, to do the shipyard first? ... will you give me money? tongue
                      5. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 20 2021 17: 38
                        -1
                        where it will not be possible to use other forces and means) If we decide to work in Africa, then we need to be ready to have airfields there, but you cannot put them everywhere, so it is desirable to have a floating airfield ..

                        This is not a fantasy, but a well-functioning process .. If you build first ranks at the capacities that are now, then yes, no deadlines will ever be met, a new shipyard is needed that can simultaneously build 4 first ranks + you need to build 2 factories for ship installations .. Expand production frigates / destroyers and UDKs and subsequently lay down aircraft carriers ..

                        About "they don't think objectively" ... Do you have anything besides this phrase? Or the classic: the road is difficult and we stupid will never master an aircraft carrier ...

                        Are you going to develop the fleet at the current capacities? Which can barely manage the production of 1 frigate and 3 corvettes per year? And then with interruptions in the production of frigates for 1-2 years? Or are we going to the mosquito fleet completely and will fight on 800-ton Karakurt? and will we send them on long trips too?
                      6. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 April 20 2021 18: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        If we decide to work in Africa

                        concentrate, you have not answered the questions why why, but you have already decided to go to africa! ... why do you need africa? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLe7i_jK41g
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        we are never stupid

                        why do you think you are stupid?
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        and will we send them on long trips too?

                        What for?
                      7. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 20 2021 18: 37
                        -1
                        laughing but then ... grandmas ... Or do you want to build a rich state without creating sales markets for our goods? Or do you believe that Europe dreams of buying our buses, trains and other equipment? protect..
                      8. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 April 21 2021 00: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        but then ... grandmas ... Or do you want to build a rich state without creating sales markets for our goods? Or do you believe that Europe dreams of buying our buses, trains and other equipment? protect..

                        what does the aircraft carrier have to do with it? investments and making a profit are the opposite in general ... an aircraft carrier is not able to protect investments, while investments in the Russian Federation themselves cannot be achieved, .... what is Africa, no one wants to invest, and we are stupider than others. ?
                      9. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 21 2021 00: 39
                        -1
                        laughing tell the Chinese about "they don't want to invest" .. in general, as you are in the "topic" I already noticed) .. You don't need an aircraft carrier .. well, because you don't like it .. hi
                      10. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 April 21 2021 07: 29
                        -1
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        tell the Chinese about "do not want to invest"

                        the level of taxes in China is scanty and everyone invests there, even Russians do not invest in Russia with its 116 percent of taxes
                      11. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 21 2021 09: 54
                        -1
                        laughing I will repeat in detail .. China is investing in Africa ... is it clearer?
                      12. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 April 21 2021 17: 10
                        -1
                        Chinese companies invest in Africa because they themselves are developed and pumped up with investments, have large-scale production and need resources and sales markets, and business is fleeing from the Russian Federation
                      13. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 21 2021 18: 20
                        -1
                        laughing uuu ... The Russia-Africa Forum passed you by ... well, I'll go too ... it's not cured
      2. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 20 2021 17: 40
        -1
        or will we be torn between "build for ourselves and build for an export contract"?
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty April 13 2021 06: 23
    +10
    There are so many articles about the need-unnecessaryness of an aircraft carrier in Russia that it’s already like a routine, to argue on this topic! I suggest that the site administration hold an open and fair vote on this issue, the option of question -1 does not need an aircraft carrier for the country, basta! !! 2-aircraft carrier to the country, we still need it, basta! !! The results of voting from the site should be sent to the Ministry of Defense of the country so that they act according to the will of the people - the decision of the members of the forum! As we vote, so be it! !! wassat
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 April 13 2021 06: 52
      -1
      In our country, voting does not decide anything.
  • Per se.
    Per se. April 13 2021 06: 24
    +6
    An aircraft carrier is not a substitute for politics and diplomacy.
    The aircraft carrier strengthens the fleet, being the carrier of aviation, the destroyer strengthens the fleet, being the carrier of torpedo and missile weapons, these are types of weapons carriers at sea, like all types of warships, for their tasks in the fleet.
    Neither the navy nor the army is a substitute for politics and diplomacy, but without them politicians and diplomats are like conductors without a baton and an orchestra.

    Unfortunately, the article is just another demagogy, what we need less, "second lung" or "second kidney", with the same persistence one can prove that anything is unnecessary, since everything is bought and sold. But, only, Russia is not in the NATO club, it is not "protected" by big capital Switzerland or the Vatican, and, like in China, colossal money of the world's tycoons is not welded on counterfeit goods.

    This material will be devoted to the answer to A. Timokhin's article "A few questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers", which, in turn, was the answer to "Inconvenient questions for the supporters of the aircraft carrier lobby."


    And the first one shouted: Wherever we want, we go there
    And we can, if necessary, roll up.
    The second answered that the train would pass
    Only where the path is paved.

    And both came down somewhere near Taganrog
    Among the endless fields.
    And each went his own way
    And the train went on its own.
    1. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri April 13 2021 07: 06
      +12
      My God .... again ... It remains only to wait for Kaptsov's return, so that he speaks out on this issue. However, his position is already known ...

      Alexander very often appeals to the Syrian operation of the RF Armed Forces, pointing out that the aircraft carrier could, if it happened, be our forward airbase in Syria ... Where, dear readers, do you see a place for an aircraft carrier in these events?

      Of course, I have never been Timokhin, but since the readers are asking questions, I will answer. The role of the aircraft carrier in the Syrian campaign is to shield the forces based in Tartus and Khmeimim from the arrogant ambitions of the Turkish padishah. Or has respected A. Voskresensky already forgotten about the downed SU-24 of Lieutenant Colonel Oleg Peshkov?

      Of course, the presence of an aircraft carrier is not a guarantee that such provocations are impossible in principle, but the fact that before deciding on such a "dear partner" will think three times is a fact. Actually Kuznetsov was driven to Mediterranean just after the events. Let us again imagine a situation when the confrontation with the Turks has reached a "hot phase" (which is hypothetically possible even today). Question: over what period of time will the Turkish aviation multiply by zero our grouping based in the SAR? I suppose that quickly, especially considering that at the time of the incident with the SU-24, there was no cover for bases with S-300 complexes (and the latter's capabilities should not be exaggerated: one volley at most is all that can be counted on, because it is easy to reload again will not allow). And although, as I said above, the presence of an aircraft carrier also does not guarantee 100% protection, nevertheless, the presence of at least 30 strike fighters can greatly help our ground forces in the defense process. Well, or it will allow us to sell the lives of our fighters at a higher price - then how lucky.

      Of course, there can be no question that the aircraft carrier would completely replace ground airfields. Once upon a time, already mentioned by me, Oleg Kaptsov published an article where he compared the sorties of military aircraft made by the Americans during the "Storm in a Glass" (or perhaps the Iraqi campaign, I don’t remember for sure) from aircraft carriers and from ground airfields located on territories of Qatar and Kuwait. So, the ratio was 20% to 80%. On the one hand, it is clear that the main load is still borne by ground bases, but on the other hand, it is also not necessary to say unequivocally that the presence of aircraft carriers in the combat zone is due to purely aesthetic considerations. Thus, the existence of a naval mobile platform suitable for the deployment of aviation, as they say today, allows diversifying the available military resources, reducing the risk of their simultaneous destruction. As you can see, the principle as old as the world: do not put all your eggs in one basket also works here.

      As for Africa and other parts of the world forgotten by God, I have already spoken about this in one of the previous materials of this holivar
      investing, in my opinion, is still better in their own land and people than to irrigate the savannahs of Zimbabwe and Angola with Russian blood, and to drive aircraft carriers back and forth. It is clear that you cannot get quick dividends from such investments, but the risks of losing your investment are much lower.


      In general, all the problems of a strategic, tactical, geopolitical and economic nature outlined by the author do indeed exist. And many of them are prioritized. Thus, the construction of an aircraft carrier is a matter of at least a distant future (especially considering the current nature of the organizational-executive vertical, which is not able to adequately manage the available monetary, material and human resources), but this does not mean at all that we do not need a class of aircraft carriers. Here I am more impressed by the approach of Andrey from Chelyabinsk, which shows that already now we can, without any special expenses, start preparing a program for the construction of such ships (up to the formation of hulls) and even complete it within a relatively reasonable time frame of 10-12 years, but for this, first of all, it is necessary to reconsider the methods of economic management in the country as a whole, which the current political elite is clearly not capable of.
      1. Anzhey V.
        April 13 2021 07: 30
        +6
        Of course, I have never been Timokhin, but since the readers are asking questions, I will answer. The role of the aircraft carrier in the Syrian campaign is to protect the forces based in Tartus and Khmeimim from the arrogant ambitions of the Turkish padishah. Or has respected A. Voskresensky already forgotten about the downed SU-24 of Lieutenant Colonel Oleg Peshkov?


        Comrade Dante, this incident occurred at a stage when our troops in Syria began to "relax" - and send attack aircraft without fighter cover.

        In the initial stages, when the risks were really high, Khmeimim provided fighter cover, and the strikers came from Hamadan.

        Again, the operation was planned for at least two years. If there was a real need for Kuznetsov, it would be prepared for the campaign.
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri April 13 2021 08: 25
          +4
          Dear Andrey, do not be offended, but I still see in your words a slight logical contradiction. You are talking about a lengthy preparation, while you note that the use of our only aircraft carrier was not planned. Nevertheless, Admiral Kuznetsov was still driven to the shores of Syria, and they did it at a rush pace. Only the unsatisfactory technical condition of the ship, which had to be prepared for almost a year, did not allow him to immediately go on a voyage. This "expedition", memorable for all, was conditioned by the complicated international situation, and therefore, even in its current state, the aircraft carrier is considered by the military department pro minimum as a significant military factor. What else do you need from him?
          drummers went from Hamadan

          As far as I remember, Hamadan began to be used only in 2016, after the events discussed. Although I do not exclude that it could have been used as a jump airfield for aircraft that took off from Mazdok. In addition, if memory serves, in the initial period, all the airfield facilities available to us were actively exploited, without gradation on the followers and escorts. The same downed SU-24M was based in Khmeimim, along with the SU-34 and SU-25, not to mention the Mi-24 attack helicopters. And all this was covered by only 4 SU-30SM, which only in December 2015, after the death of Lieutenant Colonel Peshkov, were supplemented by the SU-35S.
          1. Anzhey V.
            April 13 2021 08: 41
            +6
            Dear Andrey, do not be offended, but I still see in your words a slight logical contradiction. You are talking about lengthy preparation, while you note that the use of our only aircraft carrier was not planned. Nevertheless, Admiral Kuznetsov was still driven to the shores of Syria, and they did it at an urgent pace.


            No way, Dante)

            In fact, you are right, you can catch a contradiction in this - but if you do not take into account the fact that in 2016 Russia was reigned with euphoria from the success of the campaign.

            “Kuznetsov” was driven to Syria for this very purpose - the purpose of PR, there were no real combat missions for him at that moment.

            Regarding Hamadan:

            The aerodrome is used by the Russian Aerospace Forces to strengthen the aviation group of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria with the beginning of the Russian military operation in Syria (from November 23, 2015)... Long-range Tu-22M3 bombers and Su-34 front-line bombers are periodically based at the airfield. On August 20, 2016, Iran gave permission to Russia to use the Hamadan airbase indefinitely for air strikes on ISIS positions.
            1. Dante Alighieri
              Dante Alighieri April 13 2021 10: 10
              +2
              “Kuznetsov” was driven to Syria for this very purpose - the purpose of PR, there were no real combat missions for him at that moment.

              There is a very fine line here, in fact. On the one hand, the degree of confrontation with Erdogan really decreased at that time, but the sediment remained. Actually, this is precisely why no one gave the opposite in preparing the ship for sailing, especially since in parallel our group was saturated with modern weapons, that is, a full-fledged work was carried out to "work on mistakes." According to the idea, the Kuznetsov raid was to become the apotheosis of this process, demonstrating the logistics power of the Russian Federation to external and internal recipients. But, as usual, everything went a little wrong. Nevertheless, I repeat, the task of creating an externally presentable picture does not in any way negate the fact that the ship began to be prepared for the campaign precisely based on the results of the clash that took place and was prepared precisely as a combat unit, with full gear and all available range of weapons.

              In fact, the entire Syrian campaign can be viewed as a specific informational PR operation to switch the attention of ordinary people from the Ukrainian agenda (where the Russian authorities are not authorized to decide anything) to the fight against international terrorism (where, as it seemed, there is an opportunity to deploy to the full extent of our entire "strategic genius ", but in the end it turned out that the interests of too many parties intersect there too). True, this has absolutely nothing to do with the aircraft carrier theme. hi
              1. Scharnhorst
                Scharnhorst April 13 2021 16: 54
                +3
                I would like to add a small nuance. The imperfection and vulnerability of the air defense of Khmeimim and Tartus on a global scale was obvious. And therefore, to prevent the occupation of the eastern Mediterranean by platforms for potential air strikes (aircraft carrier; SSGN), other players arrived there both the Moskva and Kuznetsov TAVKR. The factor of pressure on Israel was also present. And the capabilities of the Air Force of this country are not much inferior to the Turkish ones. And then the weakness of the influence of the fleet on the confrontation in the air in a rather limited theater of operations was clearly manifested. The conclusion is obvious - without an aircraft carrier and carrier-based aircraft, the fleet is not able to provide support even to the existing coastal air base, all the more to gain time for its construction by expeditionary forces from scratch.
      2. novel66
        novel66 April 13 2021 08: 09
        +2
        It is also not necessary to say unequivocally that the presence of aircraft carriers in the theater of operations is due to purely aesthetic considerations.

        there, however, and the battleship fired volleys from the main battery ... maybe. it is better to build a battleship, and Kaptsov is absolutely sure
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri April 13 2021 08: 34
          +1
          It seems to this class he attributed pr.1144 with a stretch. Its local booking, of course, is not like a full-fledged armor belt, but against the background of modern tin cans, it is quite a battleship. And the AK-130 is quite a powerful unit.
    2. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 07: 49
      +2
      Neither the navy nor the army is a substitute for politics and diplomacy, but without them politicians and diplomats are like conductors without a baton and an orchestra


      Comrade, we currently have examples of countries that have ten times less military strength than Russia, but at the same time conduct an extremely effective foreign policy.

      So no, it's not mudi who are shaking, but the dancer is bad.

      We, unlike many, have reached the apotheosis of political influence through weapons - we have an extensive and powerful nuclear arsenal.
      1. Semak
        Semak April 13 2021 08: 46
        +1
        Comrade, we currently have examples of countries that have ten times less military strength than Russia, but at the same time conduct an extremely effective foreign policy.


        Which for example?
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 13 2021 08: 51
          -2
          Which for example?


          Great Britain. Turkey. South Korea. About 15 years ago, China would have been included in the list.
          1. Semak
            Semak April 13 2021 09: 08
            +6
            I spilled. Are there examples of countries with effective foreign policy that are outside the wake and outright protectorate of the United States?
          2. Niko
            Niko April 13 2021 14: 37
            0
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Which for example?


            Great Britain. Turkey. South Korea. About 15 years ago, China would have been included in the list.

            And many of these countries don't have an aircraft carrier? laughing
          3. max702
            max702 April 13 2021 22: 45
            0
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Which for example?


            Great Britain. Turkey. South Korea. About 15 years ago, China would have been included in the list.

            Here you are wrong, all of the above, with the exception of China, are subjects of a single capitalist world and their policies are conducted exclusively in agreement with the bourgeois global "regional committee" .. it is a big mistake to divide these countries, but they have some liberties and "independent" decisions, but this the spirit of independence of the states of the United States.
      2. Per se.
        Per se. April 13 2021 08: 52
        +2
        Quote: Anjay V.
        So no, it's not mudi who are shaking, but the dancer is bad.
        The whole question is who the dancer is. The presence of nuclear weapons alone cannot solve all problems. Your "apotheosis of political influence" through one nuclear weapon, at least contradicts the stated conclusions. Britain solved the problem with Argentina over the Falklands precisely thanks to the navy, not diplomatically, and not with nuclear weapons.
        In addition, Britain has never abandoned an aircraft carrier fleet. PMCs alone cannot solve problems, they cannot accomplish tasks. I would understand a person who works for the State Department, works out his pretty penny on the net, is waging an information and ideological war. But, it is difficult to understand someone who seems to care for Russia, for its safety, and, with persistence worthy of better use, breeds something that "cheaply and angrily" should help Russia, in fact embarking on adventures and utopias.
        I hope, no offense, yes, I am not an ally and not a like-minded person to the article, but not an enemy either, this is just my personal opinion, like others in the comments.
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 13 2021 09: 13
          -1
          No hard feelings, comrade)
          We have a correct conversation, so I don't see a single reason - and thanks for the adequacy.

          Not all problems can be solved with nuclear weapons alone


          Of course not. I never meant something like that. But our global military confrontation may well be limited to nuclear deterrence and powerful ground forces (which for us have no alternative).

          Take the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. The Soviet Navy did not take part in it, the United States had absolutely complete carte blanche at sea. But they could not take advantage of it - everyone was well aware that any aggressive actions in the waters of the Caribbean would end in the fact that Soviet tank armies would set in motion in distant, distant Berlin.

          Britain solved the problem with Argentina over the Falklands thanks to the navy, not diplomatically, and not nuclear weapons


          I will not deny, but I will note that it was not without diplomacy - otherwise the French "Exocets" would have gone to Argentina.

          By the way, the central withdrawal from the Falklands for Britain was the strengthening of intelligence, not military capabilities. In the new strategy, they also emphasize this in every second sentence.

          But, it is difficult to understand someone who seems to care for Russia, for its safety, and, with persistence worthy of better use, breeds something that "cheaply and angrily" should help Russia, in fact embarking on adventures and utopias


          The enemy, I repeat, has long been operating in our zone of influence and in our historical territories. And this is a real, not a far-fetched threat to our country, which lies on our border.

          I am against the aircraft carrier primarily because their construction will give politicians a sweet field of oblivion - instead of solving real political problems, we will rely on the "white elephant".

          As you can see from the example of France and Turkey, aircraft carriers do not decide ...
          1. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 13 2021 12: 20
            +1
            = But our global military confrontation may well be limited to nuclear deterrence =
            1. It rigidly depends on the availability of an adequate fleet - see. below.
            2. Can't.
            a) With the habit of grabbing a bomb for any reason, there will be no non-nuclear countries around. The nuclearization of countries just above Bangladesh's development level has long been constrained not by technical difficulties. There will be "but we are for sho"
            b) In the event of a limited nuclear war, the role of the fleet and sea communications increases manifold. Because, first of all, the stationary infrastructure suffers greatly.
            c) Unlimited nuclear war for less than "we have completely lost, the enemy will reach Kamchatka, carving out the population , nobody will start. And everyone knows about it.

            = Soviet tank armies will set in motion in distant, distant Berlin. =
            The USSR had at least a ghostly chance of reaching the English Channel before American troops deployed in Europe. At the same time, Timokhin is engaged in self-burying his own argumentation, broadcasting that the Americans will not get to Europe (apparently, they have an army to threaten Mexico). However, this is unthinkable fiction. IRL, if we at least minimally puzzled the gateway to communications, we can immediately give up.
            1. Anzhey V.
              April 13 2021 13: 16
              +2
              I am not a supporter of “grabbing the bomb” at every spicy situation, Comrade Alarmist.

              But the enemy also cannot ignore the factor of our arsenal.

              The arsenal serves primarily as a political cover, helping to reduce the cost of maintaining conventional weapons for a large-scale war.

              Frankly speaking, at the moment the Americans and other comrades have no need or reason to enter into direct armed confrontation with us. They are implementing a completely different strategy aimed primarily at depleting our state.

              I act as an enemy of aircraft carriers for this very reason - by getting involved in the arms race, we will only successfully play along with their plans.

              if we do not at least minimally puzzle the gateway on communications, we can immediately give up


              I agree with that
              1. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 13 2021 14: 12
                +3
                = I am not a supporter of “grabbing the bomb” at every spicy situation, comrade Alarmist. =
                Then, with a symbolic fleet in the event of any "Falkland" situation (with the same Japan, for example) you will have to either act by persuasion, or use the Yakut special forces. I hope you will go to persuade the Japanese.

                = But the enemy also cannot ignore the factor of our arsenal. =
                The only thing that absolutely guarantees stable the arsenal is that tomorrow they will not drop a bomb on us and, playing the second, they will not ask to calm down those who are dissatisfied with the fact with my own hands... He does not guarantee from everything else.
                In 1944, Herr Hitler had thousands of tons of herd (nerve agents, total production from 10 thousand) and aircraft capable of dropping 850 tons of bombs on London at least once, which was done in reality. Instead of doing it with the gas, he chose to quietly shoot himself.
                About 90 percent of wars are fought not in the astonished "but we are for sho" regime, they are subliminal. It is not accepted to slaughter the enemy population and prisoners among decent people, for example, despite all the possibilities.

                = Frankly speaking, at the moment the Americans and other comrades have no need or reason to enter into direct armed confrontation with us. =

                I can tell you the year when "all reasonable people" were running around with such ideas. 1913th.

                = They are implementing a completely different strategy aimed primarily at depleting our state. =

                Those. sanctions against Hussein were a guarantee of security, not natural prelude to the second Gulf? Strong. Very much.

                = I act as an enemy of aircraft carriers for this very reason - by getting involved in the arms race, we will only successfully play along with their plans =

                Suddenly, the fact that you do not participate in the arms race, it will not stop. You will simply lose it. And then you portray the Mahdists in 1898. They have a machine gun, but you don't.
                1. Anzhey V.
                  April 13 2021 14: 34
                  0
                  Then, with a symbolic fleet in the event of any "Falkland" situation (with the same Japan, for example) you will have to either act by persuasion, or use the Yakut special forces


                  But what if we do not have an aircraft carrier, then automatically there is no army, aviation, and the fleet as a whole?)

                  were the sanctions against Hussein a guarantee of security, not a natural prelude to a second Gulf?


                  I don't think the comparison between us and Iraq in 2003 is correct.
                  1. Alarmist79
                    Alarmist79 April 13 2021 18: 43
                    -1
                    = And what if we do not have an aircraft carrier, then automatically there is no army, =
                    By swimming, the army moves slowly, not far, and even so not all

                    = and aviation =
                    1. Um. Apparently, you think that the front "combat radii" of the "dryers" have something to do with real databases. In theory, they should fly from Mozdok at least over northern Syria, but in reality they fly from Khmeimim.
                    2. The supply of Sakhalin, suddenly ... by the sea.
                    3. DV is large. The distance from the coast of Primorye to the southern Kuriles is about 1000 km.
                    Those. this is a literal tracing paper from Falkland plus a hundred kilometers somewhere. And that means an entertaining picture of fuel-laden fighters with short patrol times.
                    This is for a start,

                    =, and the fleet as a whole?) =
                    1. You have a small coastal fleet and it has sunk.
                    2. If you have a large one, why not an aircraft carrier? To keep the efficiency as low as possible?

                    = I don't think the comparison between us and Iraq in 2003 is correct. =
                    That is, before the strike, the Americans should wish us happiness and prosperity? Instead of cutting budget revenues / defense spending, undercut and provoke an item like this every few hours?
                    I seriously doubt it
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 April 13 2021 12: 27
            +3
            Quote: Anjay V.
            The Soviet Navy did not take part in it

            And why? For what reason did you not accept it?
            Quote: Anjay V.
            I am against the aircraft carrier primarily because their construction will give politicians a sweet field of oblivion - instead of solving real political problems, we will rely on the "white elephant".

            How do you feel about cars ... yes, yes to cars ??
            Quote: Anjay V.
            As you can see from the example of France and Turkey, aircraft carriers do not decide ...

            what And who decides?
            1. Anzhey V.
              April 13 2021 13: 20
              -1
              And why? For what reason did you not accept it?


              I think you want to lead to the fact that because of the weakness of the fleet, right?

              How do you feel about cars ... yes, yes to cars?


              Depends on the purpose of the vehicle. Public services (trucks, buses, etc.) are very good.

              To cars - negatively.

              And who decides?


              Competent analytics, diplomacy, politics, economics and targeted military intervention
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 April 14 2021 10: 03
                +2
                Quote: Anjay V.
                I think you want to lead to the fact that because of the weakness of the fleet, right?

                That's right, there was one comrade whose thoughts were similar to yours. He also thought that knocking his boot on the UN rostrum would solve all problems! He grudgingly swallowed the 62nd year, but in 64th, during a visit to Egypt, his nerves could not stand it and your predecessor ordered to create the 5th OpEsk!
                Quote: Anjay V.
                Public services (trucks, buses, etc.) are very good.

                Those. their construction does not give the people a sweet pill that generates laziness?
                Quote: Anjay V.
                Competent analytics, diplomacy, politics, economics and targeted military intervention

                How you gently bypassed the American influence on the decisions of France, Turkey and Britain that joined them! bully
                1. Anzhey V.
                  April 14 2021 16: 35
                  +2
                  How you gently bypassed American influence on the decisions of France, Turkey and Britain that joined them


                  Since the end of the Cold War, US influence has declined markedly. Moreover, it has never been as directive as you are trying to present it.

