Military Review

There will be no aircraft carriers

402
To undertake such a "debriefing of the flight" was forced by the articles of two authors. Although now we are not talking about whether we will build aircraft carriers or not, whether we need them or not. It will be about something completely different.


There will be no aircraft carriers

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

It is very unfortunate that such a word as “populism” will have to be said here. Alas, this is exactly the case, and nothing can be done about it. Once again, unfortunately.

Of course, I am very pleased that Andrei only reasonably confirmed my own calculations on the topic that we will not have an aircraft carrier. Never. For several reasons at once, which Andrey just perfectly explained.

There is nowhere to build an aircraft carrier. Yes, theoretically there is a place, but there you need only a few miserable tens of billions and a certain amount of time. And it was emphasized that billions of rubles, not dollars.

Indeed, Putin will go and borrow from another friend, as he did for the Sochi Olympics, right?

And then, in general, it is a trifling matter: we put aside the construction of nuclear submarines and roll up our sleeves ... we will give birth to hundreds of billions more to build an aircraft carrier. One. Because it is impossible to build two in parallel. Why - everything is in Andrey's article.

And now in 15 years we will get the desired aircraft carrier. The powers are terrible. It really will be just a terrible threat to the American fleet... The Americans will burst with laughter. Because they definitely do not become, and by that time they will have all the same 11 aircraft carriers stipulated by the law.

And we have one.

And it is clear that immediately after the ship begins to make the Americans fearful, construction of the second one will begin. And if nothing happens, then in another ten years it will go into operation.

Why are such terms unoptimistic? Yes, it's just worth seeing how many people are poking around at USC with any ship over 5 tonnes of displacement. And then 000 ...

Moreover, Andrei admits that there is nowhere to base this ship. That is, we automatically add a dock, berths and other infrastructure for a ship of this size to the reconstruction of the plant. Because we have none of this.

Hundreds more billions went ...

What to fight and with whom is also clear.

I fully agree with Voskresensky's opinion that the MiG-29K, like the Su-27K / Su-33, originally from the 80s of the last century, is not a weapon. In 15-20 years, when it is possible that this nuclear-powered Russian aircraft carrier will be built, they will finally and irrevocably become obsolete. Although they are still not very modern in comparison with world analogues.

For the new ship of the future, new aircraft? And at the base, excuse me, what? Su-57? Well, when they bring it to mind, if they can do the naval version, then we'll talk.

By the way, the same can be said in the direction of the escort ships. When the Super-Gorshkov is designed and built, then we'll talk. With pleasure.

And one more nuance, which Andrey modestly fell silent. We, unlike potential adversaries, do not have such a necessary component as a deck-based AWACS aircraft. And even in the future it is not planned, since we cannot figure out the A-100 yet.

And without such an airplane aviation the group will be doomed to guard itself in the air above the aircraft carrier.

More billions went ... Not Oka, already Ruble Yenisei.

We finish the discussion and move on to the main topic. It is already clear what Andrey from Chelyabinsk wants to say. The leitmotif is very clear: you only need 30 years and several tens of trillions of rubles. And everything will be.

It's very easy to write that. Such articles are applauded with great pleasure by jingoistic patriots. As a result, we will bend the whole world again, won't we?

Tomorrow we will build everything and bend over. In the meantime, we will order tankers in Korea. Because our USC, the United Shipbuilding Company, is jointly unable to build a ship larger than a missile boat without adventure.

In general, I would like to talk about the problem of specialists separately. I understand that from Chelyabinsk it is much better to see how there are at the shipyards, but after visiting the Crimea, in Kerch, having talked with the workers of the "Zaliv", which is a shipyard named after E.Ye. Butoma. If I can find the words to talk about how the “Russian Mistrals” will be built, I’ll tell you. No - do not exact. Aksenov, of course, said that Zaliv is capable of building aircraft carriers and ships of any size, but Aksenov will definitely not build.

In general, Andrei refuted something of this according to Voskresensky's article, but I still did not understand what. Rather, he confirmed that we have nothing. No production capacity, no personnel, no money. The latter is especially important. Andrei did not say from which pipe these trillions will flow, but this is not necessary.

Here is why.

Now one very ugly word will sound again. This word is populism.

Populism (from Lat. Populus - people) is a policy that appeals to the broad masses and promises them a quick and easy solution to acute social problems.

This is a very dangerous hobby - populism. It can take you far. To the unpleasant far away.

The temptation is great: make a promise, explain how simple and easy everything is, that you just have to wait a little, raise money, tighten your belts, and so on.

That is, what Andrey is doing.

Indeed, in his huge article, he did not answer any of the most important questions, the main one of which is where the money will come from for the construction of new factories, ships, aircraft, and so on. And most importantly, how much of this money will be needed to build a great aircraft carrier fleet capable of bending America.

Does it remind you of anyone? Personally, it reminds me. We have a great phrasebook that promises a lot and in many ways. The lunar program, a flight to Mars, Venus, Saturn, reusable ships that will take tourists to lunar bases ...

Yes, Dmitry Rogozin.

And here's a coincidence. Dmitry Rogozin promises, knowing full well that nothing will be done. We have no opportunities, no technology, no money. Everything that was conquered by the Soviet Union in the space race is hopelessly lost today.