                  Those. their construction does not give the people a sweet pill that generates laziness?


                  This is a socially useful type of technology necessary for the purposes of the national economy.

                  That's right, there was one comrade whose thoughts were similar to yours. He also thought that knocking his boot on the UN rostrum would solve all problems! He grudgingly swallowed the 62nd year, but in 64th, during a visit to Egypt, his nerves could not stand it and your predecessor ordered to create the 5th OpEsk


                  Nikita Sergeevich followed the right path, however, the military lobby pushed through its interests - and the lack of independent state analysts and short-sighted policies towards the allies left him no chance to find alternative methods of expanding the Soviet military presence, incl. in the Mediterranean.
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 April 15 2021 09: 36
                    +2
                    Quote: Anjay V.
                    Since the end of the Cold War, US influence has declined markedly.

                    laughing Blessed is he who believes! Brexit disagrees with you!
                    Quote: Anjay V.
                    Nikita Sergeevich went the right way

                    Of course! Who can argue! bully Decentralization of power, the destruction of the economy, the collapse of agriculture, the destruction of the army and navy, this is really the right path to the prosperity of the population of the Soviet Union!
                    Quote: Anjay V.
                    lack of independent government analysts

                    what On whom did the state policy of the USSR depend?
                    Quote: Anjay V.
                    his short-sighted policy towards the allies left him no chance of finding alternative methods of expanding the Soviet military presence, incl. in the Mediterranean.

                    The question is .... what, in your opinion, is the alternative method of expanding the Soviet military presence in the Mediterranean?
                    Well ... the birth of the Soviet military presence in the Mediterranean is due to the activity of NATO ships in relation to the motor ship "Armenia" ... on which Nikita Sergeevich made a visit to Egypt!
                    1. Anzhey V.
                      April 15 2021 10: 20
                      +1
                      Blessed is he who believes! Brexit disagrees with you!


                      And what does Brexit have to do with it, Serge?
                      It is associated with completely different political processes.

                      power, the destruction of the economy, the collapse of agriculture, the destruction of the army and navy, this is really the right path to the prosperity of the population of the Soviet Union!


                      Well, you are demonizing Khrushchev, to put it mildly. However, history speaks for itself - it was under Nikita Sergeevich that the country made a number of achievements, thanks to which the USSR will remain in world history. And why, only he had the courage to truly challenge the United States in many areas and emerge victorious.

                      The question is .... what, in your opinion, is the alternative method of expanding the Soviet military presence in the Mediterranean?


                      It was necessary to pursue a completely different policy towards both the Arabs and Israel. Egypt allowed itself to receive billions of dollars in armaments from the Soviets without allowing Soviet warships to enter its ports.

                      It was necessary to turn the Arabs into full-fledged satellites and organize a permanent presence in Egypt of Soviet long-range and naval missile-carrying aviation, RTR facilities, and submarine bases. It was necessary to take control of the Suez Canal, to enter Iraq.

                      To fight the United States, a wide network of bases was required, a deployed military presence that would constantly scatter their forces, would require new and new investments for a proportionate response, and not the construction of ships that not only did not help, but also drove the Union into a blind defense.
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 April 15 2021 13: 11
                        +2
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        And what does Brexit have to do with it, Serge?
                        It is associated with completely different political processes.

                        what Do you want to tell me now about the evil and terrible migrants? I beg of you!!! Once again I tell you, Britain is America's Trojan horse in the body of Europe! In support of this, I suggest that you analyze the behavior of Britain within the walls of the European Parliament and think about who benefits from Brexit, and who will receive dividends from it!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        And why, only he had the courage to truly challenge the United States in many areas and emerge victorious.

                        Only the Soviet people misunderstood this and responded to these challenges with hunger riots!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        Egypt allowed itself to receive billions of dollars in armaments from the Soviets without allowing Soviet warships to enter its ports.

                        what That is, you have not even heard of the Soviet naval base in Egyptian Alexandria? Anzhej, well, how is that?
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        It was necessary to turn the Arabs into full-fledged satellites

                        You know, the Soviet method of trading with Arabs was not very effective, because Soviet morality did not allow direct bribery of Arab leaders, and the Americans did not interfere with this bribery!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        It was necessary to take control of the Suez Canal.

                        And this, my friend, is no longer diplomacy, but a full-fledged war ... and not an alternative one, but a real one!
                        And you don't have a fleet, because you don't need it!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        To fight the United States, a wide network of bases was required, a deployed military presence that would constantly dissipate their forces, would require new and new investments for a commensurate response

                        what And then ...
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        and not the construction of ships, which not only did not help, but also drove the Union into a dull defense.

                        Nifiga did not understand .... but interesting! We need bases, but no ships! And this is how ?????
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        the construction of ships, which not only did not help, but also drove the Union into a dull defense.

                        belay So these ships are to blame for the death of the USSR?
                        By the way, they didn't help, I suspect that the "economic" activities of the USSR Navy in the vastness of the world's oceans are shrouded in mystery for you ?!
                      2. Anzhey V.
                        April 15 2021 13: 41
                        +1
                        Do you want to tell me now about the evil and terrible migrants?


                        And here are the migrants, comrade?

                        Only the Soviet people misunderstood this and responded to these challenges with hunger riots.


                        It is by no means a fact that they would not have happened without Khrushchev.

                        Soviet morality did not allow direct bribing of Arab leaders


                        Serge, let's not smack nonsense about "Soviet morality", okay? Soviet morality did not interfere with supporting the regimes of African cannibals and pedophiles, supplying terrorist organizations around the world, as well as helping the formation of radical Islamism. So the "high moral values ​​of the builders of communism" have nothing to do with it - which cannot be said about stupidity, shortsightedness, mediocre militarism and lack of political instinct.

                        That is, you have not even heard of the Soviet naval base in Egyptian Alexandria


                        I heard - as well as that she was gone. As well as the fact that Nasser could afford to throw Soviet military specialists out of the country.

                        And this, my friend, is no longer diplomacy, but a full-fledged war ... and not an alternative one, but a real one!
                        And you don't have a fleet, because you don't need it!


                        Why war? We are located on the territory of a union state, we ensure the freedom and safety of international shipping ...

                        For such purposes, it would be possible to have a fleet. However, the Suez Canal can be blocked by a DBK, tactical aviation, mines, and a "mosquito fleet" - there are many means. And yes, we could really control one of the world's largest transport arteries.
                      3. Serg65
                        Serg65 April 15 2021 14: 10
                        +2
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        It is by no means a fact that they would not have happened without Khrushchev.

                        This is already an alternative!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        Soviet morality did not interfere with the support of the regimes of African cannibals and pedophiles

                        What did the Americans say there? He's a scoundrel, of course, but he's our scoundrel! In this case, socialist, and besides, there is such a way of life ... there is a friend!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        supply terrorist organizations around the world,

                        Which ones?
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        to help the formation of radical Islamism.

                        Come on? Ben Laden is our dude ????
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        mediocre militarism and lack of political instinct.

                        Well, my friend, it was a screen for the Soviet people, and behind the screen was painstaking work to destroy the country!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        Why war?

                        And then, that Shell, Exon Mobile and BP just wouldn't give Suez to you, not for that they fought among themselves for Suez throughout the first half of the 20th century to present it on a silver platter as a gift to you!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        we could really control one of the world's largest transport arteries.

                        Could not!!!! They could get on the nerves with the help of SHIPS, but they could completely control it, NO!
                      4. Anzhey V.
                        April 15 2021 14: 56
                        +1
                        Which ones?


                        Yes, even the same "Hezbollah" or "Red Army Faction" from the most popular examples.

                        Come on? Is Ben Laden our dude?


                        No, but the KGB was extremely addicted to anti-Semitism, especially against the backdrop of constant failures and lack of motivation among the Arabs. All sorts of nonsense like the "Protocols of the Zionist Sages" were written and replicated thanks to the Union, and this is a fact. Subsequently, it grew into all sorts of numerous "organizations banned in the Russian Federation."

                        And then, that Shell, Exon Mobile and BP just wouldn't give Suez to you, not for that they fought among themselves for Suez throughout the first half of the 20th century to present it on a silver platter as a gift to you!


                        Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. There were opportunities.

                        But the Soviet leadership, especially after Khrushchev, believed that missile cruisers and thousands of tanks were the very same international policy and far-sighted state strategy. But no, it turned out that saber rattling and the weapon itself are not.
                      5. Serg65
                        Serg65 April 16 2021 10: 37
                        +2
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        Yes, even the same "Hezbollah"

                        what Hezbollah, the brainchild of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was supported, even in spite of the abduction of Soviet diplomats, by the USSR ??? I hope you have confirmation of your words?
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        or "Faction of the Red Army"

                        bully Anzhey, Anzhey ... are you aware that some of the RAF leaders were agents of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany?
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        All sorts of nonsense like the "Protocols of the Zionist Sages" were written and replicated thanks to the Union, and this is a fact.

                        what What is the fact?
                        The fact is that ... the first three editions of the "Protocols" were made in pre-revolutionary Russia.
                        in 1920 they were published in Germany, as well as in Poland, England, France and the USA. In the USA, "Protocols" are published by "stopudov Soviet agent" Henry Ford!
                        We will omit Roschenberg and Goebbels, Hitler ordered them to do this!
                        In 1938, the American priest Charles E. Koglin took up the baton of the Protocols ... who was also Stalin's agent! angry
                        In 1974 they were published in India.
                        1985 in Iran.
                        And only in 1993, "Protocols" were published in Yeltsin's Russia ..
                        The site Encyclopedia of the Holocaust directly says ..
                        the exact origin of the Protocols is unknown

                        Do you have exact data on what exactly the USSR was behind the editions of the "Protocols"?
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.

                        For which he was removed!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        There were opportunities.

                        laughing Again you for the old? By the way, it was not Nasser who removed the Soviet Navy from Egypt! Sadat!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        the Soviet leadership, especially after Khrushchev, believed that missile cruisers and thousands of tanks were the very same international policy and far-sighted state strategy

                        There were only 1991 missile cruisers in service in 8, and there were six really combat-ready ... and do you think that this greatly affected the country's economy?
                        But I agree with the tanks, Ustinov, in collusion with Andropov, riveted them like pies!
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        that saber rattling and the weapon itself are not.

                        Well, that's how to say, my friend!
                        The actions of Soviet destroyers and BODs directly influenced the Soviet Food Program!
                        For a long time Soviet nuclear weapons were the dove of Peace on planet Earth!
  • matross
    matross April 13 2021 13: 00
    +1
    Quote: Anjay V.
    on the example of France and Turkey, aircraft carriers do not decide ...

    On the example of two NATO members who came into conflict on a very particular issue? Yes, they don't.
    Which countries are currently capable of and are pursuing a truly independent policy? That is, they are players, not pieces, pawns and squares? ..
    The only one present the reason why Russia "does not need" aircraft carriers is their cost.
    For the same reason - the economy does not pull out - and with the "soft power" of the problem.
    PS. And it does not pull out because of the bureaucracy. That's what really kills. By the way, it is many times more deadly than corruption. Sorry for the offtopic hi
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 19 2021 19: 18
    0
    wah .. nicely slush said hi
  • Angry Alt-Right
    Angry Alt-Right April 13 2021 06: 24
    0
    Timokhin's position:
    The material is large, I will write it in 2 parts. In the second part I will explain the rest, including goal-setting, describing in the first part the strengths of the issue rather from the standpoint of the fundamental possibility of construction.
    The position of the author of the "article":
    Aryayayaya, Timokhin is bad! Aircraft carriers are bad! To prove this, I'll twist a couple of random quotes and ignore most of the opponent's article in order to look convincing in front of those who haven't read Timokhin's article. good
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 07: 35
      -4
      To prove this, I'll twist a couple of random quotes and ignore most of the opponent's article in order to look convincing in front of those who haven't read Timokhin's article.


      There is a link to Alexander's article at the very beginning of the text, there is no secret here. Anyone can read and draw conclusions.
  • mark1
    mark1 April 13 2021 06: 25
    +6
    Exhaustively (for me) intelligible and understandable - good.
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 10: 03
      -3
      Thank you Mark!
  • Exval
    Exval April 13 2021 06: 40
    +5
    An exhaustive answer to opponents, competent and correct. And I agree with the opinion of the distinguished author that the ideas of our public about the HISTORICAL WAY of naval weapons, about how they practically correlated with the policy of the state, are, on the whole, fantastic. Perhaps a dedicated article on these issues can be of obvious benefit. I'm thinking about doing this.
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 07: 52
      -4
      Thank you Exval!

      You have designated the topic as extremely interesting, personally I will be glad to read such material.
      1. Exval
        Exval April 13 2021 08: 43
        +1
        Resolved: I'll write about it. Chronologically limiting myself only to the Industrial era, so as not to get too deep into the centuries, and show the role of the fleet in comparison with the development of land technology, which has the most important dual purpose (national economic and military) and is traditionally in Russia in a competitive struggle with the fleet for allocated resources. I would be very glad to receive your response to the material after its appearance.
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 13 2021 08: 46
          -1
          Of course, I will wait for the release!

          The topic is really very interesting, and there are very few materials of this kind in our information space.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 06: 51
    +5
    I fully support the respected A. Voskresensky, a balanced article is all laid out on the shelves,
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 09: 50
      -1
      Thank you, Vladimir!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty April 13 2021 07: 10
    +2
    Even if tomorrow the Kremlin replays its attitude towards aircraft carriers, we will not build them due to the lack of the necessary technologies! Soviet technologies are not suitable, they are outdated, like the equipment, and there are no new Russian ones yet! We have just begun to build a couple of helicopter carriers, how long have we spent with them, jambs will constantly surface, supply disruptions will be massive, and as we have become a bad tradition, it has become in the order of things. We will build one aircraft carrier for at least 15 years, it will take 5 years to eliminate the jambs, to fine-tune it. And, as a result, we will get a morally obsolete ship of yesterday, because during this time the world has stepped far forward! We now need to develop new breakthrough shipbuilding technologies! !!
    1. Victor Leningradets
      Victor Leningradets April 13 2021 14: 57
      +3
      I don’t mind the statement of our backwardness, but I don’t understand how we can master the "breakthrough technologies of shipbuilding" (three cheers) lying on the stove or knocking on the keyboard?
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash April 13 2021 07: 46
    +1
    Do not forget about one of the main tasks of articles - to draw attention to the site and the article itself. In this sense, Timokhin's article is ahead of many - several hundred comments.
    But in essence it is clear - not to the aircraft carriers. The economy is not the same, and the fleet has many other holes.
    One of which - is it possible to launch at least one missile with a nuclear warhead with an underwater component of the Russian triad in the conditions of the first strike of a hypothetical adversary? Yes, it seems, even from the base - no.
  • Niko
    Niko April 13 2021 07: 55
    +2
    The emotionality of A. Timokhin makes him an easy target for an attack, this is understandable. However, unlike the author of this article, he does not cite as an example that the ocean fleet is not needed (and aircraft carriers in particular). funds (as it is not visible that he is hoping for PMCs in Africa, as the author claims) The author writes about Great Britain as having lost ambition and deciding to be content with a small fleet, and what do we see? Two TWO aircraft carriers have been built there in recent years, i.e. even with a modest fleet, there is a place for these ships.
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 08: 28
      0
      CHINA, which invests in the construction of both the fleet and the AVIANOSTSEV huge forces and resources (as it is not visible that he is hoping for PMCs in Africa, as the author claims)


      The Chinese keep the flies separate from the cutlets.

      Their aircraft carrier fleet is being built for a completely intelligible operational and strategic task - breaking through a potential naval blockade by the United States and its allies, as well as the subsequent capture of Taiwan.

      We do not have such goals even in the long term, if we do not take into account the fantasies of the Moremans.

      And, by the way, the Chinese regularly conduct military operations in Africa - they simply do it using the methods I have described, and such information hardly leaks into our media.

      The author writes about Great Britain as having lost ambition and decided to be content with a small fleet, and what do we see?


      And Britain decided to return to an armed presence in the oceans only 55 years after the Shackleton report.

      At one time, they acted wisely when they decided to tackle internal problems - they gave a respite to the economy, developed a number of advanced methods of creating political influence, determined the state strategy ...
      1. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 08: 49
        +3
        Quote: Anjay V.
        CHINA, which invests in the construction of both the fleet and the AVIANOSTSEV huge forces and resources (as it is not visible that he is hoping for PMCs in Africa, as the author claims)


        The Chinese keep the flies separate from the cutlets.

        Their aircraft carrier fleet is being built for a completely intelligible operational and strategic task - breaking through a potential naval blockade by the United States and its allies, as well as the subsequent capture of Taiwan.

        We do not have such goals even in the long term, if we do not take into account the fantasies of the Moremans.

        And, by the way, the Chinese regularly conduct military operations in Africa - they simply do it using the methods I have described, and such information hardly leaks into our media.

        The author writes about Great Britain as having lost ambition and decided to be content with a small fleet, and what do we see?


        And Britain decided to return to an armed presence in the oceans only 55 years after the Shackleton report.

        At one time, they acted wisely when they decided to tackle internal problems - they gave a respite to the economy, developed a number of advanced methods of creating political influence, determined the state strategy ...

        Anzhej, forgive me, but the simplest analysis of the text gives a very definite result: I'll explain it in a simplified way. You show the person 2 fingers and say: "look here 2 fingers." In the second approach, add the conclusion: "here 2 fingers I tell you the truth" Continue: "here are 2 fingers, ONLY I am telling you the truth" and finally "there are 2 fingers, only I tell you the truth ALWAYS "this method works easily and is always perceived with a bang by people who are not particularly capable, why do you stoop to it?
      2. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 13 2021 10: 34
        -2
        It should also be noted that BAE "got drunk" on military contracts with the United States, which allows them to quickly and relatively cheaply build weapons and equipment for a domestic customer.
      3. Aleksandr21
        Aleksandr21 April 13 2021 12: 35
        -1
        Quote: Anjay V.
        And Britain decided to return to an armed presence in the oceans only 55 years after the Shackleton report.

        At one time, they acted wisely when they decided to tackle internal problems - they gave a respite to the economy, developed a number of advanced methods of creating political influence, determined the state strategy ...


        Wise is wise, but the situations of Russia and Great Britain are completely different. Firstly, Great Britain (after the collapse of the British Empire) fell under the protectorate of the United States + relied on cultural / historical ties with its former colonies and there was simply no need for a powerful armed force ... now, of course, the doctrine has changed, the United States has passed its peak and is moving downhill. .. Russia and China are challenging the current world order, and even fundamental changes in Europe (the composition of the population, religion, values ​​are changing ...) + Africa raises its head, with its young population, and at the turn of 2040-2050, the British Navy will be very useful for "democracy" in the African world. But Russia has a completely different story .... we cannot abandon a powerful army (we do not have an umbrella of the United States) + the largest territory in the world that needs to be protected and the problem cannot be solved by the presence of nuclear weapons ... on aircraft carriers the same topic is very controversial, in my opinion, given the ambitions and doctrine of the Russian Navy - there is a need and a need for them, but the economy, unfortunately, simply will not pull ...
      4. Serg65
        Serg65 April 13 2021 12: 41
        +3
        Quote: Anjay V.
        Moreman fantasies

        what fantasies Moremans .... And do not tell me, my dear friend Anzhey, what forces, for example, do you personally plan to ... well, for example .... to move the naval positions of the Tomahawk launch from the Russian borders?
        Quote: Anjay V.
        At one time, they acted wisely when they decided to tackle internal problems.

        laughing When, like Britain and China, we knelt before the United States, we wanted to deal with internal problems, but for some reason we were not allowed to do this, unlike Britain and China ...
        Quote: Anjay V.
        Britain decided to return to an armed presence in the oceans only 55 years later

        what And what made the British to take such a step?
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 13 2021 13: 32
          +1
          And do not tell me, my dear friend Anzhey, what forces, for example, do you personally plan ... ... well, for example ... to move the naval launch positions of the Tomahawks away from the Russian borders?


          Is there a need to let Tomahawks into us?)

          While we are being skillfully and successfully dealt with even without cruise missiles ...

          When, like Britain and China, we knelt before the United States, we wanted to deal with internal problems, but for some reason we were not allowed to do this, unlike Britain and China


          Nobody will give us. But since we ourselves have undertaken to interfere in world politics, we must first of all create a basis for the realization of such ambitions, and not run to sell the last cowards for the sake of aircraft carriers, which at this stage are not required (and not the fact that they will be needed at all).

          And what prompted the British to take such a step?


          For 55 years they have been creating the base for a return to the superpower club. Now is a very good moment, especially since the United States has a need for a strong Britain.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 April 14 2021 10: 14
            +2
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Is there a need to let Tomahawks into us?)

            Well, if we live so stubborn for another ten years, then the need will appear!
            Quote: Anjay V.
            While we are being skillfully and successfully dealt with even without cruise missiles ...

            what Yes, I agree with you here ... but no internal policy helped!
            Quote: Anjay V.
            But since we ourselves have undertaken to interfere in world politics, we must first of all create a basis for the realization of such ambitions.

            My dear friend, without the support of the army and the navy, in particular, you will not be able to realize any ambitions, they will drive you over the fence and you will be surprised ... but how is it, but for what is this ???
            Quote: Anjay V.
            For 55 years they have been creating the base for a return to the superpower club.

            laughing Well, yes, they are! Or did they create a base for them? After the Second World War, Britain was left with nothing, the Americans robbed the shaves as sticky, and then began to invest in something that interests them, the Americans, on the territory of Britain! The Americans need Britain only as a point of pressure on the Germans and the French, who think they are devils ... and nothing more!
            1. Anzhey V.
              April 14 2021 16: 22
              +1
              Well, yes, they are! Or did they create a base for them? After World War II, Britain was left with nothing, the Americans robbed the shaves as sticky


              Unfortunately, you are absolutely wrong in assessing both the past and current layouts of interaction between Western countries.

              Considering the fleet in isolation from modern politics, one can even say that both you and Alexander are right.

              But only in isolation. The reality is completely different. I very briefly outlined how the situation is in the same Africa - and, as you can see, it has very little to do with amphibious assault forces and battles between the AUG.

              "Tomahawks", by the way, go to the same piggy bank, albeit in a more non-obvious way.
      5. Xscorpion
        Xscorpion April 14 2021 09: 38
        0
        .
        The Chinese keep the flies separate from the cutlets.

        Their aircraft carrier fleet is being built for a completely intelligible operational and strategic task - breaking through a potential naval blockade by the United States and its allies, as well as the subsequent capture of Taiwan.

        That is, in your opinion, they capture Taiwan and amicably disband the fleet? Their ambitions have long gone beyond the borders of this island. They have territorial disputes with Japan, Vietnam and India. Their aircraft carriers have already been seen off Sri Lanka and off the eastern coast of Africa, and went deep into the South Pacific. And where are the flies and where are the burgers? The purpose of the aircraft carrier strike group is just the projection of force away from their shores. That is why they are building 2 more aircraft carriers.
    2. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx April 13 2021 08: 39
      +9
      I also drew attention to this - to cite as an example the uselessness of the construction of aircraft carriers in China and Great Britain, despite the fact that one built 2, and the other - 3 aircraft carriers, somehow ... strange ...
      1. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 11: 00
        +3
        Quote: Trapper7
        I also drew attention to this - to cite as an example the uselessness of the construction of aircraft carriers in China and Great Britain, despite the fact that one built 2, and the other - 3 aircraft carriers, somehow ... strange ...

        The author's logic is strong. laughing but it’s not just that there are supporters of "doing nothing" and there are "opponents of aircraft carriers," they will be happy anyway
    3. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor April 13 2021 08: 58
      -1
      have we already caught up with China in terms of development? We must live, as they say within our means ... China wants and CAN - to become a superpower .. We are here from what side? There is little desire, you still need POSSIBLE ..
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 April 13 2021 12: 45
        +2
        Quote: Level 2 Advisor
        There is little desire, you still need POSSIBLE ..

        Let's all die ??? Is that at least we can ???
        1. 2 Level Advisor
          2 Level Advisor April 13 2021 19: 44
          -2
          We can - but it will change what? this does not change the 2% of the runway in the world today compared to the 2nd place in the USSR .. it's a shame, it's sad, but it's a FACT .. and the facts are known to be a stubborn thing ...
    4. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 19 2021 19: 19
      0
      emotional Timokhin? this is something new)
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 08: 17
    +17
    Unfortunately, dear opponents - both Alexander Timokhin and Andrey from Ch. - did not bother to answer the technical difficulties indicated there, limiting themselves, in essence, to replies in the spirit of patriotic chants.

    Unfortunately, I recognize the position of the aircraft carriers' opponents. We declare all the arguments of the opposing side "patriotic chants", and repeat our own - after all, it is so convenient not to give answers to inconvenient questions.
    Unfortunately, opponents stubbornly avoid the question of the duration of all the work involved in the construction of the aircraft carrier fleet. This is where "magic realism" is turned on - the FSB forced all contractors and military officials to work on an emergency basis.

    The answer to this has been repeatedly given in the comments. If we start building AB in the late 20s (and it’s hardly possible before), then we will get it well if by 2040. During this time, we can prepare a lot
    training of engineers servicing ship reactors takes 7 years

    and other and other
    In this case, we are dealing with a partial restructuring of a Soviet aircraft-carrying cruiser, which disrupted the construction time of three nuclear submarines for our fleet and drove Sevmash into losses.

    Firstly, it is highly doubtful that the restructuring of Vikramaditya would have such an impact on the construction of the nuclear submarine. there was no less a question of financing. Secondly, Voskresensky very conveniently avoids the fact that by the end of the 20s, Sevmash will free up workers who are currently building as many as 4 Borei-A SSBNs at the same time, which is quite enough for the construction of the AB. No question, they, of course, can be occupied with something else, but the fact is that Voskresensky simply ignores this argument.
    Apparently, there is nothing to cover.
    Avoiding the R&D problem. You can talk as much as you like about experimental Soviet catapults and the ease of adaptation of icebreaking nuclear reactors, but this only emphasizes the lack of understanding by opponents of the entire technical complexity of various aspects of shipbuilding.

    Let's admit. Well, enlighten us
    It is impossible to take and easily adapt the old technical documentation (if, of course, we really do have it), developed, for example, for AV "Ulyanovsk" into a promising project. For example, the KN-3 reactor plant for the Kirov missile cruiser was made on the basis of the well-run icebreaker OK-900 - however, work on the KN-3, nevertheless, took as much as 7 years.

    Firstly, no one destroys such things, and secondly, Voskresensky should have known that the design of Ulyanovsk was carried out by the Nevsky Design Bureau, which has not gone anywhere from us.
    Secondly, Voskresensky does not know history from the word "absolutely"
    As the first studies showed, dFor domestic nuclear cruisers, a two-reactor nuclear steam-generating plant (YPPU) with a capacity of at least 300 MW each was required, which was more than three times the capacity of the reactor installations at that time on the second-generation nuclear submarines, and twice as many icebreaking YPPUs.
    And what happened?
    In 1971, a Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR was issued on the creation of such an installation for the project 1144 Orlan ship. The working draft of the YPPU KN-3, which met all modern requirements for nuclear power plants of surface ships, was prepared by OKBM in 1972.
    The project of a new reactor was created IN A YEAR.
    The keel-laying of the lead ship with the KN-3 installation, which received the name "Kirov", took place on the stocks of the Baltic Shipyard in April 1974. The ship was commissioned in 1980.
    That is, in the USSR, the creation of a new reactor was mastered in a year, we have more than 2028 more years until 7, but we, of course, will not be able to cope wassat
    As an alternative, voluntaristic solutions are constantly offered, such as, for example, the construction of AB at the Baltic plant or in the 55th workshop of Sevmash. We remind you that the first is engaged in the construction of icebreakers (which are vital for our only strategically important sea artery - the NSR), and the second - SSBNs (which have been providing the country's defense capability for more than a decade).

    Voskresensky sincerely believes that after the construction of 10-12 SSBNs, we will build them again? And why, you can ask? This amount, with reasonable exploitation, is quite enough for nuclear deterrence. I remind you that until 2013 it was provided by 6 SSBNs of Project 667BDRM and 3 - Project 667BDR, and in total - 9 SSBNs.
    One cannot do without billions of dollars in investments in the shipyard - at the same Sevmash, at least a deepening of the basin and an expansion of the bathoport are required.

    Yes, several tens of billions of rubles will have to be spent. This is a funny figure even on the scale of the RF Ministry of Defense.
    Remind me how many years we have been tormenting the dry dock for Kuznetsov?

    You cannot recall what you do not know yourself. The contract for the dry dock was signed in July 2019, and it should be completed in 2021. But the RF Ministry of Defense and USC decided to be greedy, so they attracted a third-rate contractor to the construction. As a result, a contract worth 23,9 billion rubles. was received by a company whose annual turnover did not exceed 2,7 billion rubles before. And all because she agreed to the indicated price, while the real cost of reconstruction is much more (at least 10 billion). In general, they wanted a "cheaper price" - well, the result is clear. And the blame for this result is the indiscriminateness of the management of the USC or the asterisk, who exactly signed the contract there.
    Avoiding issues of timing and cost of developing advanced weapons.

    osspadya, but who avoids them to you?
    Even in the case of the most optimistic scenario, it can be assumed that our first aircraft carrier will be laid down sometime in 2030 (taking into account the completion of all current defense programs). Its construction will take at least 7-10 years. By that time, the MiG-29K will become an exhibit for aviation museums, and what else, even the Su-57 will not be considered a new machine (after some 15-20 years!).

    I am revealing a military secret. The MiG-29 began to enter the troops in 1983. And after 30 (THIRTY) years, India officially adopted the MiG-29K, which at that time was a deck-based aircraft that was quite adequate for the time. He would still have to deliver the long-awaited AFAR - there would be no prices, but here, by and large, the failure of 1991-2009 is to blame, when the Armed Forces and their R&D were financed on a leftover basis.
    A modern combat aircraft is a very long-lived weapons system, it is modernized over a significant part of its service life and thus remains relevant.
    As a reminder, the cost of the Gerald R. Ford air wing exceeds the cost of the ship itself ...

    Let me remind you that the cost of Gerald Ford is about $ 13 billion, and that the Superfine of the latest model costs $ 80 million at most, AWACS - about $ 100 million, and an air group of 65 Hornets (including the Growlers) and 5 AWACS, even counting $ 100 million each per plane, will stretch as much as $ 7 billion.
    Yes, a dozen more helicopters. They are much cheaper, but okay, even if Ford's air group is worth $ 8 billion.
    That's what I like about the opponents of aircraft carriers - they have 8 billion, much more than 13 billion.
    This is not even remembering that our fleet will need aircraft ANYWHERE, an aircraft carrier is just their carrier.
    Basing issues. This factor is ignored entirely. Given the above pace of work on the shipbuilding infrastructure, even the modernization of the existing naval base may be delayed indefinitely.

    I can only repeat what I wrote in the article "On the cost of the fleet that Russia needs" https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
    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.

    That, in fact, is all. Oh yeah, here's another
    Any discussions about the Russian aircraft carrier fleet do not carry at least some expediency - the foreign policy of the Federation is infinitely far from the concept of a permanent military presence in the World Ocean.

    Apparently, this is why our warships are constantly located off the coast of Syria.
    Maybe, nevertheless, before writing about the fleet, it is worth reading at least something about it?
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 08: 35
      -5
      And here comes the magical realism in the comments)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 08: 54
        +9
        Quote: Anjay V.
        And here comes the magical realism in the comments)

        Well, that's why it is magical :)
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 13 2021 09: 19
          -2
          Do not think that I am ignoring you or somehow trying to belittle your opinion - I just don't see any point in arguing.

          You can bang your heads against each other for a long time, but will that change anything?)

          You think that we need a fleet to solve political and defense problems. I believe that we need a nuclear arsenal, developed intelligence networks, powerful analytics, diplomacy, a high standard of living and the formation of levers of cultural and economic influence.

          Will we find a common language? I do not know. But I know for sure that I do not want to spend many hours on an argument that will leave everyone with their own opinion.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 09: 21
            +6
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Do not think that I am ignoring you or somehow trying to belittle your opinion - I just don't see any point in arguing.

            So beautiful. Normal desire of an adult :)
            1. Couchexpert
              Couchexpert April 13 2021 09: 59
              0
              Bliiin ... I only ran for popcorn!
            2. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin April 13 2021 15: 49
              +1
              Citizen was okay with this when it came to talking face-to-face. It turns out that it is much easier to "refute" and accuse voluntarism in absentia. And as in response CLEAR arguments were presented, so immediately
              I don’t want to spend many hours on an argument that leaves everyone unconvinced.


              There are no more questions for Voskresensky. He answered everything. However, we must pay tribute, to the level of Skomorokhov with his indistinct stream of consciousness, did not go down. However, the plus is rather weak.
          2. Xscorpion
            Xscorpion April 14 2021 09: 51
            -1
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Do not think that I am ignoring you or somehow trying to belittle your opinion - I just don't see any point in arguing.

            You can bang your heads against each other for a long time, but will that change anything?)

            You think that we need a fleet to solve political and defense problems. I believe that we need a nuclear arsenal, developed intelligence networks, powerful analytics, diplomacy, a high standard of living and the formation of levers of cultural and economic influence.

            Will we find a common language? I do not know. But I know for sure that I do not want to spend many hours on an argument that will leave everyone with their own opinion.

            Followers of the cat Leopold need to study history better. There are thousands of examples of the history of rich countries with a high standard of living but with a weak army and navy. Their fate has always been sad, neighbors have never turned a blind eye to free wealth. And diplomacy, by and large, relies on the military force behind these diplomats is only then successful.
        2. Revival
          Revival April 14 2021 14: 30
          +1
          Our problem is not whether we need aircraft carriers or not.
          The huge root of the problem is that our "state" does not want them and cannot!
          That’s the whole problem ..
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 13 2021 08: 54
      -3
      We declare all the arguments of the opposing side "patriotic chants"


      Well, objectively, it's not even chants, but a very strange military fantasy. Even Tom Clancy never used that kind of grass.

      During this time, you can prepare a lot


      This is nonsense simply because these will be people without experience, at least a generation is needed.

      The project of a new reactor was created IN A YEAR.


      Project and tech. manufacturer and operator documentation is not the same thing. A project is when a person comes out at a meeting and shows with a pointer in the pictures how they intend to do it.

      This is not even remembering that our fleet will need planes


      It is high time for the navy to take away all aircraft that do not perform purely naval missions. As practice shows, airplanes in the navy can only sink. And this will not change, since naval fighters, in fact, find themselves locked in their extremely small world, without any career prospects for pilots, that is, all active people will strive for a normal Air Force.

      Apparently, this is why our warships are constantly located off the coast of Syria.


      And they didn’t need any plane-dropper for this. And the only one who came to participate only did a very thin job.

      But the RF Ministry of Defense and USC decided to be greedy


      I really love it when the real world is opposed to some ideal one, in which no one makes mistakes, does not steal, in which there are no delays with a multiple increase in the budget. Well, it is clear that Putin is to blame, that there will be no Putin, everything will immediately become so. Or the FSB will catch all the bastards. They caught quite well under Stalin, and in 1940, the plan for the T-34 was still fulfilled only by 15%, 150 units instead of 1000. And how then they thwarted the plans in the War, despite the most formidable GKO orders ...

      Something tells me that in the next 20 years nothing in the MO will fundamentally change. It's just that physically there are not so many suitable people to staff all positions with competent specialists.

      True, what's the point of discussing the costs of trillions of rubles if they do not in any way raise the country's defense capability. And the fleet is in such an intellectual state that no one really knows how to use even frigates.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 09: 12
        +10
        Quote: EvilLion
        This is nonsense simply because these will be people without experience, at least a generation is needed.

        This is really nonsense - we have a bunch of ships with nuclear power plants, and no "generations" are needed for this.
        Quote: EvilLion
        Project and tech. manufacturer and operator documentation is not the same thing. A project is when a person comes out at a meeting and shows with a pointer in the pictures how they intend to do it.

        It is you who unknowingly write this. The man with the pointer is the level of modern "centers of competence", and here we are talking about the WORKING PROJECT - the final design stage.
        There is a FACT - in 1971 they began to develop, after 9 years the ship entered service. What is the dispute about?
        Quote: EvilLion
        It is high time for the navy to take away all aircraft that do not perform purely naval missions. As practice shows, airplanes in the fleet can only sink.

        Let's take away nuclear submarines at the same time, we are ahead of the rest of the planet in their disasters!
        Quote: EvilLion
        And they didn’t need any plane-dropper for this.

        Are you sure about that? Themselves spoke with the commanders of the ships, and they answered you: "The aircraft carrier? Fu! Why is he here?"
        In general, there is no need to translate the arrows, my remark referred to the fact that Voskresensky does not know about the constant presence of our warships in Mediterranean.
        Quote: EvilLion
        And the only one who came to participate only did a very thin job.

        So maybe it was not worth sending for the operation a ship that did not restore combat training after repair with aircraft that were not accepted for service?
        Quote: EvilLion
        I really love it when the real world is opposed to some ideal one, in which no one makes mistakes, does not steal, in which there are no delays with a multiple increase in the budget.

        And I really do not like jerking. I write that the reconstruction of the Sevmash loading basin will require several tens of billions and years of work, which can be carried out in parallel with the construction. To me, in refutation, the reconstruction of a dry dock is given, according to which the work is being disrupted with the replacement of the contractor (which, generally speaking, for a military contract, the phenomenon, if not extraordinary, then extremely infrequent), but even so, according to the darkest estimates, the terms of work will not exceed 3 -4 years old. And the cost of work according to the highest estimates is much less than 40 billion. And everything is complicated there, there are some alterations for seismic, since they did it up to 6 points, but now it seems like it should be up to 8 or something like that.
        So where is the refutation? :))))
        Quote: EvilLion
        Well, it's clear that Putin is to blame

        Who else? He built this hierarchy
        Quote: EvilLion
        They caught quite well under Stalin, and in 1940, the plan for the T-34 was still fulfilled only by 15%, 150 units instead of 1000. And how then they thwarted the plans in the War, despite the most formidable GKO orders ...

        Only under Stalin, following the results of WWII, the Red Army became the strongest army in the world. And under Putin, the plan for the supply of 2 Armats to the troops in a decade (GPV 000-2011) was fulfilled by as much as 2020%. And yes, workshop No. 0, in which the nuclear submarine is being built today, was also built under Stalin.
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 13 2021 09: 27
          +1
          Voskresensky does not know about the constant presence of our warships in Mediterranean.


          Why did you decide that you don't know?)

          By no means, I know - as well as the fact that they successfully carry out the current tasks of the naval presence without an aircraft carrier.

          However, I will again refer you to the confrontation between Turkey and France ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 09: 38
            +4
            Quote: Anjay V.
            Why did you decide that you don't know?)

            And, so you are the author. Did not recognize:)))
            Quote: Anjay V.
            By no means, I know - as well as the fact that they successfully carry out the current tasks of the naval presence without an aircraft carrier

            Whereas this correlates with
            Any discussions about the Russian aircraft carrier fleet do not carry at least some expediency - the foreign policy of the Federation is infinitely far from the concept of a permanent military presence in the World Ocean.

            ? :))) Nothing. As for "successfully without an aircraft carrier," I will allow myself to disagree with you. You know that our ships are there, but you don't know how successfully they are solving their tasks.
            1. Anzhey V.
              April 13 2021 09: 49
              -2
              Whereas this correlates


              Agree permanent military presence in the oceans и "Several of our ships near the shore of our satellite, where our naval base is located" these are somewhat different things))

              Moreover, in Syria, after the end of the main phase of hostilities, our weak state analytics and diplomacy rose in all its glory - a new explosion of discontent is now brewing there, but now aimed at Russia as well.

              And the Iranians, without any military fleet, control almost the entire Syrian state apparatus, the mood of the local population and most of the country's regions. And the Iranians, by the way, initiated the involvement of Russia in the war.

              Here is such a misfortune.

              I don't know about you, but what I see is not that we lack an aircraft carrier, but staff structures that could really deal with our policy.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 10: 08
                +9
                Quote: Anjay V.
                Agree, a permanent military presence in the World Ocean and "several of our ships near the shore of our satellite, where our naval base is located" are somewhat different things))

                I disagree, because "several of our ships in the Mediterranean near our own naval base" - this is the very presence. And the fact that there are only a few speaks of the problems of the size of the fleet, and not of their sufficiency there.
                Quote: Anjay V.
                And the Iranians, without any military fleet, control almost the entire Syrian state apparatus.

                Such an opposition is erroneous, for one simple reason - a lot of things are being done in the world, for which aircraft carriers are not needed. I shave in the morning, and I can do fine without an aircraft carrier. But there are things that are either impossible to do without an aircraft carrier, or extremely difficult.
                Quote: Anjay V.
                I don't know about you, but what I see is not that we lack an aircraft carrier, but staff structures that could really deal with our policy.

                we lack a lot - sound governance, domestic economic policy, and so on. etc. but the opposition of all this to an aircraft carrier is nothing more than a polemical device. With the same success, you can substitute aerospace forces, or tanks, instead of an aircraft carrier. Simply, the need for videoconferencing and tanks is generally recognized, and if you do this, they will not understand you, but with an aircraft carrier such a number rolls.
                Strictly speaking, the Russian Navy has tasks. Some of them can be solved only with the help of carrier-based aircraft. Accordingly, we must either abandon the solution of such problems, or build aircraft carriers.
                An aircraft carrier is ONLY a tool for achieving certain goals, just like a VKS or a tank
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 13 2021 09: 58
          -1
          There is a FACT - in 1971 they began to develop, after 9 years the ship entered service. What is the dispute about?


          Are you aware that these works are going on in parallel?

          And under Putin, the plan for the supply of 2 Armats to the troops in a decade (GPV 000-2011)


          And now you can show me an official message that the Ministry of Defense has signed a contract for the supply of 2000 armatures. It was the contract, and not the message in the media of the "Rogozin said" level. And then in reality there was a contract for 140 machines of all types for trial operation. And let's face it, following the results of this very experimental operation, the Defense Ministry has every right to make any decision, including and to curtail the ROC and "Armata" will go to Kubinka to dozens of results of other R&D projects that were canceled without being adopted.

          That is, you do not even know such things, but you undertake to argue how we can master the program in terms of complexity and cost, surpassing a manned flight to Mars (and inferior to such a flight in practical use).

          Let's take away nuclear submarines at the same time, we are ahead of the rest of the planet in their disasters!


          You can rest assured that all those stages of disasters that the exceptionally diverse Soviet submarine fleet went through on aircraft dumpers will be repeated.

          Who else? He built this hierarchy


          In the US or China, is Putin also ruining everything? However, you do not blame Stalin for the disruptions of the military-industrial complex, the result is that at the end. The problem is that the result is this because everyone else was doing even worse. That is, "everything is bad" is a typical situation. And Putin's results are very impressive, if you remember how it was in 2000.

          by the highest estimates, much less than 40 billion


          Everyone can figure something out for something. But there are real results.

          Are you sure about that?


          Well, show me which aircraft carriers Syria had on October 30. 2015.

          So maybe it was not worth sending for the operation a ship that did not restore combat training after repair with aircraft that were not accepted for service?


          Maybe not worth it, but this is an excuse. And if this was the case, then where was the naval command? Cheerfully reported to the Supreme Commander about full combat readiness? Did you want to prove your usefulness? After all, it was not the Air Force that called them there. Well, this shows the level of the fleet.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 10: 34
            +7
            Quote: EvilLion
            Are you aware that these works are going on in parallel?

            I know. And it took 9 years from the start of work to the delivery of the ship to the fleet. I repeat the question - where did you see the problem?
            Quote: EvilLion
            And now you can show me an official message that the Ministry of Defense has signed a contract for the supply of 2000 armatures. It was the contract, and not the message in the media of the "Rogozin said" level.

            You will learn to first distinguish a plan from a contract. 2000 Armata were planned along with 14 frigates and 35 corvettes at the GPV. THIS is a plan equivalent to the 1940 T-1000 you mentioned in 34.
            If, nevertheless, you like a historical excursion, then the INITIAL plan for the factories was 150 T-34s for 1940. Then there was the High Decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), equivalent to our GPV to release 1940 tanks by the end of 600. In fact, they released 115, or 19,2% of the plan.
            The first contract for "Armata" was signed in March 2020.
            Quote: EvilLion
            That is, you don't even know such things.

            I'm afraid to disappoint, but you just don't know them.
            Quote: EvilLion
            You can rest assured that all those stages of disasters that the exceptionally diverse Soviet submarine fleet went through on aircraft dumpers will be repeated.

            Alas, disasters are an integral part of military equipment, especially new ones. To take submarines from sailors, and from pilots - planes because of this is not necessary.
            Quote: EvilLion
            In the US or China, is Putin also ruining everything?

            no, they have their own people there. And they, in addition to failures, have a place to be undoubted successes. We have a lot of failures, but successes ...
            Quote: EvilLion
            And Putin's results are very impressive, if you remember how it was in 2000.

            Well, live happily in an "impressive" outcome.
            Quote: EvilLion
            Everyone can figure something out for something. But there are real results.

            Which do not refute what I said.
            Quote: EvilLion

            Well, show me which aircraft carriers Syria had on October 30. 2015.

            Listen, let's not juggle so funny. Once, in my youth, six people beat me well at night, I was very lucky that I stayed alive at all. The police that could have prevented this were not there. According to your "logic", since the police were not there, it means that I did not need it.
            TAVKR in 2015 was under repair, where was it sent?
            Quote: EvilLion
            Maybe not worth it, but this is an excuse

            This is not an excuse, but the truth of life. REALITY. And "liquidity", as you write, in such conditions could ANY ship, even a submarine, even a frigate.
            Quote: EvilLion
            And if this was the case, then where was the naval command? Cheerfully reported to the Supreme Commander about full combat readiness?

            Who knows? Maybe they reported just the opposite, but received an order.
            Quote: EvilLion
            Well, this shows the level of the fleet.

            This is just your perception of the level of the fleet.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion April 13 2021 12: 05
              -1
              2000 Armata were planned along with 14 frigates and 35 corvettes in the GPV


              You can plan whatever you want, if you did not instruct the factories to make the planned samples, then you will not get anything from the planned. There may be details, whether the production is pulling or pushing, when the plant manager decided that a million units should be produced in a year, and the corresponding plan goes down to the shops, money is allocated for it. In the second case, the product is first produced, and then it is sold somewhere, but this does not work in the military, there products are only ordered.

              The MO did not place any order for 2000 armatures. I, of course, understand that now you will say that you wanted to place, but did not find the money, but I have both big doubts that the Ministry of Defense, which does not particularly buy tanks, generally considered the acquisition of such a breakthrough of tanks, and the countless statements of various Rogozins that MO plans to buy something there. At the same time, there are no real documents about the need of the Ministry of Defense for equipment, which could be considered as a guideline ("we need 200 Su-57, 120 Su-35, 100 Su-30SM, 100 MiG-35, 180 Su-34 until 2040 year "), this very MO did not publish.

              That is, "2000 armature" is nothing more than someone's fantasy, or a hostile throw-in.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 12: 42
                +3
                Quote: EvilLion
                The MO did not place any order for 2000 armatures. Of course, I understand that now you will say that you wanted to place, but you did not find the money.

                In fact, this is not even the question. And the fact that both the RF Ministry of Defense today and the Politburo in their Wishlist 600 T-34 in 1940 and 2000 fittings until 2020 proceeded not from the real state of production, but from their own good desires. Both of these plans were doomed to failure from the outset, since they did not take into account the real state of affairs.
                But the Politburo plan did not take into account these very cases to a much lesser extent than the RF Ministry of Defense in 2010. That is why, as the attempt was made to implement the Politburo's plan, its plan nevertheless turned into a plant plan, which, however, was completed by only 19%. But we were able to start rebar only at the end of the decade.
                Quote: EvilLion
                oh, I have big doubts that the Ministry of Defense, which does not particularly buy tanks, generally considered the acquisition of such a breakthrough of tanks

                Okay, show me where we have 7 Ashes, 14 frigates, 35 corvettes, 4 DKVD and EMNIP in our ranks, two dozen new-built diesel-electric submarines.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion April 13 2021 14: 22
                  0
                  Okay, show me where we have 7 Ashes, 14 frigates, 35 corvettes, 4 DKVD and EMNIP in our ranks, two dozen new-built diesel-electric submarines.


                  Once again, I'm not interested in plans, I'm interested in contract execution. Which the USC disrupts.

                  Plans are when I think it would be nice to buy a new i7, but as I went to the store's website, I didn't want to immediately after seeing the price.

                  the plan nevertheless turned into a plan for the plant, which, however, was fulfilled by only 19%.


                  Do we have a lot of contracts that have been thwarted by 80%?

                  And I don’t remember, and I don’t care, where the throw-in about 2000 "armatures" came from, but Rogozin once made statements that the Su-57 will go into production in 2015 and will order 60 aircraft. Clever people, familiar with the timing of the commissioning of combat aircraft in the USSR and the USA, just twisted their fingers at their temples.

                  Was it a plan, or a statement from an outsider?

                  But when it came to real purchases, it turned out that some people had to be given a stick in order to arrive at a price level acceptable to all and the volume of the batch. That is, the purchase is not conditioned by wishes, but by the objective ability of the industry to fulfill the contract and not be at a loss. And planning, in fact, is at the level of a computer strategy, when you think that you need a unit, and you build it. Hence, the planning time is at the level of several years of GPV and 1-2 contracts for the supply of a batch of a particular volume.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 14: 28
                    +3
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Once again, I'm not interested in plans, I'm interested in contract execution. Which the USC disrupts.

                    In this case, you should not use the example of "1000 T-34 in 1940"
                    1. EvilLion
                      EvilLion April 13 2021 16: 13
                      +1
                      1000 Tanks is a direct task for the factory. Do not confuse the production plan and speculative little things. No 2000 "fittings" were demanded from our industry. And just because in connection with the existing stocks of tanks, they are simply not needed.

                      In the meantime, I see that you have never passed through the entrance of the plant.
            2. Xscorpion
              Xscorpion April 14 2021 10: 07
              +1
              ... You will learn to first distinguish a plan from a contract. 2000 Armata were planned along with 14 frigates and 35 corvettes at the GPV.