And we understand this very well. “We were the first” - yes, this is the slogan. But the key word in it is “were”. Today completely different countries are the first in space. Unfortunately.

And we righteously express our anger when Rogozin bursts out with another populist package of promises. We criticize and laugh through tears, because we understand that all these are just words.

What is the difference between Andrey's deal with aircraft carriers? Yes, nothing.

Absolutely the same populist statements aimed at gaining momentary benefits. Completely unsupported.

But it's easier to live this way. Today you can promise mountains of gold, but who will check there? Especially after 10 years? Where are we for 10 years, and where is everything else?

Slippery path. Very slippery.

In general, even in our country, such a practice has been adopted as to confirm words with at least something. Otherwise, it is just air shaking or paper stains. This is especially true with regards to any such forecasts.

If Andrey had the surname Rakhmanov or Poltavchenko, yes, there is no dispute, at this level one could talk about the allocation of such huge sums for the construction of infrastructure for the construction of aircraft carriers, the construction of aircraft carriers and, in parallel, the construction of infrastructure for servicing aircraft carriers. Yes, aircraft for aircraft carriers, supply vessels, tankers and escort ships.

But without a meaningful understanding of how long it will take and how much money, all this reasoning that we can build something there is just idle chatter and populism.

As well as reasoning without justification on the topic of where these amounts will come from.

In our life, unfortunately, there are more and more empty shaking of air and attempts to play with decrepit naval muscles inherited from the USSR. However, the understanding should come that "the promised tomorrow will be bitter and intoxicated." Easy to say. It is more difficult to answer for your words.

I perfectly understand that what has been said today, no one will check it in a month, and in a year they will not remember it. Therefore, you can write whatever comes to mind. His Majesty His Opinion rules the ball.
I am ready to argue for anything, neither in 10, nor in 15 years, Russia will not have any aircraft carriers. And not because they are simply not needed by anyone other than couch strategists. Not because we don't have technology. Not because we have nowhere to build them and there is no one especially. Because no one will allocate these huge sums. There is none of them.

The fact that the GPV will continue to decline is evident from the dynamics of recent years. Anything that can be cut is reduced. The newest samples are replaced with the old modernized ones. Everything is logical in a crisis.

There will be no aircraft carriers. We disperse. We respect ourselves and do not allow ourselves to be fooled by openly populist rantings.

However, if someone wants to indulge in empty hopes about the Russian ocean-going fleet, which will somehow oppose the US Navy off the distant shores - no question. This will of course happen. Around the time when tomatoes bloom on the moon in the greenhouses of Russian lunar bases, and the ruble will become the second currency in the world after the yuan.

A hundred years from now - it is quite possible. But there is no way to prove or see this.

And today's reality is the modernization of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, bombers and tanks originally from the USSR. Under the bravura marches and beautiful fairy tales. And this, unfortunately, is reality.
Author:
402 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx April 12 2021 04: 35
    +16
    And today's reality is the modernization of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, bombers and tanks from the USSR. Under the bravura marches and beautiful fairy tales. And this, unfortunately, is reality.

    A reality that has not taken place in full, which is presented as a kind of breakthrough, although in fact, prospects and plans have long been ahead of real deeds.
    1. Civil
      Civil April 12 2021 10: 59
      +3
      Alas ... but the facts are as follows ... and there are 3 outputs:
      1. Roll up your sleeves to take care of your country, start with the economy, changing the model and vector of development. This is a fantastic option.
      2. Do nothing, but live in an old man's way with what he managed to earn (built the USSR). And great-grandchildren themselves in the distant future will figure it out. This is the basic and most realistic option.
      3. To attack everyone with a war, so that well-fed and contented faces do not irritate. Gop option. Half real option.
      1. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter April 12 2021 11: 37
        -1
        Quote: Civil
        1. Roll up your sleeves to take care of your country, start with the economy, changing the model and vector of development. This is a fantastic option.

        That's for sure, and if I don't even give the second number, then my maxim will often boil.
        Only with the proviso that now the outlaws from power do not have courage and will go directly to cowards, both for great and small need.
      2. NEOZ
        NEOZ April 12 2021 22: 05
        0
        Quote: Civil
        1. Roll up your sleeves to take care of your country, start with the economy, changing the model and vector of development. This is a fantastic option.

        are you already doing yourself? ... we expect breakthroughs from you !!!!!
      3. Intruder
        Intruder April 15 2021 14: 37
        +2
        1. Roll up your sleeves to take care of your country, start with the economy, changing the model and vector of development. This is a fantastic option.
        Introduce a 6-day working week, and subbotniks !? laughing Only the current generation of car loan managers will respond to this ...
        Do nothing, but live in an old man's way with what he managed to earn (built the USSR). And great-grandchildren themselves in the distant future will figure it out. This is the basic and most realistic option.
        What are the great-grandchildren, the next generation in the 30-40s, created and mixed with migrants from Central Asia ??? Well, yes, it will definitely figure it out, and especially with these technologies, and whoever does not want to go to camps and build new roads and other peaceful and civil projects ... wink
        To attack everyone with a war, so that well-fed and contented faces do not irritate. Gop option. Half real option.
        Even the Great and Mighty - the USSR, was not so eager to attack everyone at once, radioactive dust and rains can fall not only from the enemy ... but also at home, right in the morning and on playgrounds ... and then childhood leukemia and cancer...!
      4. Misha Honest
        Misha Honest 13 May 2021 01: 50
        0
        Quote: Civil
        and outputs 3:

        There is only one way out -
        Quote: Civil
        1. Roll up your sleeves to take care of your country, start with the economy, changing the model and vector of development. This is a fantastic option.