              There were no them in the GPV. The GPV was laid in 2011, Fragrances were shown at the parade only in 2015. And there could not be such a number, since the number of all tanks in the active army is about 1800. So it was only according to the wishes of journalists that they came up with themselves to completely replace the entire the tank park and even out of thin air a couple of tank regiments were added out of greed, or rather from ignorance of the issue. And the GPV 2011-2020 program was revised after the events of 2014 and replaced it with 2018-2027 due to the impossibility of implementing a number of contracts due to the severance of relations with a number of countries .So no need to refer to non-existent programs and journalistic nonsense.
        3. Serg65
          Serg65 April 13 2021 14: 53
          -2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And who else?

          Andrey, let's take for example the Kaluga Turbine Works, the main manufacturer of steam turbines for our nuclear submarines ... in 1993, ten percent of the plant was taken over by the German company Siemens, by 2004 the Germans already owned 25% of the shares, and this is already a blocking stake! 25% gave the Germans the opportunity to block the receipt of a defense order, which they used! What is Putin's fault here? And how many of these factories with a similar history came out of the 90s?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 15: 00
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            in 1993, ten percent of the plant was taken over by the German company Siemens, by 2004 the Germans already owned 25% of the shares, and this is already a blocking stake! 25% gave the Germans the opportunity to block the receipt of a defense order, which they used! What is Putin's fault here?

            Sergei, firstly, it is very difficult for me to imagine that the German bourgeoisie would give up the profit that the GPV gives. Secondly, if this is a sabotage, then such bourgeois can always make an offer that they could not refuse, that's all.
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 09: 20
      -12%
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      by the end of the 20s, workers at Sevmash will be freed up, who are currently building as many as 4 SSBNs "Borey-A" at the same time, which is quite enough for the construction of the AB. Not a question, they, of course, can be occupied with something else, but the fact is,

      so you let it slip! here it is your essence! here it is your true face! you yourself brought yourself to clean water! how much the end will not be twisted! All the secret becomes clear! you want to stop the construction of the nuclear submarine, I consider it a betrayal of the Motherland! you probably act according to the strategy of Yurgens, (cancel nuclear weapons, dissolve the General Staff of the Russian Federation). Let's not give offense to SSBNs! Hands off Sevmash! Strengthen the country's defense! Down with aircraft carriers as a tool for Russia's nuclear disarmament! and we are all waiting for the goals of the Aircraft Carrier, apparently we will never wait for an intelligible wording from you and the supporters of your sect
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 13 2021 11: 37
        +5
        Quote: vladimir1155
        so you let it slip! here it is your essence! here it is your true face! you yourself brought yourself to clean water! how much the end will not be twisted! All the secret becomes clear! you want to stop the construction of the nuclear submarine, I consider it a betrayal of the Motherland!

        Tell me, why do you need SSBNs without missiles? Or have you forgotten about START III?
        And why is the United States, with its reliance on the underwater component, 14 SSBNs enough, while 12 SSBNs are not enough for us with our Strategic Missile Forces? Or do you propose again to produce nuclear submarines, without bothering with basing, inflating submarine forces and reducing KOH? wink
        1. Sanguinius
          Sanguinius April 13 2021 14: 56
          0
          And why is the United States, with its reliance on the underwater component, 14 SSBNs enough, while 12 SSBNs are not enough for us with our Strategic Missile Forces? Or do you propose again to produce nuclear submarines, without bothering with basing, inflating submarine forces and reducing KOH?

          But dear Vladimir, much to wonder ... where do we place aircraft carriers and why do we need them at all !? laughing fool
          And at the very Wishlist regarding the nuclear submarine, it is even tighter!)))
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 15: 08
            0
            Quote: Sanguinius
            Where do we place aircraft carriers and why do we need them at all !?
            And at the very Wishlist regarding the Premier League,

            naturally! because nuclear submarines are needed, and yours is not needed by an aircraft carrier, and their dimensions are smaller and the crew is 10 times smaller, and they need less supplies, so the basing is simpler, the berth is shorter, and the draft is less (on the surface), that is, on a strand of more suitable water areas, I will say more for them it is not a pity to build underground bases, because nuclear submarines are needed, and an aircraft carrier is not needed .. I repeat again, we are all waiting for a list of tasks for the Aircraft carrier from you ...
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 15: 00
          -1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Or do you propose to again produce a nuclear submarine,

          here you are, she's a watering can ... you want to destroy our nuclear triad! firstly, at least 14 SSBNs are needed, and even most of them are old and cannot go forever, and there are dozens of Ash trees, and there are also dozens of old boats being decommissioned, there are almost none of them, so the nuclear submarine construction program is at least 20-30 years of work with keeping the pace, and then you will have to continue, because the first Boreas will be 30 years old, it is not easy to catch up with the failure of the 90s ... stop sticking a spoke in the wheels of the country's defense, with your unnecessary aircraft carrier
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 13 2021 16: 35
            -1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            firstly, you need at least 14 SSBNs

            What for? To bring the share of strategic SBS of the Navy from the current 40% to 50%?
            Why do you dislike ICBMs of the Strategic Missile Forces so much that you are ready to place half of the SBS on launchers that are based 12 miles from the border of the Russian Federation and which still need to be brought to the position area and ensure their safety there?
            It’s the same as basing the Yars regiment in Kingisepp, Belgorod or Taganrog.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            and even more of them are old and cannot walk forever

            Completed at the moment. 10 Boreev and Boreev-A are under construction and ordered. Plus, more "Borei-B" are planned. Instead of 6 BDRMs and 3 BDRs.
        3. Alexander Vorontsov
          Alexander Vorontsov April 13 2021 21: 43
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: vladimir1155
          so you let it slip! here it is your essence! here it is your true face! you yourself brought yourself to clean water! how much the end will not be twisted! All the secret becomes clear! you want to stop the construction of the nuclear submarine, I consider it a betrayal of the Motherland!

          Tell me, why do you need SSBNs without missiles? Or have you forgotten about START III?
          And why is the United States, with its reliance on the underwater component, 14 SSBNs enough, while 12 SSBNs are not enough for us with our Strategic Missile Forces? Or do you propose again to produce nuclear submarines, without bothering with basing, inflating submarine forces and reducing KOH? wink

          Alexei. forgive me please, I was walking by and out of the corner of my ear heard your conversation.
          Can you tell me about the issue of basing, how many strategic submarines can be supplied with, say, food for the amount required for one aircraft carrier?
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 14 2021 10: 24
            -1
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            Can you tell me about the issue of basing, how many strategic submarines can be supplied with, say, food for the amount required for one aircraft carrier?

            We cannot build so many SSBNs in our life. smile
            That's just a question from the category "how many soldiers can be equipped with machine guns for the amount of metal required for a divisional artillery regiment"For without the cover of the positional areas, the life of the SSBN will be short-lived and eventful.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 15 2021 11: 58
              +2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              life of SSBNs without cover for positional areas

              do not distort, the positional areas are under the ice, aircraft carriers do not go there ... and it is not so easy to find a black cat in the Pacific Ocean, especially if it is there alone
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA April 15 2021 12: 13
                -1
                Quote: vladimir1155

                do not distort, the positional areas are under the ice, aircraft carriers do not go there ...

                But MCSPLs go there. Anti-submarine groups are engaged in catching on distant approaches, the air cover of which should be dealt with by the AB.
                In addition, we have more than 400 km between the ice edge and the SSBN base.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                and it is not so easy to find a black cat in the Pacific Ocean, especially if she is alone there

                Why look for it if all black cats sit in the same base with access not to inland waters, but directly to the ocean?
      2. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 14: 44
        +1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        by the end of the 20s, workers at Sevmash will be freed up, who are currently building as many as 4 SSBNs "Borey-A" at the same time, which is quite enough for the construction of the AB. Not a question, they, of course, can be occupied with something else, but the fact is,

        so you let it slip! here it is your essence! here it is your true face! you yourself brought yourself to clean water! how much the end will not be twisted! All the secret becomes clear! you want to stop the construction of the nuclear submarine, I consider it a betrayal of the Motherland! you probably act according to the strategy of Yurgens, (cancel nuclear weapons, dissolve the General Staff of the Russian Federation). Let's not give offense to SSBNs! Hands off Sevmash! Strengthen the country's defense! Down with aircraft carriers as a tool for Russia's nuclear disarmament! and we are all waiting for the goals of the Aircraft Carrier, apparently we will never wait for an intelligible wording from you and the supporters of your sect

        This is it, this is it ... laughing "Admit it, did you draw a horse? No, I ask, did you draw? Comrade Sergeant; he cracked ...." laughing
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 15: 03
          0
          Quote: Niko
          painted horse

          what horse?
          1. Niko
            Niko April 13 2021 15: 17
            -2
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Quote: Niko
            painted horse

            what horse?

            Classics are good for general development. Do not neglect
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 15: 23
              -1
              Quote: Niko
              Classics are good for general development. Do not neglect

              I ask again, what are your goals for the aircraft carrier? I don’t need my teeth to talk about horses
              1. Niko
                Niko April 13 2021 15: 48
                -2
                Quote: vladimir1155
                Quote: Niko
                Classics are good for general development. Do not neglect

                I ask again, what are your goals for the aircraft carrier? I don’t need my teeth to talk about horses

                Yes, you're right: classics are classics, but don't forget about valerian too
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 15: 49
                  +2
                  Quote: Niko
                  Yes, you're right: classics are classics, but don't forget about valerian too

                  I ask again, what are your goals for the aircraft carrier? I don’t need my teeth to talk about horses
                  1. Niko
                    Niko April 13 2021 16: 39
                    -3
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    Quote: Niko
                    Yes, you're right: classics are classics, but don't forget about valerian too

                    I ask again, what are your goals for the aircraft carrier? I don’t need my teeth to talk about horses

                    Okay, I confess: in one place they killed seven, put them in a sack and in the water, and overlooked the eighth, left ...
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 17: 16
                      +3
                      are you raving
                      I ask again, what are your goals for the aircraft carrier? I don’t need my teeth to talk about horses
                      1. Anzhey V.
                        April 13 2021 18: 25
                        +4
                        Pay no attention, dear Vladimir.

                        Comrade Niko believes that an aircraft carrier is a kind of plantain. Can be applied to anything and everything will be fine. True, he has difficulty with arguments, so he has to appeal to the horses)
    4. Serg65
      Serg65 April 13 2021 14: 07
      +4
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Firstly, it is highly doubtful that the restructuring of Vikramaditya had such an effect on the construction of the nuclear submarine.

      Of course it is doubtful ... in 1992 Sevmash was excluded from state funding, in 1998 the wage fund was cut to two working weeks a month. Pashaev, in order to get a contract for the modernization of Gorshkov, connected all his connections ... including attracted Defense Minister Ivanov, FSB Director Patrushev, Moscow Mayor Luzhkov ... This order practically saved the plant from bankruptcy and subsequent sale! For the construction of the head Borey and the beginning of work on the modernization of Gorshkov, David Huseynovich took a loan from Vnesheconombank .... the budget of the Moscow Region has nothing to do with it!
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 14: 15
        +3
        Quote: Serg65
        This order practically saved the plant from bankruptcy and subsequent sale!

        What are we talking about :)))))
    5. Revival
      Revival April 14 2021 14: 21
      -1
      All thoughts about aircraft carriers are killed and will be killed by something like this:
      "And the blame for this result is the indiscriminateness of the management of the USC or the asterisk, who exactly signed the contract there."
    6. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 14 2021 16: 00
      -2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Voskresensky sincerely believes that after the construction of 10-12 SSBNs, we will build them again? And why, you can ask? This amount, with reasonable exploitation, is quite enough for nuclear deterrence. I remind you that until 2013 it was provided by 6 SSBNs of Project 667BDRM and 3 - Project 667BDR, and in total - 9 SSBNs.

      This is clearly not enough, and the listed 9 are old, so the RPKSN need to be built, and also Yaseny, Sevmash is loaded for 30 years with no less priority tasks, and not your unnecessary vulnerable and senseless trough, does the CIA pay you extra for undermining defenses and destroying the nuclear Triad? and you still have a lot of time for comments, but stubbornly evade answering about the goals of AB, weak? can't keep your word? ..... I count the defeat for you and your supporters, you can leave the field, .... give up! after all we will defeat all! our cause is the right victory will be ours! you will be smashed to smithereens like a Swede near Poltava!
    7. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 15 2021 09: 25
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I can only repeat what I wrote in the article "On the cost of the fleet that Russia needs"

      The issue of basing aircraft carriers is not a financial issue, but a geographic one. You and Timokhin either do not understand this or stubbornly ignore it. Two fleets Black Sea and Baltic disappear. Remains North and Pacific. It is necessary to determine the required amount (in my opinion, at least 3 for each, and this should already be about 6 pieces for the country) and look for places for their expedient placement. Your suggestions?
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 13 2021 08: 29
    0
    nuclear arsenal - it is really capable of providing a serious factor of influence even for technologically backward rogue countries (such as the DPRK).


    Mutually exclusive paragraphs, the DPRK is anything but technologically backward.

    In Syria, as a matter of fact, our base is still the main one, and without us, Syria will go nuts.
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 08: 45
      +2
      Mutually exclusive paragraphs, the DPRK is anything but technologically backward


      I in no way underestimate the complexity of the development of nuclear energy and rocketry, but the bulk of the DPRK's technologies is at the level of the USSR in the 60s and 70s of the last century.

      This, however, does not negate the fact that the North Korean nuclear arsenal will ensure the country's sovereignty for a long time to come.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 13 2021 16: 05
      -1
      Mutually exclusive paragraphs, the DPRK is anything but technologically backward.


      Have you seen what they produce there, in the DPRK? laughing
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 April 13 2021 09: 00
    +1
    The Chinese are not stupid - they know very well that a hammer cannot replace a microscope, and they build their AUG to solve a very specific task - to prevent a naval blockade by the United States and its allies. And for the PRC with their monstrous sea freight traffic, this is a really pressing problem, and not an empty desire to play soldiers.

    Bingo! Quintessence of the article!
    The navy is, first of all, an instrument for ensuring the economic activity of the state, and not a means of conducting some hypothetical military operations on the sidelines (Africa, South America, the Middle East) ...
    To build an aircraft carrier (and its combat escort ships, support vessels, an air group, modernization of the pier and Sevmash) "just like that", so that, like "all the boys", it is madness. Madness is doubling with 20 million people living below the poverty line, raised retirement age, higher taxes and general degradation of the country.
    I have already cited a joke as an example: if you want to ruin a small, economically prosperous country, just give it a cruiser.
    What tasks will the aircraft carrier solve? Do we have a powerful merchant fleet like the US and China? Not. And on x..ra then you need it?
    Andrei from Ch. And Alexander T. didn’t play enough soldiers in childhood, - I completely agree.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 09: 24
      -1
      "If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser ..." - Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill.
    2. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri April 13 2021 10: 29
      +2
      What tasks will the aircraft carrier solve? Do we have a powerful merchant fleet like the US and China? Not. And on x..ra then you need it?

      So that our SSBNs in one hour could complete the task assigned to them. Without a powerful surface fleet, as the experience of Germany shows, this task cannot be fulfilled. And if you build a powerful surface fleet, then you can't do without an aircraft carrier. It's simple. You don’t need a fleet, so you don’t need SSBNs, so you don’t need nuclear weapons either. Hand over to the global capitalists the last guarantor of your sovereignty, get a cookie and take it easy.
      1. FRoman1984
        FRoman1984 April 13 2021 22: 11
        +1
        Quote: Dante
        What tasks will the aircraft carrier solve? Do we have a powerful merchant fleet like the US and China? Not. And on x..ra then you need it?

        So that our SSBNs in one hour could complete the task assigned to them. Without a powerful surface fleet, as the experience of Germany shows, this task cannot be fulfilled. And if you build a powerful surface fleet, then you can't do without an aircraft carrier. It's simple. You don’t need a fleet, so you don’t need SSBNs, so you don’t need nuclear weapons either. Hand over to the global capitalists the last guarantor of your sovereignty, get a cookie and take it easy.

        This is nonsense.
        And here the SSBN and the aircraft carrier? AUG does not provide a strategist's exit to the combat patrol area. This is not the task of the aircraft carrier group.
        Take this cookie and eat it yourself, it won't add to your mind, but it will bring you a portion of endorphins.
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri April 13 2021 23: 06
          -3
          AUG does not provide a strategist's exit to the combat patrol area. This is not the task of the aircraft carrier group.

          Tunnel vision syndrome (you can't see the forest behind the trees) or is it just that the causal relationship is all bad? An SSBN exit from the deployment bases is possible only if the surface forces provide this exit, and in order for the same BODs to fulfill their task, they must be actively covered from the air. Or do you think that while our ships will drive away and destroy the MPSS, the rest of the enemy forces will stand on the sidelines and calmly wait for their turn? Oh well. We have very few pennants capable of providing object air defense, so, whether you like it or not, you cannot do without aviation. Or do you hope to completely and completely shift the task of providing combat coverage to the fleet on the shoulders of coastal air formations? I will disappoint: coastal aviation also needs time to deploy, which it will not have if it does not bring forward a mobile air group, which will take the first blow.
          Ps Stars and Stripes have a different task on aircraft carriers, here you are right, but in relation to Russian realities, the task of an aircraft carrier is to become, if necessary, a victim to be slaughtered, everything else is already a "secondary" functionality.
          1. FRoman1984
            FRoman1984 April 14 2021 03: 37
            +1
            Quote: Dante
            AUG does not provide a strategist's exit to the combat patrol area. This is not the task of the aircraft carrier group.

            Tunnel vision syndrome (you can't see the forest behind the trees) or is it just that the causal relationship is all bad? An SSBN exit from the deployment bases is possible only if the surface forces provide this exit, and in order for the same BODs to fulfill their task, they must be actively covered from the air. Or do you think that while our ships will drive away and destroy the MPSS, the rest of the enemy forces will stand on the sidelines and calmly wait for their turn? Oh well. We have very few pennants capable of providing object air defense, so, whether you like it or not, you cannot do without aviation. Or do you hope to completely and completely shift the task of providing combat coverage to the fleet on the shoulders of coastal air formations? I will disappoint: coastal aviation also needs time to deploy, which it will not have if it does not bring forward a mobile air group, which will take the first blow.
            Ps Stars and Stripes have a different task on aircraft carriers, here you are right, but in relation to Russian realities, the task of an aircraft carrier is to become, if necessary, a victim to be slaughtered, everything else is already a "secondary" functionality.

            Kirill, here you are right, the task of ensuring the exit of SSBNs falls on the surface fleet in the person of a BOD, destroyer or frigate. And also for multipurpose nuclear submarines. If an aircraft carrier is involved, then it will need to be covered by itself, and not dealt with by the strategist. It so happened that our BOD 1155 has weak air defense and more or less anti-aircraft defense, so it will become an easy prey for aviation. We don't have a destroyer, one might say. The new frigate 22350 has very good anti-aircraft defense in the form of "Polyment-Redut" and a good anti-aircraft defense - Packet-NK and a modern GAK. This ship should become our basis of the fleet. A workhorse, a ridge. And a group of these ships (dozens), as well as multipurpose Nuclear submarines will be more useful than any AUG in ensuring the safety of SSBNs, and most importantly, it will be faster and much cheaper, since nothing needs to be modernized (Sevmash's capacity), designed, built, rebuilt.

            Our Fleet is naked. Ships of level 22350 are badly needed, now they are a lot. And the country will not pull the construction of 22350 and 885 boats, while building an aircraft carrier, an air group, a workshop, a pier, etc. This is unrealistic. Because there is also the Aerospace Forces, ground forces, the Strategic Missile Forces, etc.
            1. Dante Alighieri
              Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 05: 36
              -1
              Good morning, Roman.
              If an aircraft carrier is involved, then it will need to be covered by itself, and not engaged in wiring the strategist

              Only until the moment when he lifts aircraft into the air, after that airspace control is the prerogative of the pilots.
              It so happened that our BOD 1155 has weak air defense and more or less anti-aircraft defense, so it will become an easy prey for aviation.

              That is why I said, I say and will say that modernization like Shaposhnikov is an extremely unfortunate decision, because instead of the second art, it was necessary to put at least 16 Calm cells (which is called cheap and cheerful), and the ZS-14 in an inclined version should be placed instead of the Bell. We fit in by weight with a margin. I have already given the calculations - too lazy to repeat.
              The new frigate 22350 has very good AA defense in the form of "Polyment-Redut"

              Of which there are only 32 cells, and which, let's not forget, will also be responsible for missile defense missions.
              and a good PLO - Packet-NK

              The package is more of a PTO than a PLO, because 20 km of maximum range while enemy submarines are equipped with Mk-48 torpedoes with a range of 50 km, nothing at all. And yes, there are only 8 of them per unit and the possibility of reloading by the crew is not provided.
              Ships of level 22350 are badly needed, now they are a lot.

              I don't even argue
              The country will not pull the construction of 22350 and 885 boats, while building an aircraft carrier, an air group, a workshop, a pier, etc. This is unrealistic.

              But here I disagree, as I have some idea of ​​the budget structure and sources of its financing. Just believe (although why believe, I think you yourself can see it), in the land of money, like a fool of candy wrappers (though this does not apply to ordinary people). Even if you do not raise the issues of expropriation of property lost in the course of the criminal loans-for-shares auctions of the 90s, but simply approach from the standpoint of competent management, which provides incl. responsibility for the non-targeted spending of funds, then the existing funds are more than enough for everything. One problem is that the current "stewards" will never agree to this.
              1. Xscorpion
                Xscorpion April 14 2021 10: 17
                0
                ... The package is more of a PTO than a PLO, because 20 km of maximum range while enemy submarines are equipped with Mk-48 torpedoes with a range of 50 km, nothing at all. And yes, there are only 8 pieces per unit and the possibility

                The range can be 50 km, only guidance is up to 18 km. And then only through the acoustic one will be able to work with zero efficiency. So they do not shoot at such distances, only at targets that are not able to detect an approaching torpedo. And accordingly, all the same, enemy submarines will have to enter the radius of damage of the Packet.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 22 June 2021 17: 30
                  0
                  Quote: Xscorpion
                  Mk-48 with a range of 50 km,

                  The range can be 50 km, only guidance is up to 18 km.

                  and what's the problem? the torpedo is TELECOMMUNICATED and can be guided both from the submarine GAK, and from the submarine radar and from the aircraft drone through the aft tethered communication buoy and from satellites through the same buoy (this is one of the main options).
          2. Revival
            Revival April 14 2021 14: 26
            +1
            Is "SSBN withdrawal from deployment bases" relevant, if "our ships will drive away and destroy enemy's submarine submarines" !?
      2. max702
        max702 April 13 2021 23: 09
        +2
        And how has the experience of Germany proved this? And do not forget to look at the years of those events ..
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri April 13 2021 23: 17
          -1
          And how has the experience of Germany proved this?

          I do not know. Could it be because Germany, despite the fact that by the end of the War, the kingsamrine was fired by a submarine a day, lost the war at sea?
          And do not forget to look at the years of those events

          What's the difference? Boats are more modern, dive deeper and move quieter. In the same way, the means of detection did not stand still in time. The eternal opposition of armor and a projectile leads to the fact that the approximate parity remains at the same level. Sometimes something comes forward, but the gap is quickly leveled.
          1. max702
            max702 April 14 2021 07: 24
            +1
            Oh no, you are only looking at the picture on the right, but it must be from all sides .. In the world confrontation Russia has not only a tool in the form of boats, there are others that will not allow to destroy with impunity, for example, submarines. Germany did not have such an instrument, so they did whatever they wanted with it, and this is the fundamental difference! to ignore this means simply to pull the owl onto the globe .. If Germany had AUG, it would not have saved her either, because the fleet is not at all to blame for the defeat thereof .. Although indirectly it may be so because too much energy was spent on it without any benefit .. You look at the solarium on a diesel engine, tank would have gone like iron, then on land the SA would have faced other problems .. So it is necessary to think three times thoroughly investing in the fleet .. Is it necessary at all?
            1. Dante Alighieri
              Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 09: 30
              -1
              In the global confrontation, Russia has not only a tool in the form of boats, there are others that will not allow destroying submarines with impunity. Germany did not have such an instrument, so they did whatever they wanted with it, and this is the fundamental difference!

              What kind of a miracle tool would you like to know?
              1. max702
                max702 April 14 2021 09: 33
                +1
                SYAS ... Germany did not have this .. Chemistry e not offer the wrong caliber ..
                1. Dante Alighieri
                  Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 10: 17
                  0
                  The Reich almost had nuclear weapons, a few more months, ideally a year and a half, and they would have a bomb ready. Even taking into account that a less effective principle was used on those prototypes that were discovered: the decay reaction was initiated not by the explosive explosion, but by the collision of two isotopes, the allies would not have found little. Moreover, they already had delivery vehicles, the British can confirm this. And let the damage from the FAU-2 was rather psychological, but compared to everything that the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition possessed at that time, it was a real breakthrough. By the way, another question is how much their nuclear and missile program cost the Reich, it may well surrender that the costs of Doenitz's wolf packs will be much lower. Now what? Deny progress?