        Roll up our sleeves - get busy with the government. Start with ministers and the president, changing the model and vector of development. This is a fantastic option)))
      5. Brs.K64
        Brs.K64 5 June 2021 19: 03
        0
        I like to read the arguments of amateurs. A lot of interesting arguments. Only here ... It's not up to you and me to decide what is needed, what is not needed. If an aircraft carrier is urgently needed, it will be built. And everything that is supposed to be screwed to it too. There are specialized departments in the Ministry of Defense. Maybe we are in our places of work, or if the bloggers are unemployed so far we find a job somewhere? Otherwise, nothing has been built by chatter and nothing grows on its own except ambrosia.
    2. oleg ushakov
      oleg ushakov 14 May 2021 21: 52
      0
      It's ridiculous to read nonsense from another "strategist". Ten years ago, our fleet was buried altogether ... and now, in agony, they are discussing what should not be in it ... Do not say gop gentlemen, until you have jumped! There will be a day and there will be food! That is, wait and see!
  2. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 April 12 2021 04: 38
    +10
    I agree, as in the last article I said there will be no aircraft carrier in 10 or 15 years, but the patriots did not agree smile
    1. lucul
      lucul April 12 2021 05: 51
      +27
      I agree, as in the last article I said there will be no aircraft carrier in 10 or 15 years, but the patriots did not agree

      The Aircraft Carrier (AUG) is a means of protecting the trade route from the enemy fleet, and projecting power on the enemy's trade route.
      Russian merchant ships prefer to sail under any flag, but not under the Russian one.
      It is with sailing under the Russian flag of their merchant ships and it is worth starting the construction of your own sea fleet.
      1. Intruder
        Intruder April 15 2021 14: 40
        +2
        Russian merchant ships prefer to sail under any flag, but not under the Russian one.
        Only who of the commerce would agree, or how to lure them all under the flag of the Russian Federation !?
    2. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri April 12 2021 10: 07
      +6
      neither in 10 nor in 15 years will there be an aircraft carrier

      It is clear that while the current "rulers" of the aircraft carrier are at the helm, we will not have it. Moreover, taking into account the trend, I would even say that there is a high probability that in the required 10-15 years there will be no country that may need such things as an aircraft carrier either. But that's not the point.

      You, it seems to me, misunderstood Andrei a little, who was not talking about starting to build an aircraft carrier tomorrow, but about the fact that if the powers that be wanted, then such an opportunity could be easily found, and relatively budgetary and without harm to the rest of the shipbuilding, as it seems to Roman. Alexander, on the other hand, clearly gave the rationale for why an aircraft carrier might be needed at all. And no more. The authors did not put forward any demands to roll up the vastness of the world's oceans with Russian aircraft carriers, tk. they are well aware of the existing problems not only of the USC, but also of the UAC, and therefore they are well aware of what it is fraught with today. But if tomorrow the situation changes (for example, if grace descends on Russia and all corrupt officials massively commit seppuku), the authors see no obstacles for the implementation of this project. And in such a "moderate" position it is difficult to disagree with Andrey and Alexander.

      With all due respect to Roman (a public position that I am impressed with, and with which I often find myself in solidarity), his views on the fleet give off a certain fear of everything that exceeds its displacement of 7 thousand tons. Either he calls for the abandonment of aircraft carriers, in fact, exposing a significant part of the territory to strike enemy aircraft, then with gloating unworthy of a true patriot he welcomes the news of the disposal of Admiral Lazarev and other large ships of the late USSR. For the life of me, I don’t understand it. The only thing that I can write off such reports is a banal concern about government savings. But even here I have to upset you, because the occupation is not so much useful as it is meaningless. Even if this money is not spent on the creation of aircraft carriers, we, the people, will never see this money. At best, they will be presented to the next friends of the regime in the form of bad loans. Moreover, this is far from the worst option, because, whatever one may say, the same Belarus is by no means a stranger to us, which cannot be said about other dark or light-skinned "brothers". I repeat, this is at best, because the scenario may be completely different and it is well known to everyone: the next "construction of the century" or "national project" is a negligent contractor who, nevertheless, will never be fooled, in view of the patronage of interested parties - an increase in the budget and terms of the project, accompanied by the withdrawal of money, through a Panamanian or Cypriot offshore and as a result - a dubious result for big money.
    3. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter April 12 2021 11: 40
      +1
      Quote: Pessimist22
      I agree, as in the last article I said there will be no aircraft carrier in 10 or 15 years, but the patriots did not agree

      With this power, there will be nothing, no fleet, no space, no army, there will only be garbage, although not even they themselves, but serials about them.
      1. Intruder
        Intruder April 15 2021 14: 43
        +3
        With this power, there will be nothing, no fleet, no space, no army, there will only be garbage, although not even they themselves, but serials about them.
        and not only those who have time to "work out" in a certain way and with body parts - business women (read as: kept women) and successful officials from the state apparatus, up to a heap and several pensioners ...
        1. Sling cutter
          Sling cutter April 15 2021 15: 25
          +1
          Quote: Intruder
          and not only those who have time to "work out" in a certain way and with body parts - business women (read as: kept women) and successful officials from the state apparatus, up to a heap and several pensioners ...

          Yeah, it sucked well here!
      2. andreypilot
        andreypilot 1 June 2021 14: 21
        +1
        Quote: Stroporez
        With this power, there will be nothing, no fleet, no space, no army, there will only be garbage, although not even they themselves, but serials about them.

        And you forgive, in what country or reality you are ??? Or your eyes are flooded with something ??? If you do not see what the army and navy have become now ?? PPC, or were you expelled into the fields after the withdrawal of the GSVG troops under Gorbachev? Or did you survive the devastation and humiliation of the 90s and XNUMXs, when officers left the army en masse under Yeltsin? You don't even really want to look at the successes in the construction of the Russian Armed Forces, just to hyip on the dissatisfaction of the authorities. What Putin did with the Armed Forces is just their new birth. Of course - under this power, the cows have ceased to be milked, and they never will. ,,,, well, you read such "comrades", you already want to spit.
    4. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin April 12 2021 12: 15
      +16
      Are you not a patriot here? Why such sarcasm?

      In fact, Roman either did not really understand what Andrei did not agree with, or understood, but decided to continue to put pressure on emotions. With this, he often masks gaps in knowledge and in the ability to consistently build a thought. Andrei expressed disagreement with the fact that we did not need AV, which was pressed by Voskresensky and Skomorokhov. He also said that we have the MATERIAL and TECHNICAL ability to design and build an aircraft carrier. Especially if you do not take his phrases out of context, but read, for example, articles about what kind of fleet we need. There he literally writes on his fingers what we can afford with the current level of funding. There are aircraft carriers there, albeit in small numbers.

      And they are not needed in order to "bend America." Here Roman ascribes to Andrey something that he NEVER and ANYWHERE said. Like others who believe that AB is necessary for our fleet. This is the clearest example of dishonesty on his part. However, when there are no arguments, all that remains is to label the opponent as a "hurray-patriot" and "hap-hanger", to attribute words that have not been written anywhere, so that there is something to joke about, and - voila. It seems like he got rid of it. I am, they say, a realist, and they all dream of heavenly (in our case, above-water, rather) pretzels.

      The reason for the shortcomings in the construction of the fleet according to Andrey, as well as according to Timokhin, is in organizational problems. And in order to rectify the situation, it is not necessary to stamp the Tu-160, as Voskresensky and Skomorokhov suggested, but to restore order in shipbuilding. If Roman did not understand what exactly was meant, I sincerely sympathize with him. It is a pity that a person with such intellectual abilities is the editor of an entire section on "VO".

      If he understood everything, then the discussion was started not to prove something to someone, but to increase the rating. So that people read and comment more. Nothing personal, just business.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr April 12 2021 13: 34
        +3
        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
        then the discussion was started not to prove something to someone, but to increase the rating. So that people read and comment more. Nothing personal, just business.

        I also believe that a whole series of articles about the Navy, and repetitive in fact, is aimed at raising the rating of some writers who suffer from insufficient attention to their journalistic abilities.
        1. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin April 12 2021 13: 37
          +6
          This means that there is reason to believe that our opinion is not a mistake. Skomorokhov is clearly less read than Timokhin, Andrey and Klimov. Instead of raising our level, and not writing endless epigrams in prose on everyone in a row, as it is not clear what was published above, we will act according to the principle "we make noise, brother, we make noise."
      2. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets April 12 2021 14: 01
        +5
        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
        Are you not a patriot here? Why such sarcasm?

        There is still need to figure out who is the greater patriot, such as Stroporez or those who endlessly "shriek" with or without reason.
      3. aleksejkabanets
        aleksejkabanets April 12 2021 14: 06
        +4
        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
        The reason for the shortcomings in the construction of the fleet according to Andrey, as well as according to Timokhin, is in organizational problems.

        The reason is our "unprecedented economic power." The Russian Federation builds exactly as much as our economy is enough for, and it accounts for 2% of world GDP.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 April 12 2021 19: 12
          -2
          Quote: aleksejkabanets
          The reason is our "unprecedented economic power."

          Maybe you will at least read Timokhin, and then you will speak?
          1. aleksejkabanets
            aleksejkabanets April 12 2021 19: 38
            +2
            Quote: Dart2027
            Maybe you will at least read Timokhin, and then you will speak?

            I haven't read it. Organizational problems are secondary, the root cause in this case lies in the economic plane. Although yes, if "our" oligarchs organize and sell their yachts, then it will be possible to build more than one aircraft carrier with UDC.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 April 12 2021 22: 33
              -1
              Quote: aleksejkabanets
              Organizational problems are secondary, the root cause in this case lies in the economic plane.