                  Needless to say, if Germany still had a full-fledged fleet, the opening of the second front, we would have had to wait oh how long (the states were pulling as much as they could), and, therefore, the fascist engineers would have had more chances to finish their work. But someone, due to their land limitations, was greedy, put all the money on Guderian's tank armada and safely buried them in the forests, steppes and bolts of Russia. Fate.

                  This answer does not count, let's move on))))
                  1. max702
                    max702 April 14 2021 10: 24
                    +1
                    If only my grandmother .. In Russia, unlike Germany, all this is there and it completely changes the picture! Why is this fantasy about WO? If Germany had a full-fledged fleet, it WOULD be great! On the eastern front there WOULD be much fewer tanks, guns and aircraft, literate soldiers, and it seems to me that following the results of the war we WOULD slow down opposite the English Channel while controlling the whole of Europe, the German fleet WOULD not interfere with us in any way .. Alas, but this is exactly and it was not ..
                    1. Dante Alighieri
                      Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 10: 58
                      -1
                      In Russia, unlike Germany, all this is there and it completely changes the picture!

                      This does not change anything, since our opponents have it all too. But we, in contrast to them, have no fleet. Moreover, the number of pennants in the same States, and most importantly their quality, is already enough today to multiply a third of our delivery vehicles by zero even before they can do anything. After that, they will be able to freely come close to our bank and shoot down at least half of the already launched carriers, simultaneously glazing those that have not yet managed to leave the mines. Of course, something will break through, fly over and take its toll, but the damage will be disproportionate. In such a situation, all the sacrifices suffered may already seem quite acceptable to the US leadership. Do you want that? Personally, I am not.

                      And how, then, is our current situation better than that of the Third Reich?
                      1. max702
                        max702 April 14 2021 11: 29
                        +1
                        So what if our opponents have it? In any case, the result is one, and I understand EVERYTHING .. A third of our delivery vehicles, as far as I understand, can multiply just the naval segment? I will not argue here, I agree, but nevertheless, in the overall picture, this will not change anything and no one will go to our shores because it is guaranteed that what remains will be destroyed and nothing can be done about it, and they understand this too. these are your fantasies, just what will take off will glaze everything there and completely .. The fallacy of the postulate that losses will be acceptable is also the fruit of your fantasies ..
                      2. Dante Alighieri
                        Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 11: 57
                        -1
                        About knocked down media, these are your fantasies, just what will take off will glaze everything there and completely .. The fallacy of the postulate that losses will be acceptable is also a figment of your fantasies ..

                        Nothing more than yours
                        no one will go to our shores because they will be destroyed guaranteed
                      3. max702
                        max702 April 14 2021 12: 08
                        +1
                        Well, answer with the facts who, how and where, shot down carriers similar to the same Topol or Yars, how the same silo missiles and other carriers will shoot down, while the US missile defense only saws money and is even afraid to touch the IC ..
                      4. Dante Alighieri
                        Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 12: 51
                        -1
                        The year 2008 by the Aegis ship system in near-earth space shot down a satellite, the speed and distance of which correspond to ICBMs. One problem was that the satellite was moving along a previously known trajectory and did not maneuver, therefore it does not suit us, but for 2008 it was not bad, especially considering the fact that at that time we had nothing of the kind (the same C- 400 will begin to receive long-range 40N6E only after 9 years, but its performance characteristics still do not allow such interceptions)
                        https://rg.ru/2008/02/22/amerikan-sputnik-anons.html

                        In 2017, the United States successfully intercepted an ICBM simulator using the EKV CE-II Block 1 atmospheric interceptor. Later, however, this project was abandoned.

                        Year 2020 and again successful tests of Aegis, this time on a full-fledged target https://www.aex.ru/news/2020/11/18/219358/

                        There were many more intermediate exercises and tests. And if the possibility of countering ICBMs in the final phase of the flight, personally, I have great doubts, then the destruction of the carrier at the initial stage looks quite realistic. By the way, our military experts confirm the fact of the successful tests carried out by the Americans, only make a reservation about the fact that our missiles are "faster, higher, stronger" than the targets used by the Americans. Whether this is true or not, I hope we will never be able to find out.
                      5. max702
                        max702 April 14 2021 14: 41
                        +1
                        Are you really kidding? Shoot down a satellite with a known speed and coordinates for years and strip the peremog?
                        Quote: Dante
                        Later, however, this project was abandoned.

                        Why is that? is everything fine? Maybe they were completely lying and even the commission that was bought said it wouldn’t work?
                        About the successful tests of Aegis is somehow completely sad, even they did it, but this is not accurate ..
                        Quote: Dante
                        then destruction of the carrier at the initial stage looks quite realistic.

                        How the hell can you shoot down an ICBM at the initial stage, launched somewhere from near Novosibirsk?
                        Your apologists for the radiant Valinor have an unclouded faith in everything produced there, and this despite the terrible failures with the F-35, Zumwalt, MLRS Patriot
                        , "George W. Bush" and many others .. How so?
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette April 15 2021 09: 29
    +1
    Quote: Dante
    So that our SSBNs in one hour could complete the task assigned to them. Without a powerful surface fleet, as the experience of Germany shows, this task cannot be fulfilled.

    Does Germany have experience with SSBNs? ... Are you sure?
  • Niko
    Niko April 13 2021 09: 05
    +8
    In fact, no matter what they say about me, I'm not a big fan of aircraft carriers. It just so happened that the question is actually fundamentally deeper and the discussion about "auto carriers" is just the tip of the iceberg. The position "we don't need them because we don't have them" is stupid in itself and fortunately its supporters have diminished lately. But the position which is defended by almost all opponents "We CANNOT build them (for various reasons) and we will not be a poet" - I really do not like it. There is no other way in development except to work. You don't know something, learn. There is something (for example, shipyards) -stroy. No science? -Develop. There are no technologies, as a last resort, if the item with science did not work, there is espionage (which helped the USSR in many areas). There are no specialists, train, carry from abroad, etc. WORK!!! And your ideas about what we can’t now, there is nothing to try, except for stagnation and decline, they lead nowhere. If they thought so after the Second World War, then on April 12 there would be nothing to celebrate, for example
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 09: 36
      -3
      If they thought so after the Second World War, then on April 12 there would be nothing to celebrate, for example


      The Great Patriotic War just put everything in its place - before the war there were many Moremans in the country who dreamed of a great battleship fleet.

      Money was invested in these fantastic projects, and they even tried to build - but when the war began, it became clear that the fleet in it was not even the second or third violin.

      So yes, you gave a good example - an example of how important it is to prioritize correctly.

      PMCs are able to defend any interests (except for small commercial ones) ONLY relying on the fact that behind their back there is a powerful country with an army and a FLEET


      Our PMCs are now on the radar and are working very successfully in Syria and Africa - but for some reason without a powerful fleet. And full-fledged state support, too, for that matter.

      However, you deliberately slide in particular in order to expose my position to be false, but it was not at all about PMCs.
      1. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 10: 09
        +1
        Please do not spoil the impression of yourself. I do not go into too much in particular, believe me, for example, you call the manner of some authors to interpret possible developments of events rather offensive and immediately express your own ABSOLUTE conviction in the comments about why certain countries are building fleets and aircraft carriers in particular , and in another way than you think YOU are not going to use them, and that the most interesting thing is probably not even if they want to (in your opinion) is not the same as what you accuse your opponents of?
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 13 2021 10: 20
          +3
          Dear Niko, I may have made an insufficiently bright emphasis in the article, but, I repeat, it was not exclusively about PMCs, but about a set of foreign policy instruments, which are needed to solve the problems identified by Alexander.

          ABSOLUTE conviction of why certain countries are building fleets and aircraft carriers in particular, and in any other way than you think YOU are not going to use them and that the most interesting thing, apparently, will not be able to even if they want


          Why is that? China can easily drive an aircraft carrier to Africa. I didn't deny it.

          But the Chinese are pragmatic and smart people - they know that it is not profitable. They have several airfields in a number of African countries, from which they use UAVs on various renegades that harm their business.

          I will say more, the PRC, even near its native shores, uses much cheaper and more subtle methods of influence - I am now preparing material about this.
      2. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 10: 21
        +2
        One more thing: if we imagine that somewhere in the bowels of the state apparatus there is an analytical department seriously engaged in the analysis of possible schemes for the development of the country (and the fleet as well). I fully admit that not only the ideas, but also the materials of Andrey from Chelyabinsk and A. Timokhin can become the subject of not only analysis, but also attempts to miscalculate and create models. (it is easy to check how much money is required in reality, what capacities to upgrade or build, etc.) Your position and the authors with whom you joined the same ranks cannot even reach the analysis in a state (and the point is not whether I am for or against, there is simply no position as such, only a denial of opportunities or needs) (do not take seriously the hopes of creating armada of "doomsday bombers" Tu-160, this TB-3 is not even the 41st year 45th.)
      3. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 10: 37
        +1
        Anzhej, if you will allow me, a little advice (you are far from hopeless like some authors on VO, therefore I am writing). Before publishing the material, give it to someone who looks critically, you will avoid many problems, you see - it is much easier to prepare your article than Timokhin, so disliked by you. You yourself have to write something like: "I was not understood", "I did not explain clearly enough" in the comments over and over again. I hope you understand correctly
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 13 2021 10: 42
          +4
          I talk and try to convey the idea specifically to you - in general, as you can see, almost everyone understood everything exactly the way it should be understood)

          You think that an aircraft carrier is the salvation from almost everything. It will raise science, the economy, and everyone will be afraid, and politics will sparkle with new colors.

          I am only modestly and purely in my conversation with you trying to explain that this is not so.

          "I was not understood", "I did not explain clearly enough"


          Not everyone is able to correctly understand the accents. For example, you ran into the ill-fated PMCs. I do not see anything wrong with wanting to convey an idea.
          1. Niko
            Niko April 13 2021 10: 55
            -2
            Quote: Anjay V.
            I talk and try to convey the idea specifically to you - in general, as you can see, almost everyone understood everything exactly the way it should be understood)

            You think that an aircraft carrier is the salvation from almost everything. It will raise science, the economy, and everyone will be afraid, and politics will sparkle with new colors.

            I am only modestly and purely in my conversation with you trying to explain that this is not so.

            "I was not understood", "I did not explain clearly enough"


            Not everyone is able to correctly understand the accents. For example, you ran into the ill-fated PMCs. I do not see anything wrong with wanting to convey an idea.

            I saw similar explanations of yours not only to my comments
      4. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 13 2021 11: 02
        0
        Are they the only ones working in Syria? Or the effect of Khmeimim, where the air group is just the level of an aircraft carrier, is two orders of magnitude greater?

        = and Africa =

        The CAR is a hole even by African standards. If in Mali, where the French overcame, there were still three tanks (not the fact that they were serviceable), then Central African is a country where Batka Makhno would have gotten off the Space Marines.
      5. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets April 13 2021 15: 57
        -1
        The fact that we actually did not have a fleet (the Level of France or Italy) to WWII led to the horror of the Great Patriotic War.
        Yes, this is an unprecedented, heroic epic, but we could not take advantage of the fruits of victory precisely because of the weakness of the Navy and the practically absence of strategic aviation. A land war of large forces is a meat grinder, someone pushes someone over. We were unable to go against the will of the United States in the division of Europe; in fact, we were removed from the occupation of Japan. And the cherry on top was the actual defeat of the multimillion-strong ground army in Korea from the naval and air power of the so-called. "United Nations".
        So the opponents of the aircraft carrier component of the fleet automatically reduce our confrontation with the United States to a ratio of 35: 1000.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 13 2021 16: 22
          +3
          Well, the fleet would undoubtedly have stopped the Germans in the 41st in Belarus. Is your head all right?

          In Korea, millions of Chinese fought with rifles and obsolete junk like captured weapons, or at best T-34-85, against an army that was technically superior to them by an order of magnitude.

          The occupation of Japan is just not necessary. Firstly, the USSR did not rush there, it was with the islands that the Japanese had questions, secondly, the American fleet at that time was, as it were, not stronger than all the fleets of the world put together. But this would not have helped the Americans in any way, had there been a land mix in Europe, since the Red Army in the 1th was superior to the allies both quantitatively and simply overwhelmingly qualitatively.
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 April 13 2021 22: 25
            +1
            Quote: EvilLion
            Well, the fleet would undoubtedly have stopped the Germans in the 41st in Belarus. Is your head all right?

            Say thank you to the British fleet guarding the Lend-Lease transports. And the 42nd year was no easier than the 41st. After the defeat, PQ-17 and the aircraft carrier were included in the convoy.
          2. Victor Leningradets
            Victor Leningradets April 14 2021 14: 11
            0
            Something the Red Army, too, in two weeks in Belarus passed into prisoners of war and partisans. This is not a shortage of personnel and weapons, but outright betrayal. It is not cured by anything.
            The Americans and honorable gentlemen would simply roll us dry with strategic aviation. No factories, no transport, no oil fields, no food. And so - yes, we would have reached the English Channel, and they would have concluded a separate peace with Mikado (here's the infantry for you), and would have landed in the Far East. And we can't even transfer troops there.
            By the way, in the First World War the Germans were no less stupid than Hitler. In 1915, they had to squeeze out the Russian Army not from Poland and Lithuania, but to conduct a powerful landing operation in the Baltic with the capture of Revel, supported by an offensive from East Prussia in the direction of Pskov-Novgorod. Further landing in Finland and would have taken Petrograd in the ring as early as 1916. Thank God there is no subjunctive mood in history.
      6. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 13 2021 16: 06
        +1

        Our PMCs are now on the radar and are working very successfully in Syria and Africa - but for some reason without a powerful fleet. And full-fledged state support, too, for that matter.


        And without a serious opponent, which you diligently forgot.

        In general, the question I asked was simple - show a problem that can be solved better without aviation than with it.
        Just.
        1. Anzhey V.
          April 13 2021 18: 31
          +4
          In general, the question I asked was simple - show a problem that can be solved better without aviation than with it.
          Just


          Alexander, we all know perfectly well that aviation is a key element of modern combat operations.

          I understand perfectly well that you want to create a logical incident, but the key issue in this discussion lies not in the overwhelming superiority of the air force over the rest.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 13 2021 19: 11
            -1
            Why you simply CANNOT answer this question?
            1. Anzhey V.
              April 13 2021 19: 55
              +4
              Why you simply CANNOT answer this question?


              Sorry, but the question has no substance.
        2. Alexander Vorontsov
          Alexander Vorontsov April 13 2021 22: 37
          -1
          Quote: timokhin-aa

          Our PMCs are now on the radar and are working very successfully in Syria and Africa - but for some reason without a powerful fleet. And full-fledged state support, too, for that matter.


          And without a serious opponent, which you diligently forgot.

          In general, the question I asked was simple - show a problem that can be solved better without aviation than with it.
          Just.

          Again, you write nonsense based on your delint.

          You have a frivolous opponent, fishermen from Africa, who accidentally found a dropped container with weapons. Dropped out of an American plane.
          Together with cryogenic capsules in which there were 20 CIA mine and explosive instructors.

          PMCs are stealth infantry. This industry has been put on stream in the USA.
          The list of tasks in the style of "if we do not know them and they are not ours" is huge.

          Where there is no need to shine flags ... because what is happening ... to put it mildly, goes beyond the norms of morality and international law.

          In other words, this is butting all the same players just by different rules.

          Have you seen the video of the demolition of an ISI member by PMKashniki with preliminary blows to the legs and arms with a sledgehammer to the song of the GOS "Russian special forces"? What do you think is interesting about this?
        3. Silhouette
          Silhouette April 15 2021 09: 43
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          In general, the question I asked was simple - show a problem that can be solved better without aviation than with it.
          Just

          The question is rhetorical, since does not require an answer in its obviousness. Timokhin replaces the concept of "aircraft carrier aviation" with the concept of "aviation" from the airfield and proposes to challenge it precisely. All the questions that Timokhin asks his opponents in his comments and articles are based on this simple logical substitution, which looks like a thimble-making. To answer him is to agree to a game of thimbles. Better right away with a canderabr ... ... but I digress.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 15 2021 10: 50
            0
            The question is rhetorical, since does not require an answer in its obviousness. Timokhin replaces the concept of "aircraft carrier aviation" with the concept of "aviation" from the airfield and proposes to challenge it.


            You just have to think a little bit, and you will understand that already a few hundred kilometers from the airfield, "without an aircraft carrier" begins to turn into "without aircraft". First, without fighter and assault, then without reconnaissance and any other.
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette April 15 2021 11: 08
              +2
              Don't tell my slippers. Whom are you going to storm and exterminate hundreds or thousands of kilometers from the borders? Where? What for?
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 15 2021 11: 13
                -1
                Around the PMTO in Port Sudan? will it go?

                Seriously, 200 km from the airfield is the maximum at which basic aviation can get somewhere in significant quantities when working on call.

                And then with a radar field with a depth of 1000 km.

                The harsh truth of life.
  • Niko
    Niko April 13 2021 09: 12
    +4
    By the way, PMCs are able to defend any interests (except for small commercial ones) ONLY relying on the fact that behind their back there is a powerful country with an army and a FLEET. And without this, they are only capable of earning money, and working for someone who simply pays more
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 22 June 2021 18: 22
      0
      in principle, I agree with you, but a small clarification behind the back should not be the army and the navy, but the special services and intelligence services, both directly and through third parties
  • Shishkov
    Shishkov April 13 2021 09: 26
    +3
    The Great Britain passage is beautiful. [quote] Britain is returning to a permanent military presence in the oceans, but it considers its modest strategic nuclear forces to be a priority, not aircraft carriers ./ [quote] the author wrote under a photograph with an English aircraft carrier (!). What should be used to see the return (!) Of Great Britain to the ocean with the help of the strategic nuclear forces (SNF), represented by the four Vanguards, which have been in service since the 90s and will be replaced with new boats by the 2060s, is a mystery. The same mystery - what theses of the author are confirmed by the construction of the British Navy, within the framework of which, from 2009 to 2017, two newest aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth type were launched.
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 13 2021 09: 28
    +4
    Well, the most obvious thing.

    = All modern powers with corresponding foreign policy ambitions strive to implement their military presence in other countries with the most compact units and mercenaries =

    Those. you
    1. Do you propose to project the realities of war in countries like CAR / Mali, where 5 pickups are already on the Wehrmacht, to the whole of Africa? Already in neighboring Chad, this will not take off. What are you going to influence with mercenaries in Sudan with an army of 105 thousand?
    2. Do you propose to count on the fact that your mercenaries will not be swatted like a fly during the "aggravation of the international situation"?
    3. Are you suggesting to consider the need, leading to failures, a virtue? The Americans are trying to be present everywhere, the French have cut the army. Both those and others do not shine with geopolitical successes. The same CAR was a French nature reserve. Once upon a time.

    = As you can see, Chinese investments in Africa are extremely extensive, but Beijing is not eager to send its aircraft carriers there. =
    Passing off your own fantasies as the position of the Chinese General Staff is not good. What motives does China have to drive aircraft carriers there now? None. What are the reasons NOT to use them when needed? Fantasies of Mr. Voskresensky?

    = Why, if all issues of investment protection are solved by economic pressure, technological assistance, diplomacy and military advisers? =
    Truth? And how are you doing in Libya?
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 13 2021 16: 31
      +3
      And no one will destroy an army of 105 thousand when you can kill, or bribe objectionable generals and politicians, or provide assistance to those who are agreeable. Direct occupation requires, according to Western estimates, somewhere between 20-25 soldiers per 1 population. It is obvious that a country with a population of 20 million will need an army of 400-500 thousand. By the way, Iraq has shown it. Otherwise, I recommend referring to the experience of the American intervention in Somalia, which ended with the Battle of Mogadishu and the actual destruction of the American consolidated company. That is, the expeditionary corps of several thousand people will only be busy with endless squabbles with the locals, winning any local skirmishes with a score of 10-20: 1 in terms of losses, and in no way changing the general situation.
      1. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 13 2021 17: 11
        -1
        = And no one will destroy an army of 105 thousand when you can kill, or bribe objectionable generals and politicians, or provide assistance to those who are agreeable. =

        How are you doing in Ukraine, Georgia and Syria? In the latter, not even Sudan, but often quite small groups. Have you smoked a lot from the opposition districts of Damascus, two by two kilometers?
        Okay, we are poor, how are the Americans? Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. Syria, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela are even worse. Well, yes, how many years did the CIA try to kill Castro?

        That is, they will take the money, even with great pleasure. Lo ... The cunning strategist is not a mammoth, he will not die out. What's the point of this. I will reveal a terrible secret - in 99% of cases, recipients rzhach over burdocks ..

        = Direct occupation requires, according to Western estimates, somewhere between 20-25 soldiers per 1 population. Obviously, a country with a population of 20 million will need an army of 400-500 thousand =

        There are 17,5 million in Syria. How is the fight against the Russian invaders in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and especially Crimea going on?

        = Otherwise, I recommend referring to the experience of the American intervention in Somalia, which ended with the Battle of Mogadishu =

        To that?
        "UN representatives demanded the immediate arrest or destruction of Aidid, in fact outlawing him, thereby speaking out against one of the participants in the internal conflict in Somalia. Aidid's head was awarded a reward of $ 25.
        "

        = and the actual destruction of the American consolidated company =
        19 dead, 18 of them Americans?
        Well, not the point. This is just an example of the "success" of your methods.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 14 2021 09: 15
          +1
          Of the 160 people in Magadisho, about 100 people were killed and wounded, that is, the unit lost its combat capability.

          How are you doing in Ukraine, Georgia and Syria?


          Just the same, no problem.

          How is the fight against the Russian invaders going in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and especially Crimea, can you tell me?


          Shave your forelock, burn yourself.
          1. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 14 2021 09: 53
            +1
            = Out of 160 people in Magadishu, about 100 people were killed and wounded, that is, the unit has lost its combat capability. =
            1.Compare.
            = the actual destruction of the American consolidated company =
            You are conscientious and a handshake, not like some.

            2. You, as a proto-user, have poorly mastered the "Russian language" and the term "moral resilience". After "bloody losses" in 2/3, the unit cannot fight, but generally, really does not want to. At the same time, this was written at a time when the ratio of killed / wounded 1 to 3 was optimistic, and medical care was so-so. De facto, there was no loss of combat capability.

            = Just the same, no problem. =
            Those. have you already bought an administration in Kiev / Tbilisi? Donbass with Putin's permission being fired upon? What a conscientious intellectual you are.
            And helicopters and armored personnel carriers went to Crimea exclusively with money, yes.

            = Shave forelock, burn. =
            You, Mykola, do not understand Russian at all. It was you who was asked to tell about the fight against the Russian invaders, since you ... um ... made her naked. Study, Cossack - you will become a janitor.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion April 14 2021 11: 45
              +1
              Kievisho and Tbilismerynka are still not Africa for 2000 km, and the requests there are slightly different. Let me remind you that the Ukrainians, buying gas from Russia, paid less for it than the Russians, that is, the authorities for quite a long time allowed the population to also sit at the trough and rip off the former. The Ukrainian SSR together. And Russia, when proposing something, had to reckon with this, but, obviously, it will not have to reckon with the population of Chad, should our government wish to acquire something there.

              And it's so funny when those who use the term "Russian occupier" accuse others of being chubaty. Let me tell you a secret, for the Crimeans, Russians are not invaders, but liberators.
  • Niko
    Niko April 13 2021 09: 35
    +6
    It’s not difficult to ironically mock Timokhin’s logic. But if we simplify ideas to a minimum? Opponents accuse Timokhin about the following, his arguments are "China and Great Britain are building aircraft carriers, which means we need and we can." The author of this article writes (if you condense) "China and Great Britain are building aircraft carriers (as well as a dozen other countries), so we do not need, we cannot" - so who is more logical?
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 13 2021 16: 07
      +1
      Opponents accuse Timokhin about the following, his arguments are "China and Great Britain are building aircraft carriers, which means we need and we can."


      It remains only to find where I wrote this
      1. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 16: 37
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Opponents accuse Timokhin about the following, his arguments are "China and Great Britain are building aircraft carriers, which means we need and we can."


        It remains only to find where I wrote this

        It doesn't stop them, but even with this attitude, your logic wins.
  • Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx April 13 2021 09: 47
    +8
    The article is interesting and controversial. For which I would like to thank the Author. But I still can't agree with her and I would like to draw attention to a couple of points that were very striking.
    A. Timokhin deliberately misleads the readers of the Voenny Obozreniye by trying to set the Navy with such tasks as a hypothetical prevention of a nuclear strike.

    and as a basis for his thoughts, the author points out that
    2. The Russian nuclear arsenal has full numerical parity with the American one, but has more advanced types of delivery vehicles. There is no real guarantee that the first disarming strike can work.

    One small remark - NOT YET. But NATO is working on this very, very closely. The author suggests that we simply rely on the fact that "we are ahead of the rest of the world" and score on the real possibility of a potential enemy having such an opportunity, even if not today, but in 10, 15 or even 20 years.
    Right, why think about it? We have "parity" and "more advanced types of delivery".
    But most of all I was struck by this text.
    3. In the highest military and political circles of the United States, there is no consensus even about whether it is worth developing a nuclear arsenal and whether it is worth abandoning it altogether. In such conditions, to talk about the fact that the Americans will decide to go crazy and, for the edification of China (!!!), inflict an atomic strike on Russia, which has the world's first arsenal of strategic nuclear forces, is utterly stupid.

    In the US, there can be discussions about anything and for anything. This is their business. 100 years ago, there were discussions about the need to participate in European affairs and whether it is not worth leaving Europe behind, focusing on your loved ones. As we see today, the discussion led to the global dominance of the United States. Therefore, to say "oh well, they don't even know what to do and where to go, so we can relax" is, I apologize, pure stupidity. We have a saying "Vaska listens and eats", it is applicable to the United States in a slightly different form - "Congress talks, but continues to do as it did."

    Well, and the last thing I would like to draw your attention to is, of course, examples of the uselessness of AB in countries such as China and Great Britain. These countries, according to the Author, are known to the whole world for their competent combination of politics, economics and special forces, therefore ... therefore, these two countries are very actively building aircraft carriers ... repeat
    I understand that the Author is sincerely convinced that such ships are unnecessary for our fleet. But it is necessary to somehow pull the owl onto the globe of your ideas ... more accurately all the same.
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 09: 58
      +1
      Thank you for your feedback, Trapper!

      One small remark - NOT YET. But NATO is working on this very, very closely. The author suggests that we simply rely on the fact that "we are ahead of the rest of the world" and score on the real possibility of a potential enemy having such an opportunity, even if not today, but in 10, 15 or even 20 years.
      Right, why think about it? We have "parity" and "more advanced types of delivery".


      By no means, I am not suggesting "to score" - only to correctly prioritize.

      We need to develop (and, if possible, expand) the nuclear arsenal further.

      These countries, according to the Author, are known to the whole world for their competent combination of politics, economics and special forces, therefore ... therefore, these two countries are very actively building aircraft carriers ...


      Perhaps I conveyed my thought somewhat incorrectly in the article, but you misunderstood me - I only meant that at first both Britain and the PRC learned to build an effective foreign policy, dealt with their internal problems and mastered the methods of non-military influence.

      Now both those and they have reached the rise - they have extensive influence, allies, satellites, clearly and competently formulated goals at the state level... And aircraft carriers became appropriate.
      1. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 10: 30
        +1
        Quote: Anjay V.
        Thank you for your feedback, Trapper!

        One small remark - NOT YET. But NATO is working on this very, very closely. The author suggests that we simply rely on the fact that "we are ahead of the rest of the world" and score on the real possibility of a potential enemy having such an opportunity, even if not today, but in 10, 15 or even 20 years.
        Right, why think about it? We have "parity" and "more advanced types of delivery".


        By no means, I am not suggesting "to score" - only to correctly prioritize.

        We need to develop (and, if possible, expand) the nuclear arsenal further.

        These countries, according to the Author, are known to the whole world for their competent combination of politics, economics and special forces, therefore ... therefore, these two countries are very actively building aircraft carriers ...


        Perhaps I conveyed my thought somewhat incorrectly in the article, but you misunderstood me - I only meant that at first both Britain and the PRC learned to build an effective foreign policy, dealt with their internal problems and mastered the methods of non-military influence.

        Now both those and they have reached the rise - they have extensive influence, allies, satellites, clearly and competently formulated goals at the state level... And aircraft carriers became appropriate.

        The fact that China first built its economy, dealt with internal problems, etc. This is a delusion. All the years, the military budget and military development were a priority (even when people were really starving) And attempts to develop, including the military industry, had an effect on the development of the entire industry as a whole
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 13 2021 16: 34
          +2
          All the "development" of China is the transfer of Western factories to it. They "developed" the military so that for them the MiG-21 at the end of the 80s was a technological ceiling. Even now, China's military spending in relation to its population, no matter how inflated, is in no way higher than that of Russia.
      2. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx April 13 2021 11: 00
        +2
        Thank you for your reply!
  • navodchik
    navodchik April 13 2021 10: 16
    +6
    Unfortunately, the respected author did not answer Timokhin's questions, arguing this by a principled refusal to consider the problem on the part of Alexander's supporters. Introducing into consideration the phrases similar to "magic realism", the understanding of the essence of his arguments, the author did not reveal. I was not convinced by the author's argument that the fleet is useless "toys". Recognizing the fact that the fleet is necessary, it is necessary to consider all of it, not dropping the questions of aircraft carriers "as unnecessary". Jumping from the role of the TU-160 to the role of the MTR is also not an argument towards the latter. Each item has its own purpose and it is not necessary to replace the fleet, aviation and the MTR. It can lead to the problem of 41, when I also wanted "with little blood, on foreign territory." The country needs a fleet and needs ALL classes of ships, including aircraft carriers.
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 10: 26
      -3
      the respected author did not answer Timokhin's questions, arguing this by a principled refusal to consider the problem on the part of Alexander's supporters


      Good day, dear Gunner!

      I see no point in answering the secondary questions that arise from the initially false thesis.

      The reality is that no one, including Alexander, can provide a coherent operational-strategic concept for the use of an aircraft carrier fleet.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 13 2021 10: 58
        +1
        Not really tired of talking about theoretical Russian AV? In parallel, there is a revolution in UAVs that can, in principle, change the balance of power.
        The concept of UAVs of sea and air is interesting. An article about testing the KC-135 and UTAP-22 was published yesterday on Thedrive. Several dozen arsenals with CD and kamikaze drones, AWACS, UAVs, bombers and tankers are capable of destroying a small country or covering up a KUG.
        1. Alarmist79
          Alarmist79 April 13 2021 12: 11
          0
          1. Generally, the advancing pace of development of air defense, improvement of aviation automatically increases the role of aircraft carriers

          2. = Interesting is the concept of air UAVs =
          This is different. They will not pull a full-fledged UAV fighter / striker, but something of the class of "faithful slaves" because they are slaves because they parasitize on other people's sensory and shock capabilities. In addition to the fact that you cannot put a radar of fighter parameters on them, 900-1000 kg of bombs and large missiles are not used for aesthetic reasons.

          = capable of destroying a small country or covering a KUG. =
          This is if the country has nothing but the orthodox MiG-21 lying around. Moreover, stealth fighters will simply devour this half-blind company.
          In fact, all this should work in conjunction with the classics, it doesn't matter at all, manned or unmanned.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik April 13 2021 12: 33
            +3
            Quote: Alarmist79
            In general, it is outstripping the pace of development of air defense

            Air defense both carried a secondary role and carries it. There are no examples at all when air defense saved someone from something. Make it difficult for aviation, yes. It is quite possible to shoot down planes that have accidentally broken through or a non-massive missile strike.
            There is no advanced development of air defense. Aviation is playing an increasing role and this role is increasing every year.
            Quote: Alarmist79
            This is another

            Of course it's different, that's why I'm talking about the air "AUG", which has a variety of aircraft. AWACS, electronic warfare, bombers, arsenals with CD, etc.
            Quote: Alarmist79
            Moreover, stealth fighters will simply devour this half-blind company.

            A manned fighter has no chance of defeating an unmanned fighter. You just need to come to terms with it.
            You oversimplify the Loyal Wingman concept. Due to the diversity and distribution of tasks, the overall combat level is increased. They are not blind, on the contrary. To create a radar field, you need a large number of spaced-apart emitters and receivers connected into a network. Group tactics of fighters work this way now, but there is a pilot in each aircraft and there are few of them, so the technical level of each link is increasing. Classic: large but 5 rubles or small but 3 rubles.
            1. Alarmist79
              Alarmist79 April 13 2021 14: 42
              0
              = There is no advanced development of air defense. =
              I'm just about that. there is outstrippinge pvoshnikov aviation development... Hence the growing role of aircraft carriers.

              = A manned fighter has no chance of defeating an unmanned fighter. =

              1. In the BVB. But we still have to live to see him. And with this, the less knowledgeable and in fact not too subtle (thin coating) devices will be all bad.

              2. I specifically mentioned that the fighter can be either manned or unmanned. It's not about piloting, but about dimension. The fighters grew from less than 5 tons for the MiG-15 to more than 30, not because the pilots got fat. It's just that the "dwarfs" have lost in all respects.

              A classic fighter (by the way, he can be in the company of his followers), transportable undersized and so will kill, and if you also make him incorporeal, the result is more than predictable.

              = AWACS, electronic warfare, bombers, arsenals with CD, etc. =
              So the enemy has the same thing, but qualitatively the best basic units. Including due to much better individual electronic warfare.
              The simplest model is just a group of conditional MiG-15s (the size of large slaves is about the same) with AWACS against F-18/35 .... also with it. Uh ... This is some kind of guro.

              = They are not blind, on the contrary. To create a radar field, a large number of spaced-apart emitters and receivers connected into a network are needed. =

              This will not cancel the much shorter range of the radar. At the same time, on AB we can perfectly have fighters with wingmen, and on air carriers only ersatz.
      2. Doccor18
        Doccor18 April 13 2021 12: 10
        0
        Quote: Anjay V.
        The reality is that no one, including Alexander, can provide a coherent operational-strategic concept for the use of an aircraft carrier fleet.

        Aircraft carriers, having once "buried" battleships, have become the standard of sea power, the guarantor of control of the sea.
        Decades passed, aircraft carriers grew, the tactics of their use changed along with technical progress. But one thing remained unchanged: aircraft carriers are ships for controlling sea spaces.
        What has changed now? The aircraft carriers have lost their strike potential against the coast. They can no longer compete with superior long-range air defense systems (such as S-400) and coastal anti-ship missile systems.
        Does this mean that the era of aircraft carriers is over? Not at all. Aircraft carriers (not only heavy nuclear, but moderate military) get a new (well forgotten - old) breath - this is the destruction of everything that walks on the surface of the sea. Tool: F35B and LRASM. Shipborne air defense systems are not capable of stopping the launch of these missiles from the side and / b ... The Americans will not reduce nuclear aircraft carriers, and moreover, sitan will increase the number of "lungs" (UDC type America). Tactics - the destruction of all enemy ships with a large number of long-range cr. Destruction of the enemy fleet is the main goal of the AUG. Destruction of enemy submarines - building up construction and transferring nuclear submarines-hunters and PLO aircraft to the Navy.
        Conquest of dominance at sea = control of world trade = dominance in the world. Will the regiments of air defense missile systems and launchers of coastal anti-ship missiles be able to repel a massive strike on the fleet? Not. Who can? Only fighter-interceptors from the native aircraft carrier ... They, at some point, will become the main effective tool against the F35 deck squadrons ...
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 22 June 2021 19: 13
          0
          this has already been discussed,

          both MBT and infantry with RPG / RPO and infantry with ATGM / UR and infantry with a drone-VVPZ can destroy the enemy's pillbox, only from this list MBT will be the most expensive means, this is not a reason to abandon tanks, but a reason to abandon MBT. Everything also applies to aircraft carriers

          3) I think that the problem is not "needed / unnecessary aircraft carrier" and in:
          3.1) or "which aircraft carrier (and its complexes) are the most optimal for ensuring security specifically for the Russian Federation?"
          3.2) or "as a land power (RF) to minimize the costs of creating / maintaining / developing a full-fledged fleet." At the same time, a "full-fledged fleet", tobish, among other things, capable of organizing an analogue of the "landing in Normandy" with the seizure of territory, ideally the seizure of North America, or at least Australia, at worst will come down to Hokkaido).
          3.3) or "how to transfer expenses from the budget of the Russian Navy to the budgets of other departments of the Russian Federation in order to obtain a full-fledged fleet"
      3. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 13 2021 19: 13
        0
        The reality is that no one, including Alexander, can provide a coherent operational-strategic concept for the use of an aircraft carrier fleet.


        What is an "operational-tactical concept"?
    2. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri April 13 2021 10: 35
      +3
      The country needs a fleet and needs ALL classes of ships, including aircraft carriers.

      I will support. Everything just needs to be done in a comprehensive and balanced way. Nobody suggests spending money thoughtlessly. But if such an opportunity arises (for example, orders for new nuclear submarines run out), it must be taken advantage of in order to close the existing gaps. That's all. The main slogan should be: not to the detriment, but for the good!
      1. alstr
        alstr April 13 2021 12: 30
        +3
        I'll reveal a secret. Orders for new nuclear submarines will never end, because you will always need to build new ones at least to update the existing lineup.
        Based on the reactor service life of 20-30 (well, let it be 40), we get that by the end of the 20s we need to start a new wave of nuclear submarine renewal, because the service life of the nuclear submarines, which entered service in the 80s-2000s, will come to an end. And this is about 20-25 boats.
        Q: How long will it take to update this roster?

        And this is not taking into account the fact that an increase in the number of nuclear submarines will be required.

        Therefore, it is necessary not only to look at when and how many of these or those ships will be built, but also to look at where and when they will be repaired and serviced.
        Ideally, this should be a continuous loop. As a result, shipbuilding and ship repair yards would know when and which ship will come to them for construction and / or maintenance.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 14: 27
          +1
          Quote: alstr
          Based on the reactor service life of 20-30 (well, let it be 40), we get that by the end of the 20s we need to start a new wave of nuclear submarine renewal, because the service life of the nuclear submarines, which entered service in the 80s-2000s, will come to an end. And this is about 20-25 boats.

          Sorry, but there are about 23 such nuclear submarines in the fleet. To replace them, by 2030, the already laid down 9 nuclear submarines (Severodvinsk + 8 Yasen-M) will be commissioned. Even if we do a big foolishness and continue to churn out 885M, then laying them in the same amount (1-2 hulls per year) and building a boat for 8 years, we will get the same 14 nuclear submarines. And this will be a significant increase because today our 23 nuclear submarines are mostly under repair or laid up, and these will be relatively new. And one workshop of Sevmash will cope with this
          1. alstr
            alstr April 13 2021 15: 00
            0
            So, again, it turns out that when we build those 14 nuclear submarines (i.e., around the end of the 30s), then we will need to update those boats that were built in the 2010s. and so on in a circle.
            Yes, there may be fewer of them at a time, but there will be. Plus repairs and modernization, and most likely there will be new projects.

            But we are told that we will no longer build all the nuclear submarines - there are no more contracts. And the fact that contracts can be concluded in the future is somehow omitted.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 15: 01
              +1
              Quote: alstr
              So, again, it turns out that when we build those 14 nuclear submarines (i.e., around the end of the 30s), then we will need to update those boats that were built in the 2010s. and so on in a circle.

              Let's clarify :))))) To have 40 multipurpose nuclear submarines in the Navy, with a service life of 40 years, it is enough to build 1 nuclear submarine per year.
              But we are told that we will no longer build all the nuclear submarines - there are no more contracts. And the fact that contracts can be concluded in the future is somehow omitted.

              The question is that we just don't need SSBNs anymore. 10-12 ships of this class will be enough for the fleet. And even one workshop of Sevmash will be able to commission one nuclear submarine per year. There will be multipurpose, it's not for nothing that Huskies are being developed, however, in my opinion, such nonsense turns out ...
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 13 2021 11: 57
      0
      Quote: navodchik
      It can lead to the problem of 41, when I also wanted "with little blood, on foreign territory."

      I wanted to. But things didn’t go any further than wanting (maybe, under a favorable coincidence of circumstances, someday). smile
      Military planning in the USSR during all the interwar years was carried out on the basis of starvation strategies - a long war in which the victory will be won by the one who best mobilizes the rear. Hence, evacuations for almost the entire European part, and backup factories in the Eastern part of the USSR, and stocks of weapons and ammunition for the period of mobilization of industry (alas, but the rate of losses in real life multiple times overlapped all calculations).
      The main problem of the USSR was that real politics and propaganda not only did not coincide - they were generally in parallel universes. As Melia wrote, Comrade Voroshilov could broadcast from the rostrum about "little blood, a mighty blow", and when he came down from the rostrum, he could sign an order on the next expansion of the evacuation zone. smile
      They tried to solve the problem of oversight and conceit in propaganda before the war - but even Mehlis failed.
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 15 2021 10: 30
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The main problem of the USSR was that real politics and propaganda not only did not coincide - they were generally in parallel universes.

        You don't understand any real politics or propaganda at all if you think that they should coincide. The goals of real politics are not always advertised by propaganda. Moreover, it is always hidden, because secrecy is the basis of success in any promising business. If you think that we are fighting terrorism in Syria, you are a naive person. The propaganda began preparations for war with Germany long before 1941, and it was in it that success was achieved. And this has nothing to do with conceit and superficiality, just as it has nothing to do with Comrade. Mehlis.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 22 June 2021 19: 23
          0
          however, you also confuse ends and means, the ends should be revealed, but sometimes it is beneficial to hide the means.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 13 2021 10: 22
    +4
    Otherwise, citizens pay severely for them - first with income, way and standard of living, and then with their own blood.

    The Sochi Olympics cost the state almost $ 1,5 trillion. rub. ($ 51 billion). How did this affect the standard of living of the population? This amount is equivalent to the construction of 3 "Fords" (with air groups) ... So, "no funds" - so-so argument ...
    ... any weapon is designed and built for the immediate needs of the state - first of all, we are talking about its foreign policy and, accordingly, political ambitions.

    Weapons are created not for ambition, but to ensure the defense of the state ...
    1. max702
      max702 April 14 2021 07: 10
      0
      Quote: Doccor18
      How did this affect the standard of living of the population?

      Yes, how would the whole region of the country be put in order .. Go to Sochi, talk to the locals, they will tell you a lot of interesting things .. In Sochi, factories from all over the country worked, supplying the same metal structures, construction organizations, industrial chemicals and much more .. Benefit from this project our country will go for decades more .. What would be the use of a Pair of AUG in today's world?
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 April 14 2021 09: 08
        +1
        Quote: max702
        What would be the use of AUG Pair in today's world?

        And what is the use of any weapon system? There is only one - ensuring the country's defense capability.
        Quote: max702
        Yes, how would the whole region of the country be put in order ...
        Factories from all over the country worked in Sochi ...
        The benefits of this project will continue for decades to our country ...

        And so not the most "neglected" region was, agree ..? There are a number of areas that may need this money more ...
        And for the creation of an aircraft carrier, carrier-based aircraft, infrastructure - how many research institutes and factories need to be involved? How many jobs will it give? I think that it is not less than for the construction of Olympic facilities. And the effect of a scientific and technical breakthrough will be incomparable, because only the creation will take at least 10-15 years ...
        Of course, it is incorrect to compare the modernization of urban infrastructure, the construction of sports facilities with the creation of a complex defense system. It's just that many opponents and deniers of aircraft carriers cite one of the main reasons - the lack of funds in the country for such expensive projects ... But it turns out that this is far from the case.
        1. max702
          max702 April 14 2021 09: 48
          -1
          The region was more than neglected, its payback is quite good, and where should the citizens of Russia go on vacation? Over the hillock? Well, in 2019 over the hill, our tourists left 50 billion / dollars (by the way, to the thesis about poverty in Russia) isn't it too wasteful? We are not Ukrainian tourists, we are "spoiled" by foreign service, we need conditions at the level with which, for example, in the Crimea there are big problems. Plants for AUG are good, but the same plants build civil ships much better, they raise the economy, AUG only costs and no more .. What is the breakthrough in the scientific and technical field? Only specifically, and not, as always, about unique technologies. For example, in civilian life, at the expense of new vessels, we have mastered the production of azipods, and now tell us what we will master in the production of AUG? There are funds for something useful that will benefit the country, what benefit will AUG bring? AUG has nothing to do with defense.
          1. Dante Alighieri
            Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 10: 41
            +1
            Now tell us what we will master in the production of AUG?

            At least large-scale construction. It is construction and not assembly from Korean components, as it is now at Zvezda. + Rolled metal and new alloys, and hence chemistry and science, will join. Again, we are modernizing the Sevmash basin, perhaps completing the dry dock at the northern end of Cape Chalmpushka in the Kola Bay. There will be a place to base and carry out mid-term repairs of other large ships.
            1. max702
              max702 April 14 2021 11: 23
              -1
              Quote: Dante
              At least large-scale construction. It is construction and not assembly from Korean components, as it is now at Zvezda. + Rolled metal and new alloys, and hence chemistry and science will connect

              All this is now being successfully done in the "Bolshoi Kamen" without the construction of any Aircraft Carriers .. Why do we need AUG for this?
              The shipyard will be busy repairing Zvezda products without any Aircraft Carriers ..
              1. Dante Alighieri
                Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 11: 53
                +1
                All this is now being successfully done in the "Bolshoi Kamen" without the construction of any Aircraft Carriers.

                Now in a large stone there is an assembly shop made of what was produced in Korea.
                Assembling ready-made and building from scratch yourself - as they say in Odessa, there are two big differences. I am already silent about the fact that such "production" affects related industries more than in any way.
                1. max702
                  max702 April 14 2021 12: 00
                  0
                  Quote: Dante
                  Now in a large stone there is an assembly shop made of what was produced in Korea.

                  Check out the question, your data is very outdated, there is now a steel plant, and a plant for processing 6 million oil products, and a power plant, and much more ..
                  1. Dante Alighieri
                    Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 12: 08
                    +1
                    And all in order to trade the bowels of the Motherland. What am I glad for you.

                    Ps You did not answer me about the gesheft from the Olympics
                    1. max702
                      max702 April 14 2021 12: 10
                      0
                      And the fact that the United States, Canada, Australia are excellent trade in mineral resources does not bother you? Or is it different and you need to understand?
                      1. Dante Alighieri
                        Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 12: 56
                        +1
                        The US trades in mineral resources is very, very limited. Most of the same "light" Texas oil is consumed by the Americans themselves. And so everywhere. Regarding how the countries serving the metropolis live, this is not interesting to me.
                      2. max702
                        max702 April 14 2021 14: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Dante
                        The US trades in mineral resources is very, very limited. Most of the same "light" Texas oil is consumed by the Americans themselves. And so everywhere. Regarding how the countries serving the metropolis live, this is not interesting to me.

                        What? Limited? Is it okay that the United States is one of the largest oil suppliers in the world? And whose LNG should warm and save Europe from Mordorian gas?

                        Listen, you are obviously sorting it out with this guy ... be careful ..
        2. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 14 2021 11: 06
          0
          Quote: max702
          AUG has nothing to do with defense.

          Seriously?
          And what does it have for?
          Quote: max702
          Plants for AUG are good, but the same plants build civil ships much better, they raise the economy ... For example, in civilian life, they mastered the production of azipods at the expense of new ships, and now tell us what we will master in the production of AUG?

          And where does the civil shipbuilding? The construction of a destroyer or an aircraft carrier does not at all cancel the construction of a tanker and a fishing trawler ... Just as the production of tanks does not cancel the production of tractors for agriculture ...
          When designing / building a naval aircraft carrier system, a number of difficult issues will have to be resolved: the creation of new steel grades, the creation of means of production (machine tools, etc.) for large-section shipbuilding (due to sanctions, no one will sell us something like that for a warship), the creation of new nuclear reactors of installations, possibly - with a life cycle equal to the service of the ship). This is the birth of carrier-based AWACS aircraft (possibly - PLO, refueling tanker, transport), which will also push forward the program of updating the fleet of light military transport aviation and inexpensive RER / AWACS aircraft for the Aerospace Forces, incl. a new radar of moderate size and cost (unlike the mighty A-100), will accelerate work on a promising single deck helicopter (in the version PLO, P / S, RLOiN, strike, etc.), the creation of a catapult (more electromagnetic than steam) and aerofinishers, deep modernization of carrier-based fighters ... and much more ...
          Quote: max702
          .. so where can the citizens of Russia go on vacation? Over the hillock? Well, in 2019 over the hill, our tourists left 50 billion ... we are "spoiled" by foreign service, we need conditions at a level with what, for example, in Crimea there are big problems ...

          Spoiled, you are right, so my colleagues, as they traveled to Turkey, Egypt and Thailand, and continue. One was on vacation in Sochi ... And the next year, in the UAE. He said that the costs were about the same, but the quality of service and variety - "heaven and earth" ... And for those who do not have enough income in the UAE, then Crimea ... Cheap and angry. The sea-sun is there and it's good ...
          1. max702
            max702 April 14 2021 11: 19
            0
            Quote: Doccor18
            Cheap and cheerful. The sea-sun is there and it's good ...

            And rightly so, more citizens of Russia are not worthy! Isn't Herr Gauleiter?

            Quote: Doccor18
            And where does the civil shipbuilding?

            And despite the fact that the resources are a limited and very thing, if we went into the construction of the AUG, then there will be enough material and human resources only for this, no citizen of the question will not go, because we will not pull us only 146 million,
            Why do we need all this specialized machinery for AUG, if all tasks are solved by other tools? Apart from AUG, we still have a lot of things that are vital, let me remind you once again that there are only 146 million of us.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 April 14 2021 11: 35
              0
              Quote: max702
              more citizens of Russia are not worthy! Isn't Herr Gauleiter?

              ??? ... what does this mean

              Quote: max702
              ... resources are a limited thing and very much, if we went into the construction of the AUG, then the material and human resources will only be enough for this, about any citizen of the question, because we will not pull us only 146 million ...