              In fact, he advocates shipbuilding just without the injection of money beyond what is already outstanding.
              1. aleksejkabanets
                aleksejkabanets April 12 2021 23: 44
                +2
                Quote: Dart2027
                In fact, he advocates shipbuilding just without the injection of money beyond what is already outstanding.

                What do you mean? He writes only about shipbuilding under current conditions, nothing more. He writes, among other things, just about the fact that with the current funding it is not possible to build a normal ocean-going fleet.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 April 13 2021 19: 07
                  0
                  Quote: aleksejkabanets
                  He writes, among other things, just about the fact that with the current funding it is not possible to build a normal ocean-going fleet.

                  In fact, he wrote that with the current funding, we have already spent so much money that it would be enough for 30 corvettes (the money allocated for the construction of frigates is not included in this calculation).
            2. Intruder
              Intruder April 15 2021 14: 48
              +2
              Although yes, if "our" oligarchs organize and sell their yachts, then it will be possible to build more than one aircraft carrier with UDC.
              Yeah, now they will abandon everything and still sell, and what is wonderful for them - there will be, well, there will be a reduction in the tax rate, shaking hands and an asterisk in the Kremlin hall, most likely an oligarch who is purely Russian and will choose his own yacht and not only her but his own and dear ...
      4. Alexei
        Alexei April 14 2021 14: 03
        0
        Artyom Karagodin take off your pink glasses. They can't deal with the mosquito fleet. And then the aircraft carrier ... LADA, consists of Korean and French parts.
    5. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 12 2021 16: 26
      0
      laughing have you looked into the future? or not everyone can? to talk about what will or will not be difficult because we do not know the tendencies in military affairs ... Someone would have believed in 2003 that in 15 years Russia will test missiles that will equip ships with a displacement of less than 1 tons with means of destroying an aircraft carrier on range of 000 km? Nobody ... everyone cried into their vests that there was no fleet and there was nothing to build ...
      1. max702
        max702 April 12 2021 21: 04
        +2
        Quote: Barberry25
        Will Russia be testing missiles that will equip ships weighing less than 1 tons with means of destroying an aircraft carrier at a range of 000 km? Nobody ..

        Duc and now do not believe! What are you speaking about? If all of the above-mentioned songwriters about the seas, oceans in VO believed in this, then the topic of AUG would not have been raised at all! But no, it is imposed with zeal, "We need AUG!" .. This is what these seafares are told .. But no AUG is the most important thing! So the question arises, who do these characters work for organizing this "sabotage" of our military industry? Are not the Cossacks sent in?
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 12 2021 22: 07
          0
          tongue the question is not whether it is needed or not, but what and when ..
      2. Elturisto
        Elturisto April 13 2021 09: 59
        +3
        I'm sorry that -? CR like Tomahawk or Garnet (up to 3000 km.) Could be launched from any trough already in the 70s ...
        1. Intruder
          Intruder April 15 2021 14: 51
          +2
          KR type Tomahawk or Garnet (up to 3000 km.) Could be launched from any trough already in the 70s ...
          Not really, from any ... laughing In addition to the PU, there still need to put a lot of electronic "things" different and to a heap, it is also desirable to have a radar complex, some kind of stick on this very - "trough" !!!
          1. Elturisto
            Elturisto April 15 2021 22: 06
            0
            Do you know what an inertial guidance system is ...?
      3. Andrey sh
        Andrey sh April 20 2021 08: 49
        0
        But these ships are capable of seeing the target for 50 km ... So this is a floating barge with weapons and nothing more. You will learn to give target designation in real time with an accuracy of a couple of meters and constantly accompany and that's all - using such data it will be possible to destroy anything and at any distance. But with this ass. And not only in Russia.
    6. Vladimir Vitalin
      Vladimir Vitalin April 12 2021 23: 41
      -2
      I advise you to change your nickname to "Realist" - it will help ... Yes - in 10-15 years it may not be, but in 15-20 it will. If we put aside all the surface cracks - the aircraft carrier fleet is just a necessity ...
      1. max702
        max702 April 13 2021 07: 40
        -1
        Quote: Vladimir Vitalin
        I advise you to change your nickname to "Realist" - it will help ... Yes - in 10-15 years it may not be, but in 15-20 it will. If we put aside all the surface cracks - the aircraft carrier fleet is just a necessity ...

        And if not, and the funds in the amount of several MO budgets have been spent and how?
  3. Walking
    Walking April 12 2021 04: 38
    +9
    Hmm, a lot has been written, but nothing concrete, it smells of the very populism. Andrey is one of several respected and best authors on the site, in my opinion, and Roman is busy with populism, posting articles rewritten from other sources and without specifying these sources, which he was repeatedly told about.
    1. Asad
      Asad April 12 2021 06: 14
      +10
      Do you think we have shipyards, specialists, and most importantly money for an aircraft carrier with all the necessary infrastructure? Probably, after all, this is not populism, but a statement of facts that are unpleasant for us?
      1. 210ox
        210ox April 12 2021 08: 32
        +4
        I agree with Roman. You need to puff your cheeks when it is supported by something. We have always been tense with ships.
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 April 12 2021 10: 17
          +1
          In general, when theorizing about the need for an aircraft carrier, for some reason no one takes into account the factor of China .. Which is rapidly increasing its fleet and is not going to stop .. And this means that after a while all American AUGs will be occupied not by us at all .. Is it worth it? to jump feverishly now if there is a maximum, maximum, only a couple of aircraft carriers against us? And where can they be used against us? In the Baltic and the Black Sea it is pointless, in the North it is difficult, and we also have something there, in the Pacific Ocean - I very much doubt that the PRC will indifferently watch how mattress AUGs spread, say Vladivostok .. So ..
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar April 12 2021 13: 02
            +1
            Quote: paul3390
            For some reason, no one takes into account the factor of China .. Which is rapidly increasing its fleet and is not going to stop .. And this means that after a while all American AUGs will not be occupied by us at all .. So is it worth it to feverishly jump now if it is against us maximum, maximum, just a couple of aircraft carriers?

            There is a rational grain in this, if all the tasks of the Russian Navy are reduced to one: the defense of its own coast. And even here there are some nuances: for example, the same Japanese have recently announced plans to build their own aircraft carrier.

            But there may still be a need to conduct some kind of military operations far from their shores - like the Syrian one. And not everywhere there is an opportunity to rely on some basic airfields. In these cases, you will either have to act without air cover (which is very unpleasant in our time) or not act at all (which can be unhealthy from a political point of view). Timokhin discusses these topics in his articles.

            The factor of the Chinese fleet, oddly enough, can play into the hands of the supporters of the Russian AV: the scenario "1 our aircraft carrier against 10 of them" will become unlikely, because "they" still have to do something with China. There is another side of the coin: the Chinese fleet poses a certain threat to the Pacific Fleet as well: we do not think that the Chinese are our friends forever. And yes, they may well indifferently watch as mattress AUG spread, say Vladivostokif they consider this action beneficial for themselves.
            1. paul3390
              paul3390 April 12 2021 14: 11
              +5
              I just mean that we don't have much haste with the aircraft carrier yet ..

              I don’t think that in the near future we will need to bomb someone far from the Motherland .. I don’t see any candidates ..

              They won't. For they - then the most obvious will be the following. Just like we will not be able to stay away from the US-China war. And as for friends - China has never climbed for 5 thousand years of its history for Cupid. Where is he going to climb now? There is also nothing he needs there! No oil, no gas, no special minerals, no arable land - and besides, it's cold for them ...
              And if it does climb, it’s obviously overland. You can't fight back with aircraft carriers ..
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar April 12 2021 15: 00
                +2
                Quote: paul3390
                I just mean that we don't have much haste with the aircraft carrier yet ..

                Yes, the fleet is full of problems even without aircraft carriers. We still can't even torture the corvettes.

                Quote: paul3390
                I don’t think that in the near future we will need to bomb someone far from the Motherland .. I don’t see any candidates ..

                It didn’t seem to be needed before, but then suddenly we went to Syria. Now some kind of fuss is going on in Libya, but we can no longer fit in there: there are no suitable airfields nearby.

                Quote: paul3390
                They won't. For they - then the most obvious will be the following.

                As the Latins used to say: "Two are fighting, the third is happy." Waiting for a Russian-American fight, and then intervening at the right time for the right side is quite a move. The Americans have practiced such maneuvers more than once.

                Quote: paul3390
                Where is he going to climb now? There is also nothing he needs there! No oil, no gas, no special minerals, no arable land

                On land, nothing. But the Chinese are now pulling marine resources like a vacuum cleaner wherever they can reach. One day they may decide that the Sea of ​​Japan should become the North China Sea. Plus, the fleet can be used not only for expansion, but also as an instrument of foreign policy pressure: "Be friends with us correctly, otherwise we will help the Japanese to solve the Kuril issue", - and stuff like that.
          2. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 12 2021 16: 46
            0
            well, so far no one is jumping ... even the office of the person admits that before the second half of the 20th it is possible not to wait for a sane technical specification for the development of a project ... which means that then another 3-5 years they will draw on drawing boards and 3D models, and then only the allocation of funds and the start of construction ... in what the authors are right, so in the fact that earlier than 15 years from now it is not worth waiting for something from the Aircraft Carrier in principle ...
          3. max702
            max702 April 12 2021 21: 07
            +1
            If AUG is spreading Vladivostok, it means that the United States has 30-40 minutes to live .. Now is not 1905, wake up!
            1. well
              well April 13 2021 08: 28
              +1
              In 1950, no one prevented the Americans from bombing a Soviet airfield in the seaside.
          4. Vladimir Vitalin
            Vladimir Vitalin April 12 2021 23: 45
            0
            In fact, the aircraft carrier is very versatile in use, so (God forbid, of course) in the event of an open confrontation, our "partners" will find where and how to use them ... Well, about the China-US conflict, you can talk a lot, but this will not diminish the needs of our fleet in aircraft-carrying ships - there is a case for them.
        2. Kuroneko
          Kuroneko April 12 2021 17: 03
          +1
          Quote: 210ox
          We have always been tense with ships.

          With ships it is possible. And how many leading maritime powers can boast of their "Mercury"? Yes, I am the professionalism and courage of the personnel.