              Stop it. There were 280 million people in the USSR, and there was enough for everyone, and they did several tens of times more than they do now. The social sphere was simply global, all at the expense of the state. What was the economy like? Army? There was enough for everything. And the technologies were what they were, not like modern ones ... Now one combine can replace a dozen of the production of 60-70 years. So what about the "population of 146 million." - the argument is even more ridiculous than "no funds" ... In Nigeria and Mexico, the population is larger than in Russia and for a long time. Do you think they have more opportunities?
              1. max702
                max702 April 14 2021 11: 49
                -2
                Quote: Doccor18
                ??? ... what does this mean

                Well, how is it here
                Quote: Doccor18
                ... Cheap and cheerful. The sea-sun is there and it's good ...

                Are not the thoughts of a Gauleiter?
                Quote: Doccor18
                Stop it. 280 million lived in the USSR, and there was enough for everyone,

                Lies, I remember very well, especially to the residents of the RSFSR ..
                Quote: Doccor18
                What was the economy like? Army? There was enough for everything. And what technologies were there, not like modern ones ...

                Oooh incurred that .. And coupons for everything and everything? And what about the queues for bread? Is the concept thrown out familiar to you? Or was it not?
                Technologies! Which ones ? When was a Mercedes of the 60s looked at as a spaceship? If there was something in the military and space .. EVERYTHING! In civilian life, everything was sad and wretched .. I'm talking about that and if we again start pounding everything into the military commissariat (especially nafig not necessary), then everything will return in those days .. Although you seem to be from the sect of the red sofa and ice cream for 20 kop ..
                1. Doccor18
                  Doccor18 April 14 2021 12: 07
                  0
                  Quote: max702
                  Technologies! Which ones ? When was a Mercedes of the 60s looked at as a spaceship?

                  Read the commentary to the end.
                  I wrote about the fact that modern technologies allow one person to perform such a volume of work that a person was required ten forty years ago ... Therefore, the size of the population is not as critical now as it was a hundred years ago.

                  Quote: max702
                  Although you seem to be from the sect of the red sofa and ice cream 20kop each ..

                  Gauleiter ... sect ...
                  We started for health, but ended ...
                  Then I see no point in communicating. All the best.
                  1. max702
                    max702 April 14 2021 12: 35
                    -1
                    Isn't it necessary to prepare a person so that he can advance the most modern resource technologies? where will these wonderful people come from? From dampness? The number of population is critical and very even in the economy, and the quality of this population is generally in the first place .. We solve tasks exactly the same as the rest of the world, only relying not on billions of population, but on 146 million .. Therefore, we cannot be scattered on unnecessary resource-intensive projects ..
    2. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri April 14 2021 10: 34
      +1
      Factories from all over the country worked in Sochi, supplying the same metal structures, construction organizations, industrial chemistry and much more .. The benefits of this project will go to our country for decades to come ..

      And do not specify about the factories of which country you are talking about? It's just that the President expressed his gratitude for his help in the preparation of the Olympiad to one specific person. The one who, in a year and a half, "stabs in the back." You understand, since I noticed that the volumes there were appropriate, obviously not a team of 20 people. Normally, for our own money, we warmed the snake on our chest. So which country did we benefit from this action?
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 13 2021 10: 35
    +2
    = A. Timokhin deliberately misleads the readers of the Voenniy Obozreniye by trying to set the Navy with such tasks as a hypothetical prevention of a nuclear strike. =

    Timokhin is just voicing a banality that is more than 30 years old. It is at the "Volga flows into the Caspian Sea" level. See Arbatov, for example.
    http://pircenter.org/media/content/files/14/15003867470.pdf
    Americans about why they need the high accuracy of the Trident (no, not because it was)
    "We analyzed the effectiveness of a hypothetical disarming strike against 200 fortified missile silos. using SLBMs and ICBMs in 1985 and 2017, applied formulas that are used to calculate the reliability of nuclear potentials, collected data, substituted them into the equation, and got the result. In 1985, the probability of destroying a target was 0,79 ". And so on.
    At the same time, the classic "Trident" is a semi-finished product. Guided warheads were developed and tested for them. After perestroika, Congress resisted, proposing not to scare Moscow into hiccups unnecessarily.

    At the same time, you, naturally, are not aware of American plans. placement of hypersonic RSDs on submarines. Based on the successfully tested AHW.

    = Warheads of reduced power W76-2 (to which Alexander appeals so much) were not designed for "high-precision" strikes, but primarily because of the problems associated with updating the American nuclear arsenal and its political status. =

    That is, in the land of pink ponies, building up precision lungs and numerous warheads that were not originally intended to attack silos - is this from the terrible degradation of the US nuclear forces? On the other side of the great Ukrainian fence, characters vaguely resemble someone in such cases, "Putin panickedly sent troops into ..." they write.

    = The Russian nuclear arsenal has full numerical parity with the American one, but has more advanced types of delivery vehicles. There is no real guarantee that the first disarming strike can work. =

    Is that why the Americans are deploying an IRBM and developing an anti-missile defense system to finish off the remnants.

    = In the highest military and political circles of the United States, there is no consensus even about whether it is worth developing a nuclear arsenal and whether it is worth abandoning it altogether. =

    Say more, unilaterally. The desire to disarm opponents and move to the conventional is ancient. So what?
    1. Arkon
      Arkon April 13 2021 11: 33
      0
      Quote: Alarmist79
      in 1985 and 2017, applied the formulas that are used to calculate the reliability of nuclear potentials, collected data, substituted them into the equation and got the result. In 1985, the probability of destroying a target was 0,79 ". And so on.


      And what sequence of blows was considered? Counter or counter-counter?
      1. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 13 2021 11: 50
        0
        Response. The realism of the counter was severely doubted in the same 80s. For the same "Tridents" have a flight time of half an hour only if they shoot from the pier. And then the disorganized strategic nuclear forces finish off the ICBMs. It was in 1984 that the MX deployment began, which was very accurate at that time.
        Where are the huge strategic nuclear forces and 1600+ now? Despite the fact that for unacceptable damage to the States, 200 warheads were considered sufficient.
  • Arkon
    Arkon April 13 2021 11: 00
    -3
    Thank God, a realistic analyst has appeared at VO. good

    And then, I really had completely lost hope. smile
    1. Walking
      Walking April 13 2021 11: 26
      -1
      Another balobol from the liberal belolentochnikov
      1. Arkon
        Arkon April 13 2021 11: 28
        0
        Who are you talking about: the author or me? And in either case, I would like to besides "name-calling" - Putin on this occasion well recalled a children's saying quite recently wink - to hear arguments in favor of your point of view. smile
    2. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 13: 39
      +4
      Thank you, Arkon)

      And the comrade above, I think, was talking about me. Upset about the aircraft carriers, it seems)
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 13 2021 13: 35
      +6
      The denunciation was accepted. Continue to watch out for the enemies of the people. am
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 13 2021 11: 20
    +8
    It is worth giving the London politicians their due - they soberly assessed their capabilities and began to carefully and methodically promote their influence by economic methods, and used the legendary British SAS for regularly emerging military tasks, which operated all over the world - from Indonesia to Oman.

    SAS has been particularly well used to solve the arisen military task in the Falklands. laughing
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      Alexander Vorontsov April 13 2021 17: 20
      0
      How bored you are with your Falklands, frankly.
      It doesn't bother you that Russia has no Falklands.
      But there are 40 million angry Ukrainians on the border.
      But you need to prepare for the Falklands scenario.

      What are the people with you? Ay.
      1. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 18: 00
        -3
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        How bored you are with your Falklands, frankly.
        It doesn't bother you that Russia has no Falklands.
        But there are 40 million angry Ukrainians on the border.
        But you need to prepare for the Falklands scenario.

        What are the people with you? Ay.

        Calm down Masha, I'm Dubrovsky. Do not worry so, treat everything with humor "a smart face is not a sign of intelligence" ps we remember your favorite TB-3s who, if anything, fly up in dense flocks and strike retaliation and we are calm ...
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 13 2021 18: 38
        -1
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        How bored you are with your Falklands, frankly.
        It doesn't bother you that Russia has no Falklands.

        It confuses me that Britain had them - but in the article they were delicately omitted, stating that lime used the legendary British SAS for regularly arising military tasks.
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        But there are 40 million angry Ukrainians on the border.

        What, the entire Ukrainian people as one person, young and old, will go to destroy the Russians? And alone, without any support from the West.
        Or do you think that the conflict with Ukraine will be limited only to Ukraine and only to the border strip on land? Does the experience of Yugoslavia and humanitarian bombing by forces, including the fleet, teach you nothing?
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        But you need to prepare for the Falklands scenario.

        Would it bother you to quote the place where I wrote about the fact that Russia needs to prepare for the Falklands scenario?
        I, in fact, all the time fought for the AW as a means of providing air defense of ship groups defending the "bastion" on the approaches to the positional areas of SSBNs - in those places where the distance to the nearest land airfield exceeds 400 km. Moreover, these defense forces need to hold out for about 30 minutes. Moreover, it is calculated - so that all plans to clean up deployed SSBNs as part of a disarming strike would not converge - and would be postponed once again.
        AB in this case plays the role of Fleet in being.
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          Alexander Vorontsov April 14 2021 23: 12
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          It bothers me that Britain had them

          What does this have to do with us?

          What, the entire Ukrainian people as one person, young and old, will go to destroy the Russians?

          People are also a resource and their contribution is not only that to go to war on their own - to pay taxes on which hostilities will be conducted is also a contribution.
          Even if a person is against government policy, he still pays taxes.
          There are only a few people who will go to the principle to the end and "sit down for the principles" by refusing to pay the system.


          Moreover, these defense forces need to hold out for 30 minutes.

          You misunderstand the threat to the SSBN.
          The aircraft carrier is redundant for these tasks.

          Aircraft can instantly attack and destroy only surface ships.
          With submarines, it takes significantly longer to detect and destroy.
          That, firstly, gives much more time to our fox hounds to attack anti-submarine aircraft.
          And secondly, it deprives the whole operation of sense, tk. it is deprived of the main thing - secrecy.

          Enemy submarines pose a great danger - so they can covertly first take aim. and then strike in sync.

          But for the task of revealing the underwater situation, helicopter carriers are better suited as in the USSR the Moscow anti-submarine cruiser. Together with the coast, it can provide monitoring of an area 200 by 600 km.
      3. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 13 2021 21: 43
        -3
        = You are not embarrassed that Russia has no Falklands. =
        Seriously? Even the South Kurils from the Primorsky Territory are at quite a Falkland distance, if that. We have a carriage for the Falklands.

        = But there are 40 million angry Ukrainians at the border =
        1. Therefore, we need to crawl out of American zones of influence such as Venezuela - what if it will work?
        2. Do you seriously think that American Wishlist is limited to Ukraine? Or wringing out the post-Soviet space in general?

        = But you have to prepare for the Falklands scenario. =
        Are you outraged that an aircraft carrier is a very versatile piece and is also suitable there?
        Including to him. At the same time, the "Falklands" are about the third, for which AB is needed. Africa and Co-fourth.

        = What are the people with you? Ay. =
        This is called mosk.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 13 2021 11: 25
    0
    Let's try to look at the root - in the very expediency of the connection between the military necessity of an aircraft carrier and our political capabilities and ambitions!

    That's for sure. "Need to root." Conversations are going on in parallel on two issues: the possibility of construction and the need for it. There is a possibility, and this is a fact. Necessity is a more difficult question. At this stage, when there are problems in the country at all levels, it seems that it is not up to the aircraft carriers. Much more trivial tasks are solved with great creak, scandals and delays ... But ... if there is a political will to create such a system, then there are no unsolvable technical and intellectual obstacles.
  • Niko
    Niko April 13 2021 11: 45
    -1
    Well, just by the way, since the author clings to opponents. For general development, so to speak. "France conducted exercise" Poker "with the full use of the nuclear triad" A beautiful phrase, of which the article is full. The problem in a mere trifle France has not had a nuclear TRIad for a long time. (Although it is the third most powerful nuclear power) But it sounds beautiful. wassat
  • Dmitry_6
    Dmitry_6 April 13 2021 11: 47
    +1
    Dear author,
    It seems to me that this statement of yours is the main disadvantage of your work:
    "..Perhaps I conveyed my thought somewhat incorrectly in the article, but you misunderstood me - I only meant that at first both Britain and the PRC learned to build an effective foreign policy, dealt with their internal problems and mastered the methods of non-military influence.

    Now both those and those have reached the rise - they have extensive influence, allies, satellites, clearly and competently formulated goals at the state level. And aircraft carriers have become appropriate ... "


    Andrei Ch. A. Timokhin do not justify the choice or / or how you are trying to do it, it is just about more rational and long-term military planning and development. And by the time the AUG is put into operation, the problems that you pose in the above quote must be resolved in one way or another. These are not mutually exclusive areas, but purely parallel ones going in different departments, by different responsible persons and under different budget items, and not always the defense budget. You are not suggesting, I hope, to finance the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the funds planned for the development of the fleet by 2040-50?
  • Undecim
    Undecim April 13 2021 12: 30
    +4
    This material will be devoted to the answer to A. Timokhin's article "A few questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers", which, in turn, was the answer to "Inconvenient questions for the supporters of the aircraft carrier lobby."

    This music will be eternal
    If I replace the batteries
    This music will be, will be eternal
    This music will be eternal
    If I replace the batteries
    If I replace the batteries
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 13 2021 16: 12
      +3
      As they say - don't like it - don't eat laughing
      1. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter April 13 2021 16: 24
        -4
        Quote: timokhin-aa

        timokhin-aa

        Comrade, you should not be angry with them, because all sensible people understand that Russia needs a powerful fleet, but the current state does not need it, and these are two huge differences. soldier drinks
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 13 2021 16: 30
          +1
          The funny thing is, even the current one needs.
          It's just that "respected people" have brought the case to a dead end.

          A simple example is Putin's corvettes. In August 2020, there was an order for six corvettes at the ASZ, then at the end of summer - a contract.

          And where are they? Nowhere. The other day I talked with a man, he is the chief designer of one of the projects that are now going to the navy, a man in the subject.

          So, according to his words, there are no bookmarks due to organizational chaos - they simply cannot agree on work with subcontractors and suppliers. They can't, that's all.

          And this is the bottom. Now we will lose Kuznetsov on the USC and dock scam, and then the authorities will HAVE to start bringing the system to life. There will simply be no choice.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov April 13 2021 17: 18
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The funny thing is, even the current one needs.
            It's just that "respected people" have brought the case to a dead end.

            A simple example is Putin's corvettes. In August 2020, there was an order for six corvettes at the ASZ, then at the end of summer - a contract.

            And where are they? Nowhere. The other day I talked with a man, he is the chief designer of one of the projects that are now going to the navy, a man in the subject.

            So, according to his words, there are no bookmarks due to organizational chaos - they simply cannot agree on work with subcontractors and suppliers. They can't, that's all.

            And this is the bottom. Now we will lose Kuznetsov on the USC and dock scam, and then the authorities will HAVE to start bringing the system to life. There will simply be no choice.

            Ooo, Alexander!
            Where did you run away from me and did not begin to answer the question - what is the combat stability of an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean against the entire infrastructure of NATO, where 24/7 total tracking of all our ships is carried out? =)))
            Can't find what to answer?
            1. Anzhey V.
              April 13 2021 18: 04
              +4
              What is the combat stability of an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean against the entire NATO infrastructure, where 24/7 total tracking of all our ships is carried out?


              An extremely good question, I support)
            2. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 13 2021 19: 10
              0
              Does it make sense to answer a nonsensical question?

              We must first create a situation where all NATO is against us. It's not as easy as you think.
              And yes, a war with one of the members of this bloc (with the same Turkey) does not mean instant inclusion of all the others in it.

              In general, there is an answer, but you will not master it.
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov April 13 2021 21: 02
                +3
                We must first create a situation where all NATO is against us

                Well, nothing prevents you from writing your articles about situations "that still need to be created."
                And this does not bother you at all. For example, about the battle with the Japanese fleet in the Red Sea.
                You had to move there after Toko, as in my excellent article I completely crushed all your arguments and proved to all reasonable people that in closed waters the battles of ships against ships are meaningless, and the ships themselves are just extras against the background of an aviation battle. That's why you had to rotate the globe and write an opus ... about the battle of ships separately from aviation in "Antarctica") In order not to admit the obvious - the lack of meaning in your articles) The last few.

                By the way, have you figured out the brand of fuel on which the Tu-160 does not fly? Maybe VD 40? I give a hint. And then something you were blown away in your articles))) You wrote a brand of fuel before and now "special fuel"))) (after that unpleasant story with a game of guessing the brand of fuel in which you played with the pilot and after 3 attempts it did not guessed it)))) Write VD 40)))

                In general, there is an answer, but you will not master it.

                Oh what are you ...
                How are you going to use "weapon tracking" tactics in the Mediterranean? How are you going to provide the advantage of our ships there in situational awareness? Well, to win the first salvo? By the way, who will your first and last volley be there?)))
                All these are rhetorical questions, I understand that you have no answers)) And all that remains for you is primitive unsubscriptions at the junior school level.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 15 2021 11: 28
                  0
                  How are you going to use "weapon tracking" tactics in the Mediterranean?


                  As before, in the same 1973 and then many times

                  How are you going to provide the advantage of our ships there in situational awareness?


                  Reconnaissance by carrier-based aircraft, RTR, satellite reconnaissance, submarine sonar systems, base aircraft.

                  By the way, who will your first and last volley be there?)))


                  URO ships. This is the main goal.

                  All these are rhetorical questions, I understand that you have no answers))


                  Well, of course not, child you are overweight
                  1. Alexander Vorontsov
                    Alexander Vorontsov April 15 2021 20: 19
                    0
                    As before, in the same 1973 and then many times

                    Do you understand that everyone is watching each other there?


                    And large corabi in such water areas are deprived of half of their potential.
                    If an aircraft carrier (nuclear) was in the ocean, not every ship would be able to track it, speed is needed. Need autonomy. And finally, or rather to begin with, you need to find it.

                    There is nothing of this in the Mediterranean at all. Ninado to look for anyone. A penny drone is hung up and visually observed what is happening on the decks.

                    An aircraft carrier is floating, next to 3 alien submarines. Well, what's the point in anti-submarine helicopters from a radius of 200 km, if they float in a tenth of the distance of a torpedo attack?



                    Well, of course not, child you are overweight

                    Well, in fact, yes. You write absurdity.
                    The point of tactics is what? In order to keep track of something more significant with a small ship, and keep the striking forces at a distance.

                    And what about the aircraft carrier? Are we going to control the drone with an aircraft carrier for 300 billion?
                    But this is absurd.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 21 2021 12: 13
                      0
                      There is nothing of this in the Mediterranean at all. Ninado to look for anyone. A penny drone is hung up and visually observed what is happening on the decks.


                      From Tartous to Crete 1000 km. Mediterranean is small only on the map. In addition, there are many thousands of merchant ships, looking for a ship will be tortured.
                      Finally, a quote for you, generally from the Baltic:

                      Once the aircraft carrier Intrepid even entered the Baltic Sea, which was an extraordinary event, and at the time of extreme military tension and simply dangerous.

                      The weather was disgusting. It was raining, it was windy, and the clouds dropped below 200 meters. The ship was seen from the shore in the German Democratic Republic and immediately "reported where it should be." The information got to the headquarters of the USSR Air Force and Long-Range Aviation, as well as the Baltic Fleet, but neither the Il-28R front-line reconnaissance aircraft, nor the Tu-16 aircraft of the Navy and Long-Range Aviation could find him. Then one Tu-95MR from the 409th TBAP was sent to the search area. Patrolling above the clouds, its crew waited until the aircraft carrier briefly turned on one of its radar stations. Her work was instantly tracked, and the navigator issued a course for the ship. He walked, clinging to the coast of the Danish island of Bornholm - obviously the "American" hoped to go further, taking advantage of the fact that busy civil shipping routes passed north of Bornholm, connecting the ports of Leningrad and our Baltic, as well as Finnish harbors with Hamburg, Copenhagen and Oslo, and to the south √ with the main port of Poland Szczecin.


                      Then Interpid was found, but in the war, a rocket ship walking nearby would have simply knocked down the scout. And as the weather cleared up, then the aircraft carrier that was not found would calmly raise the attack aircraft to strike.

                      And the navigation radars on the US warships are now commercial, they cannot be distinguished from a tanker.
                      1. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 21 2021 21: 00
                        -1
                        From Tartous to Crete 1000 km. Mediterranean is small only on the map. In addition, there are many thousands of merchant ships, looking for a ship will be tortured.
                        Finally, a quote for you, generally from the Baltic:

                        Alexander is enough already ...
                        It’s ridiculous for her.
                        There are only 3 entrances and exits to the Mediterranean Sea.
                        So that any incoming and outgoing is easily recorded, and then it is accompanied by any available means and no traffic can interfere with this.
                        And the larger the ship, the more expedient it is to "graze" it 24/7.


                        From Tartous to Crete 1000 km. Mediterranean is small only on the map.

                        Alexander, when was the last time you flew on an airplane? Today I went home from work in Moscow longer than the plane will fly from Tartus to Crete.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 21 2021 21: 35
                        +1
                        So that any incoming and outgoing is easily fixed


                        This is yes.

                        , and then it is accompanied by any available means and no traffic can interfere with this.


                        But this is not.

                        And the larger the ship, the more expedient it is to "graze" it 24/7.


                        Eat something he will eat, but who will give him. In peacetime, it is possible to lift and find a dozen planes. In the military, a couple of them simply will not get in touch and that's it.

                        You simply cannot imagine all these tactical schemes, you cannot VISUALLY imagine how planes, ships, etc. move on the map, for you this is a cliché.
                        "The ship is visible" period.

                        And in a real war, the enemy just scatters missile ships after sunset between the fishermen, on the departure routes of base aviation, to strike an aircraft carrier, the aircraft carrier itself will substitute for the satellite, and will stupidly wait until the enemy takes off to strike and go to the target.
                        And then once - and a missile ambush halfway. And no one returned from the departure.

                        And the aircraft carrier - here it is, is still perfectly observed.

                        You cannot imagine the subject of discussion, Alexander. This is your problem.
        2. max702
          max702 April 15 2021 10: 08
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          I spoke with a man the other day, he is the chief designer of one of the projects that are now going to the fleet, a man in the subject.

          Ltd! The generals from the "pyaterochka" pulled up like the colonels, taxi drivers from the FSB .. Citizen, you are a Ukrainian and broadcast from the 404th straight set of templates and stamps from one manual! Burn! Work Better!
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 15 2021 10: 51
            -2
            Do not measure people on your own.
    2. Undecim
      Undecim April 13 2021 17: 47
      +1
      As they say - don't like it - don't eat

      - And why do you own the stars? - To be rich. - Why be rich? - To buy more new stars if someone opens them.
  • Niko
    Niko April 13 2021 12: 44
    -2
    When opponents of aircraft carriers write about the shortcomings of carrier-based aircraft of the Russian Federation, they are partly right, but they use this partial correctness absolutely incorrectly 1) The aircraft fleet, both aircraft carrier and conventional, really requires development. Work in this direction should go (and go) all the same (will there be an aircraft carrier or not ) 2) The experience of real wars (Falklands, for example) is absolutely ignored where even the British "non-aircraft carriers" were armed with "underplanes" which under no circumstances can be compared even with the fact that the Russian Federation has now completed the task at the other end of the world in confrontation with the basic aviation near enemy borders
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      Alexander Vorontsov April 13 2021 17: 15
      0
      Quote: Niko
      2) the experience of real wars (Falklands, for example) is absolutely ignored where even the British "non-aircraft carriers" who were armed with "under-aircraft" which under no circumstances can be compared even with the fact that the Russian Federation has now completed the task at the other end of the world in confrontation with the basic aviation close enemy borders

      Sorry friend, why should we think about the Falklands, when we have an aggressive country with 40 million people at our side? Do you think this is adequate? Did the British have that?

      Why should we be guided by what was not with us, to the detriment of what is really happening to us now?
      Or do you think that we should get ready to hammer the hypothetical Falklands, but there is no need to prepare for an exacerbation in Ukraine?
      Or will the aircraft carrier help us with this?

      About the underplane. When you buy a Niva Shevrale, you do not notice the creaky plastic and the howling of the hand-outs - you know its price tag and purpose.
      But when you give the price of 8 strategists ... well, it is probably logical to expect something more than an outdated "underplane" behind the atka price tag.
      1. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 17: 37
        -5
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        Quote: Niko
        2) the experience of real wars (Falklands, for example) is absolutely ignored where even the British "non-aircraft carriers" who were armed with "under-aircraft" which under no circumstances can be compared even with the fact that the Russian Federation has now completed the task at the other end of the world in confrontation with the basic aviation close enemy borders

        Sorry friend, why should we think about the Falklands, when we have an aggressive country with 40 million people at our side? Do you think this is adequate? Did the British have that?

        Why should we be guided by what was not with us, to the detriment of what is really happening to us now?
        Or do you think that we should get ready to hammer the hypothetical Falklands, but there is no need to prepare for an exacerbation in Ukraine?
        Or will the aircraft carrier help us with this?