          You can also remember about one "sea hunter", already during the Second World War. Also a unique case - the 4th rank shell received the title of the Guards. https://topwar.ru/137715-moshka-stavshaya-dlya-gitlerovcev-moskitom-podvig-ska-065.html
          In general, Roman devoted half an article to incomprehensible attacks on Andrei (he also attributed populism to him for some reason, although Andrei simply outlined the real state of affairs in the shipbuilding industry, simply showing the fundamental possibility of building a Russian aircraft carrier), and with many of Roman's theses, personally, I am also fundamentally not I agree. But it is lazy to designate. Andrey, if anything, will do it much better.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon April 12 2021 22: 54
            +2
            Quote: Kuroneko
            Yes, I am the professionalism and courage of the personnel.

            Unfortunately, in addition to heroism and courage, there are examples of betrayal and cowardice (the destruction of the naval forces in the Sea of ​​Azov during the Crimean War).

            Quote: Kuroneko
            In general, Roman devoted half an article to incomprehensible attacks on Andrei (he also attributed populism to him for some reason, although Andrei simply expounded the real situation

            It was populism that Andrei's opponent was engaged in.
      2. Lannan Shi
        Lannan Shi April 12 2021 09: 08
        +23
        Quote: ASAD
        Do you think we have shipyards, specialists, and most importantly money for an aircraft carrier with all the necessary infrastructure?

        In the mid-20s, the last century, the USSR was doing exactly the same with the production of aircraft and tanks. And if then they decided that we would never have either tanks or aircraft, then we would enter the Second World War with a three-line model, and a shortage of cartridges for it. However .. They created a military industry, which managed to crush the all-European one. The difference in approaches. Then those who can do it were promoted to the top. And now those who can convincingly prove why nothing will work out. Yeah.
        1. 210ox
          210ox April 12 2021 10: 09
          +7
          Then the ruler was different. And another socio-political system.
        2. YOU
          YOU April 12 2021 10: 16
          .
          Poorly you probably know the history. But my friend's grandfather told me. As he is near Moscow, with the same three rulers, 5 rounds per barrel, 5 grenades per platoon. 2nd forty-fives for battalion. A machine gun with cartridges is only in the detachment's barriers. And where were your tanks with planes ??? Everything was created in the course of the "play", so to speak. At the cost of incredible effort. And so everything is as it is now, everyone thought it was a great army, parades, newsreels. Just like now. Even the battleships were laid.
          1. Genry
            Genry April 12 2021 10: 36
            +7
            Quote: YOU
            But my friend's grandfather told me.

            Previously there was a "daughter of an officer", and now "a grandson of an acquaintance."
            1. YOU
              YOU April 12 2021 11: 09
              .
              Quote: Genry
              Previously there was a "daughter of an officer", and now "a grandson of an acquaintance."

              I used to be an agitator of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but now she sang along
              1. Genry
                Genry April 12 2021 11: 27
                +1
                How is it in Ukraine about people like you: "nonsense".
                1. YOU
                  YOU April 12 2021 11: 54
                  -5
                  I don’t know how in Ukraine. Born in Moscow in 1964. And they say about you in Russia, Ivan does not remember kinship, extremely badly knowing the history of his own country and even worse talking about it.
                  1. Genry
                    Genry April 12 2021 12: 05
                    +1
                    Quote: YOU
                    Born in Moscow in 1964. And they say about you in Russia, Ivan does not remember kinship, who knows the history of his own country extremely badly and speaks even worse about it.

                    Maybe you were born in Russia, but where and for whom you work now - it is clearly visible.
                    Tell your idiots about 5 rounds and detachments.
                    1. YOU
                      YOU April 12 2021 12: 55
                      -2
                      Quote: Genry
                      Tell your idiots about 5 rounds and detachments.

                      You apparently did very poorly at school. or yourself from Ukraine. If you do not know about detachments, penal companies and battalions, Stalin's order No. 227, dated July 28, 1942. Maybe at least you have heard such an order "Not a step back", as it is called for brevity. So who of us is from Ukraine and who is pouring water into whose mill. The trouble is that no one teaches history, and then pays dearly for it. Only yesterday the veteran was shown on TV, his words “If only in 41 I was on“ Messer ”and a German on“ Ishak. ”There were only a few new aircraft and tanks. We lost a lot in the first days from sudden air strikes. And fairy tales about 5 rounds, these are just fairy tales for you, although, of course, in Ukraine, as they say, studying history is a bit tough, especially during the Great Patriotic War.
                      1. Genry
                        Genry April 12 2021 13: 38
                        +1
                        Quote: YOU
                        If you do not know about detachments, penal companies and battalions, Stalin's order No. 227, dated July 28, 1942.

                        Shrafbats are declared there - but you are lying about the detachments.
                        Quote: YOU
                        There were only a few new aircraft and tanks.