        About the underplane. When you buy a Niva Shevrale, you do not notice the creaky plastic and the howling of the hand-outs - you know its price tag and purpose.
        But when you give the price of 8 strategists ... well, it is probably logical to expect something more than an outdated "underplane" behind the atka price tag.

        When did we switch to YOU? Something with my memory has become .... If my nerves are naughty: first for the valerian, then for the computer. Why do you write then about aircraft for aircraft carriers (ours, bad ones) as an argument, if, after asking YOU about YOUR argument, write in response: "why should we talk about this at all? Let's talk about something else ...." So do not use such arguments, that's all
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          Alexander Vorontsov April 14 2021 22: 48
          +1
          Quote: Niko
          When did we switch to YOU?

          Funny ...
          I remember the last time I came across such a thing at the dawn of the Internet, when chats and forums of the "offtopic" type were just appearing. bully
          It turns out that people who are so far from progress are still preserved.

          There is such a term "netiket" - etiquette of behavior on the Internet. I advise you to study it before using it)))


          Quote: Niko
          Why do you write then about aircraft for aircraft carriers (ours, bad ones) as an argument, if, after asking YOU about YOUR argument, write in response: "why should we talk about this at all? Let's talk about something else ...." So do not use such arguments, that's all

          Clear...
          You at least have a snack there.
      2. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 April 13 2021 23: 32
        -1
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        why should we think about the Falklands, when we have an aggressive-minded country with 40 million people at our side? Do you think this is adequate?

        And our priorities turned out to be in Syria, and not close by, where 40 million sleep and dream of destroying us. Where is the adequacy here?
        1. max702
          max702 April 15 2021 10: 23
          -1
          Quote: mordvin xnumx
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          why should we think about the Falklands, when we have an aggressive-minded country with 40 million people at our side? Do you think this is adequate?

          And our priorities turned out to be in Syria, and not close by, where 40 million sleep and dream of destroying us. Where is the adequacy here?

          Why doesn't Syria suit you? We got an excellent training ground on which we test equipment and military personnel of all positions, practice tactics, check and improve equipment and much more, plus we are utilizing forces potentially threatening our country and far from our borders (finally, the dream of Soviet generals "with a mighty blow on foreign territory "), we firmly show our position and strength in the most important region of the world making it clear to potential allies that these are not empty words, we perfectly advertise our military equipment to potential buyers, thereby working for the country's economy, and in addition, we solve the most important task of protecting markets sales of our goods (and sales markets are the main cause of ALL wars at all times) .. What's wrong? For me, a great operation for which orders and titles are not ashamed to be given .. The USSR, too, wherever it was not at war, though shyly kept silent about it, which had an extremely adverse effect on the participants in those wars .. Economically, the Syrian operation is clearly a plus, the fact that the military are dying Duc and the military and losses are quite acceptable on the same maneuvers, no less perish .. So for Syria, the country's leadership is set off! We did everything right ..
          And the issue with Ukraine will be resolved by the construction of SP-2 .. As soon as the GTS 404 is empty, it will be over .. Gas power plants will rise, which will sharply reduce electricity generation, and this will increase the load on other sources that cannot cope with it, which will lead to an energy collapse, it will fall the entire energy system, both electrical and thermal, and with it all industrial production and SH, there will be no light or heat .. And how in such conditions someone can threaten something? Even the Washington Regional Committee will not help here because it is far away, and the darkness and cold here they are! What to do then? And there is only one way out to beg Moscow .. They can, of course, rock the border, and they will stay there, the LDNR is just for this purpose and is kept in good shape, allowing the 404th to shell the territory of Donbass so that hatred when necessary splashed out on the 404th .. You say meanly! Not properly! Not at all .. Everything for once is correct and as it should be .. Nefig at the expense of Russia’s happiness once again arrange their own, all by ourselves .. And we will help as much as we can ..
    2. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 15 2021 10: 48
      +4
      Quote: Niko
      completed a mission on the other side of the world in a confrontation with base aircraft near the enemy's borders

      There was no confrontation between the aircraft of the British aircraft carriers with the obsolete ground-based aircraft of the Argentines, due to the fact that the Falklands were outside the effective range of the base aircraft. Do not be deluded yourself and do not mislead others. It is on such misconceptions that the arguments of the supporters of aircraft carriers are based. No aircraft carrier would have saved Argentina. And they would only save the airfield in the Falklands, which they did not have time to complete. That's the whole story.
  • Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. April 13 2021 13: 10
    0
    I'll try to calculate the cost of building an aircraft carrier. 1 - for the design and construction of an aircraft carrier, you need 3500000 (three million five hundred thousand) man-hours. 2 - the cost of one hour, we take 300 rubles (2400 rubles per day), total 1050000000 (one billion 50 million rubles, 3-tonnage of the ship -we take 100 thousand, for one ton we pay 50000 (fifty) thousand, only 5 billion rubles, 4-cables, wires, furniture, toilets, let 500 million more. I almost forgot-nuclear reactors another 5 billion. Summing up, we get 11550000000 ( eleven billion five hundred million rubles). There is nothing supernatural. The prices were approximate. Let someone else calculate using a different method, it will be interesting. I did not take into account the planes.
  • Phoenix
    Phoenix April 13 2021 13: 15
    0
    On business and for once without emotion. I would add that two quite large UDCs were laid down for operations from the sea. If you really want to bomb from the sea, then limit yourself to this gravitational vertical take-off and landing, with a load of up to two tons ...
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 13 2021 15: 45
      0
      Quote: Phoenix
      If you really want to bomb from the sea, then limit yourself to this gravitational vertical take-off and landing,


      Then from beyond the horizon, terribly crying and earning money with wings, a training pepelats with a kulemet, which Stalin had seen, appears - and the end of the gravitape.

      Quote: Phoenix
      with a load of up to two tons ...

      Is it up to the neighboring ship in the port or is it straight down?
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 13 2021 13: 32
    +3
    "3. In the highest military and political circles of the United States there is no consensus even about whether it is worth developing a nuclear arsenal and whether it is worth abandoning it altogether" ////
    ----
    What are these military and political circles known to the author? belay
    Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, or what?
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN April 13 2021 13: 34
    0
    "Clever and cunning with a club is stronger than a stupid simpleton with a gun" wassat

    Somewhere like that ...
    1. Dmitry_6
      Dmitry_6 April 13 2021 13: 46
      0
      In military planning (and not only there), proceed from the assumption that your "partner" is stupid, even with a gun, mmm ... to put it mildly - not far-sighted. I would suggest the opposite: clever and cunning with a gun versus stupid with a "vigorous club", while it looks like this.
  • demiurg
    demiurg April 13 2021 14: 14
    -2
    Russian aircraft carriers are needed.
    But now the Russian fleet needs OVR corvettes, massive submarines either with an analogue of a stirling, or with an egg. We need naval aviation, an PLO helicopter, an RTR / AWACS aircraft and an IL-38 replacement. We need massive frigates, then we need destroyers with weapons up to 7-8-9 points.
    But then you need an aircraft carrier.
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 15 2021 10: 52
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      But then you need an aircraft carrier.

      Quite right .... It's a pity - to live in this wonderful time
      I don’t have to - neither to me, nor to you.
  • MrFox
    MrFox April 13 2021 14: 59
    -1
    ... dear A. Timokhin, alas, only demonstrates his complete lack of understanding and incompetence in these matters

    When the author does not understand that it is not the opponent's personality that should be discussed but his arguments, no logic is to be expected.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 13 2021 16: 47
    +7
    There was such a period in the history of Russia at the end of the 18th century - the Russian-Chukchi wars. When then several hundred Cossacks and aborigines hostile to the Chukchi chased the Chukchi, then vice versa. This period ended when it was considered in St. Petersburg that the military actions cost a million something, and brought in a thousand to 30 kopecks in income. Then they just spat on the Chukchi.

    And all the military fantasy that the supporters of the plane drowners invented breaks not even about the military absurdity of scenarios, such as the ferrying of an aircraft carrier from Tartus to the Red Sea, but about the banal economic senselessness of investing several tens of billions of dollars in the fleet in order to protect investments worth several billion somewhere in Africa.
    1. Anzhey V.
      April 13 2021 18: 06
      +4
      Very exhaustive, comrade Lev)
  • Newone
    Newone April 13 2021 17: 39
    -2
    The author began to argue with Timokhin and descended to the level of Timokhin's argumentation.
    As an example:
    "The foreign policy of the Federation is infinitely far from the concept of a permanent military presence in the oceans, and our urgent needs lie in the countries located on our borders."
    And nothing that about half of our borders is the world ocean (in particular, the Arctic and Pacific). Nothing that the main "growth drivers" of our economy are precisely the territories, either the ocean itself (shelf) or adjacent and supplied mainly by the sea (Yamal, Norilsk).
    "Ankara seized the initiative ... deployed UAV squadrons ..."
    After that, unknown planes pounded these same UAVs, the counter-offensive, led by the Turks, drowned and everyone remained with their own.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 15 2021 11: 55
      +1
      Quote: Newone
      (in particular the Northern Arctic and Tikhiy)

      there is taiga .... there is nothing to guard with aircraft carriers and the sailors are all freezing and ice, an icebreaker is needed
      1. Newone
        Newone April 29 2021 20: 58
        0
        Taiga?
        Gas fields in Yamal, Norilsk Nickel, Sabeta, Vorkuta, Taimyr fields, which Rosneft is now starting to develop, is this taiga? Oh well
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 29 2021 21: 06
          0
          Quote: Newone
          Gas fields in Yamal, Norilsk Nickel, Sabeta, Vorkuta, Taimyr fields, which Rosneft is now starting to develop, is this taiga? Oh well

          for this you need combat icebreakers, your unnecessary vulnerable aircraft carrier constrained by the draft is not needed there, it will run aground, it will be cold, the planes will freeze to the hangar, the finishers will all break from the frost, and it will sink in ice
          1. Newone
            Newone April 29 2021 21: 38
            -1
            When you drink, please do not respond to my comments, sleep it off. And it’s somehow inconvenient to communicate with an adult like a man, like a clown.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 07: 42
              0
              Quote: Newone
              don't answer please

              it is clear that you have no arguments, and therefore you are trying to translate everything into a personal scandal, .... rather weak .... if you are a young man you don’t know life, you’re not taught to read and write, you don’t digest logic, and you are stupidly unaware of the state of the weather suitable for takeoff and landing, and all the more about takeoff and landing on a stripped-down narrow swinging and moving deck of a rusty aircraft carrier ... then look and appreciate the weather of those places where you are going to shove your beloved Kuzya (Norilsk, Tiksi, Khatanga) where and on the usual then the airfield is not always possible to land http://www.pogodaiklimat.ru/climate/21824.htm and by the way let it be known to him he also needs a berth .... there! that's how wrong are all members of the totalitarian destructive sect of aircraft carrier witnesses who are not able to give up their blind faith in a rusty Kuzya
              1. Newone
                Newone 1 May 2021 00: 22
                0
                Unlike you, I have more than enough arguments.
                I have already refuted your thesis about the absence of industrial regions on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, which are critical for the economic development of our (my in any case) country.
                About the weather:
                Here is the Norilsk airport schedule https://www.aeroport-norilsk.ru/
                For those who are especially "inattentive", I will note the presence regular civilian passenger flights on schedule. Note that civilian passengers have much more severe weather restrictions than fighters.
                Those. your allegations of the weather interfering with aviation are again false.
                If it so happens that it is necessary to land in a storm, then we ALREADY have a network of base airfields capable of receiving aircraft.
                The organization of combat work from these airfields will be less effective than from an aircraft carrier due to:
                1) Much higher vulnerability of stationary objects of the base airfield (fuel and ammunition storage for aircraft parking) to enemy weapons.
                2) A limited and known in advance the coverage area of ​​aviation based at the base aerodrome.
                3) a significant complication of a massive anti-submarine search using anti-submarine helicopters (at the moment this is the only means that makes it possible with a high probability to detect enemy submarines during a threatened period).
                4) The impossibility of a full-fledged aircraft cover for the KUG, which has moved into a given area (for missile defense purposes, for example, against silo-based missiles flying towards us through the North Pole).
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 07: 46
                  0
                  The organization of combat work from these airfields will be more effective than from an aircraft carrier due to:
                  1) Much higher vulnerability of an aircraft carrier (storage of fuel and ammunition for aircraft parking) to enemy weapons.
                  2) A limited and known in advance the coverage area of ​​aircraft based on an aircraft carrier.
                  3) Note that carrier-based aircraft have much more severe weather restrictions than fighters and civil aircraft using a concrete strip.
                  4) The impossibility of a full-fledged air cover for the KUG and AUG, which has moved into a given area (for missile defense purposes, for example, against silo-based missiles flying towards us through the North Pole).
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 07: 51
                  0
                  Quote: Newone
                  If it so happens that it is necessary to land in a storm, then we ALREADY have a network of base airfields capable of receiving aircraft.

                  that's lovely! means a huge vulnerable aircraft carrier constrained by the draft (you modestly kept silent about its berths) we do not need
                3. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 08: 10
                  0
                  what kind of KUG PRO are you writing about, where did you see them? there is a lonely Petya in an unknown state, and a repaired Nakhimov, they can be combat-ready only alternately, they have more than a conditional missile defense
  • DMi
    DMi April 13 2021 18: 32
    +3
    Well, finally it sounded that in order to protect their interests in the world, first of all, politics and tools of ideological influence are needed. And to the ocean fleet.
  • Vladimir Vitalin
    Vladimir Vitalin April 13 2021 18: 34
    -1
    Hello.
    Dear Author - even if someone's opinion does not coincide with yours, then the opponent must be respected, since people are not indifferent and interested in the discussion, and do not hang labels on them and do not try to belittle their level of knowledge, so you can slide down to squabbles in style "myself" ...
    And don't close your eyes to the obvious reasons:
    1. Nobody said that it was necessary to hand over the last socks to the pawnshop and invest in the construction of ships, switching to black bread and oatmeal to save money. The argument was clear - the construction will be long enough and this will allow to prepare much of the necessary during this time.
    2. According to your arguments, a future war (if there is one) can only be nuclear, in which not aircraft carriers are needed, but white sheets and a short road to the cemetery. But the experience of all the years after the Second World War suggests that it is ordinary wars that are relevant, and no one is ready to do nuclear hara-kiri to the whole world ... And this is where aircraft carriers can and should work.
    3. You claim that aircraft carriers are akin to dinosaurs - their time has passed and there is no point in using them as an argument in military policy. Perhaps, but a natural question arises - why there are so many aircraft carrier formations in the United States and new ones are being built, why new aircraft carriers are being built in many countries ... Obviously, not all and not everywhere in the countries of "real democratic values" agree with you ... Okay - we may be narrow-minded and bastard - unable to understand your logic, and they, there, in the west (and in the east too), are they simply building aircraft carriers out of altruism? Or maybe everything is not quite the way you present it?
    4. The loss of influence in the post-Soviet space did not begin yesterday, thanks to our always drunk and almost to the rank of saints clown-dancer Yeltsin and his corrupt team of "economists-democratizers" under the leadership of the friendly USA ... And step over this legacy is far from simple. And this must be understood ... Moreover, even now there are followers of his glorious deeds, one does not need to go far for examples ...
    5. When someone talks about the lack of specialists in the shipbuilding industry and pilots in naval aviation, I just want to say - calm down, they won't invite you to Sevmash for the "construction of the century", they won't put you in the cockpit of SU-33 or MiG-29K ... other, more capable, interested and intelligent, talented specialists, the country is quite capable of educating and preparing ...
    6. And in general - no need to click on the topic "how bad everything is with us", maybe it is worth thinking about how to do so that everything would be fine and REALLY START WHAT TO DO !!!! And although the situation is not at all an easy reason for tantrums, there is no ...
    Maybe you just need to include pragmatism instead of emotions, instead of reproaches and claims - real professional analysis.
    Then the discussion will return to the normal channel of the exchange of views of interested authors.
    7. Good or bad, but ultimately it is not up to us to decide when and what ships can be built. We can only assume and reason, so let's respect each other in our discussions. And forget about politics, well, just tired of reading the same thing ... "Putin and his people ... embezzlement, corruption, lobbying interests." Believe me, even if this is 100% true, then this is the case EVERYWHERE, and not only in Russia ...
    Good luck to everyone.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 07: 51
      0
      Quote: Vladimir Vitalin
      Nobody said that it was necessary to hand over the last socks to the pawnshop and invest in the construction of ships, switching to black bread and oatmeal to save money. The argument was clear - the construction will be long enough and this will allow to prepare much of the necessary during this time.

      well, of course, if you build an aircraft carrier for 200 years (the dream of sawmills from the USC), then of course you don't have to spend the five-year budget of the Ministry of Defense on it, but only 25 percent of the military budget, you don't even have to finish the construction anyway, or the padishah or the donkey will die
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 07: 54
      0
      Quote: Vladimir Vitalin
      and nobody is ready to make nuclear hara-kiri to the whole world ... And here the aircraft carriers can and should work.

      Well, first of all, we are ready to officially make America harakire and only nuclear weapons save us from US aggression as in Libya, Serbia, Iraq ... and I consider the reasoning about the non-use of weapons by Russia in the conditions of the total multiple superiority of the United States in conventional weapons as a betrayal of the Motherland
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 08: 00
      0
      Quote: Vladimir Vitalin
      When someone talks about the lack of specialists in the shipbuilding industry and pilots in naval aviation, I just want to say - calm down, they won't invite you to Sevmash for the "construction of the century", they won't put you in the cockpit of the SU-33 or MiG-29K ... There will be others, more capable, motivated and intelligent, talented specialists, the country is quite capable of educating and preparing ...

      like any adherent of a destructive sect, you are a happy person, you have everything by yourself, you just need to show pragmatism ... professionalism, you walk through the forest and suddenly, there are trillions on a construction site and there are thousands of excellent pragmatic specialists, professionals are like two from a casket are the same with persons (and they do not need salaries ready for the idea) tongue by the pike's command, at my will, dozens of AVs will appear, with eternal sailors who do not need to feed
    4. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 08: 11
      0
      Quote: Vladimir Vitalin
      Perhaps, but a natural question arises - why there are so many aircraft carrier formations in the United States and new ones are being built, why new aircraft carriers are being built in many countries ... Obviously, not all and not everywhere in the countries of "real democratic values" agree with you ... Okay - we may be narrow-minded and bastard - unable to understand your logic, and they, there, in the west (and in the east too), are they simply building aircraft carriers out of altruism?

      Here is a typical example of the collapse of logic and meaning inherent in all adherents of the aircraft carrier sect, starts with a lie, many countries are 4? USA China England France? not a lot ... and more about logic .... you wrote it yourself, read it and think, do not say that you do not know the answer, because you gave it yourself! (do not deny, I read it) The aircraft carrier is a tool for imposing the "real democratic values" you mentioned about which you yourself wrote, and that is why the builders of aircraft carriers do not have altruism about which you yourself wrote, they are going to use the aircraft carrier to rob weak countries, imposing them under the guise values, the war of death and tears, to kill women and children, and this is what the homegrown supporters of the aircraft carrier want and do not hide, who have already announced their aggressive plans to attack Africa, the Indian Ocean ..... Cambodia? that's how you are deeply mistaken
  • Earthshaker
    Earthshaker April 13 2021 18: 45
    -1
    Politician and strategist. Strategist and politician. Politically sleeps around and strategically avoids answering awkward questions. What else can we expect from domestic politicians? He does not understand that our SSBNs are very vulnerable, that Nata's patrol aircraft are much easier and, suddenly, cheaper to drive away with carrier-based fighters.
    Domestic military science has been destroyed.
  • Alien From
    Alien From April 13 2021 19: 47
    +1
    That's where I found a scythe on a stone (aircraft carrier theme), I read and go nuts .........
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz April 13 2021 20: 24
    0
    Statie i avtoru plus.
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov April 13 2021 21: 29
    +4
    Great article. The author is definitely an asterisk)
    A. Timokhin very often appeals to the combat value of aircraft carriers, constantly trying to sum up the need for their construction within the framework of tasks that have no real justification

    Rather, even so - the supporters of aircraft carriers do not understand that in the real world there is a list of threats that are analyzed by the General Staff and a list of PRIORITIES is drawn up.

    For example, Ukraine is close by. How long will it take for the United States to exacerbate the situation? What forces and means are needed to counter this threat? Let the period indicate 2-4 years. This means that you need to prepare in 2-4 years. How many PMCs-ashniks need to be trained? What is the number of tanks that Ukraine can throw? How many ATGM calculations are needed? How many missiles do you need to shoot to prepare them? How many reconnaissance drones do I need, considering that I will shoot them down?

    And this is just an example from 1 Ukraine. Events are taking place in Syria. Libya. Iraq. Iran.
    Everyone always needs money. There are no unnecessary ones yet. Do you need airfields? Needed.
    And what about the range of drones from small to extra large? Needed Or are we planning to continue chasing pickups in Su-shkas ?. Do you need a hunter? Do you need a high-precision projectile Krasnopol? Do you need a high-precision projectile? Do you need a SSSO? Do you need everything! Everyone is in line and begging for pennies.

    And then Vasya comes in, knocks the door off his feet and says - here's an aircraft carrier for me.
    They tell him - how much is it?
    - well, like 8 strategic submarines.

    Well, nifiga yourself. well ok .. justify ...

    Silence ... and the Falklands begins ...
    And such a facepalm.
    What the fuck are Falklands !?

    Well, there is no real justification for such a price tag in the face of competition with other requests, which are much better justified by physical threats.

    Like children who saw a toy and - buy buy! And tears and cry and - but the guys at school have such a thing !! but I have not!

    I also like the theme - 1 can not bring to mind. We are building 2 new ones !! So that instead of one kettlebell on the neck two fun))))))))))))

    Why 2? Because 1 head ... and they also sink for what would serially build ships.
    And 2 is already SEERIIIYAYAYA)))) Burnout))) Until tears ...

    Well, if 2 is a series, then why do they not like the situation with corvettes? 4 pieces in a series, it will generally crawl ... armada)) a whole flotilla))
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 19 2021 19: 58
      0
      laughing and you can give an example where Timokhin urgently demands to invest ALL the army's money in aircraft carriers .. please ..
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 22 June 2021 21: 40
      0
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      And then Vasya comes in,

      He smiled, vividly, beautifully, clearly, it's a pity that plus cannot be added to karma.
      but as always there is a fly in the ointment
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      ... I've got an aircraft carrier.
      They tell him - how much is it?
      - well, like 8 strategic submarines.

      Here the sabaka is buried, in the sense of a false dichotomy, and it is hidden "why do we need EXACTLY SUCH aircraft carrier for SUCH sums?" as for me
      3) I think that the problem is not "needed / unnecessary aircraft carrier" and in:
      3.1) or "which aircraft carrier (and its complexes) are the most optimal for ensuring security specifically for the Russian Federation?"
      3.2) or "as a land power (RF) to minimize the costs of creating / maintaining / developing a full-fledged fleet." At the same time, a "full-fledged fleet", tobish, among other things, capable of organizing an analogue of the "landing in Normandy" with the seizure of territory, ideally the seizure of North America, or at least Australia, at worst, Hokkaido will come down too) (that is, we are talking about many hundreds of large ships).
      3.3) or "how to transfer expenses from the budget of the Russian Navy to the budgets of other departments of the Russian Federation in order to obtain a full-fledged fleet"
  • Mooh
    Mooh April 13 2021 21: 59
    -4
    The respected author constantly reproaches Timokhin for slogans, misleading readers, failing to answer the author's acute questions, but at the same time he himself is a political instructor in the classroom, in essence he cannot say anything but breeds some kind of demagogy in the style of "We are not afraid of the gray wolf ".
    None of Timokhin's questions received a convincing answer. Instead, ritual howls about the power of strategic nuclear forces and small special forces groups. You, dear author, how are you going to squeeze the enemy submarines out of the SSBN deployment areas with nuclear weapons or special forces? Or how will Roman Skomorokhov call on the non-existent Tu-160 with anti-submarine weapons?
    And when will you finally cut off oxygen in the sea trade, will you also use special forces?
    Have you ever heard the phrase "carrier diplomacy"? Do you understand the meaning?
    A strong fleet is an integral part of any strong country, and as long as Russia does not have a strong fleet, we will not see respect from the "partners" and no strategic nuclear forces will help here. Another question is what kind of fleet do we need? Missile, underwater, aircraft carrier? Here you can still argue, although, by and large, everything is clear, asymmetric answers are the lot of the weak.
  • Usher
    Usher April 14 2021 00: 14
    -1
    I agree, but not completely))) It is necessary to make anti-aircraft missiles and air defense for their SSBNs !!!
    1. max702
      max702 April 15 2021 10: 52
      +1
      Quote: Usher
      I agree, but not completely))) It is necessary to make anti-aircraft missiles and air defense for their SSBNs !!!

      And if we exclude SSBNs from the equation and use these funds to strengthen the Strategic Missile Forces?
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 19 2021 20: 01
      -1
      the problem is that for guaranteed cover due to IPC and BOD / corvettes and frigates, you need to move the search zone quite far, which reduces the effectiveness of ground aircraft, but the AUG itself can search for boats and drive enemy anti-submarine warriors and quickly cover their ships .. The question here is not to build or not to build, but WHEN and in WHAT APPEARANCE ..