                        Have you heard of the T-34, MiG and Yak? The technique was, but there was no ability to fight, create operational fists and repel them.
                        The development of tactics for the use of motorized units was greatly hampered by Budyonny, who wanted to increase his cavalry army.
                      2. YOU
                        YOU April 12 2021 14: 33
                        -1
                        That is, there were no detachments barriers. Well, people all lie, you know better than 2 of my grandfathers. Let's say how many T-34s were. I don't know about Yaki and MiGs. A 34-ok was, if not change a little more than 1000 pieces, KV several hundred. It seems like a lot. Only many of them were constipated due to refueling. And the issue of supplying diesel fuel was quite problematic, due to the unavailability of the rear services. There is no exact data, but according to the recollections of veterans, a lot of tanks were blown up by crews, or simply abandoned if it was not possible to blow up, precisely because of lack of fuel. So, what's the difference for whatever reason these tanks weren't. They did not know how to fight. But what about the Finnish one, Holhingol. It was there that the tactics of creating operational kulaks and deep envelopes were used. The Germans just learned this, just from us. The question is precisely that the operational command of the troops on the eve of the war was different. Someone was repressed, someone was removed from the command for spreading panicky rumors about the war. As a result, a huge amount of equipment was simply destroyed, in parks, at airfields. Lost due to lack of fuel and ammunition. That's why the "fairy tales" about 5 rounds. And it was possible to accumulate more or less a certain amount of equipment only by the end of 42, through titanic efforts. And the hardships suffered by those who forged victory in the rear and the blood that poured at the front is simply incomparable. And considering that almost all the factories had to be evacuated to the Urals, this is just titanic work. So now a lot of money is being spent, and the output is still 0. Believe me, I'm not against aircraft carriers in principle. But construction now, for what, why. We need a lot of PLO / air defense corvettes to defend our borders and, in case of emergency, to protect our coastal shipments. And we haven’t decided yet. what to build. By the way, in his youth he worked, just at a defense plant, and much that was done by my hands strengthened the defense capability of our homeland. Yes, and now I am doing something, not shifting pieces of paper from one side of the table to the other. I have worked all my life, and I know how to work. And now the majority of young people are managers or salespeople. And then we cannot even build the planned one.
                      3. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA April 12 2021 16: 47
                        +2
                        Quote: YOU
                        A 34-ok was, if not change a little more than 1000 pieces, KV several hundred. It seems like a lot. Only many of them were constipated due to refueling.

                        On 22.06.1941/935/34, there were 01.08.1941 T-526s in the Army in the field. By 1303/XNUMX/XNUMX, another XNUMX were shipped and XNUMX were lost.
                        On 01.08.1941/158/34, XNUMX T-XNUMXs remained in the Army in the field - for the entire front.
                        The problem was that they did not know how to fight catastrophically in the summer of 1941 - at all levels. The high command did not obey the orders of the General Staff and began to reinvent the wheel, wasting time and energy on multi-hundred-kilometer marches and taking apart shock fists to support the infantry - by division, by battalion, and even by port. The middle link did not know how to organize the march of the units and formations entrusted with available forces - and then threw them into battle without concentration, without reconnaissance. The lower link did not know the materiel, did not know the Regulations, did not know how to read the map.
                        Quote: YOU
                        But what about the Finnish one, Holhingol. It was there that the tactics of creating operational kulaks and deep envelopes were used.

                        At Khalkhin Gol, the Red Army made exactly the same mistakes. as in 1941. We were just lucky that we were at war with the Japanese.
                        Deep coverage performed by the Far Eastern Red Army-1939 is an offensive at a rate of 5 km / day. Instead of a rapid detour and encirclement, one claw came out to the meeting point - and stood up. And the second rammed the Japanese rearguard in the forehead for several days, trying to knock them out from a height - instead of blocking and bypassing. Result:
                        Comrade Stalin ... As expected, there were no divisions in the encirclement, the enemy either managed to withdraw the main forces, or rather, there were no large forces in this area for a long time, and a specially trained garrison was sitting, which is now completely destroyed. ..

                        © NPO comrade Voroshilov.
                        А deep coverage on the Finnish - is it several divisions planted in cauldrons? what
                        There was no coverage there - the war was decided by the ramming strike of infantry, tanks and artillery in the most obvious place. There is no reception against scrap. ©
                        Quote: YOU
                        The Germans just learned this, just from us.

                        Again fairy tales about Heinz in "Kama"?
                        Already in the late 20s, the Germans practiced the actions of a composite group as part of a motorized infantry regiment, a conditional tank battalion (plywood on an auto chassis), a motorized artillery battalion and conditional aviation reconnaissance (pilots on motorcycles) on maneuvers. Von Seeckt trained personnel and OSH for Heinz. smile
                      4. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 12 2021 16: 50
                        +1
                        laughing so "friend's grandfather" or your two grandfathers?
                      5. Genry
                        Genry April 12 2021 18: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: YOU
                        That is, there were no detachments barriers. Well, people all lie, you know better than 2 of my grandfathers.

                        People are prone to make mistakes, repeat other people's myths, or can perform deformation attacks.
                        Zagranotryadov on the order you specified - were not created. They were at the beginning of the war with a very small number and performed functions similar to the military police, i.e. patrolled and prevented "fermentation" (AWOL) in the front line. And patrols, even in peacetime, sometimes shoot.
                        Quote: YOU
                        Only many of them were constipated due to refueling.

                        I have not heard, but somewhere they could be mistaken.
                        Quote: YOU
                        There is no exact data, but according to the recollections of veterans, a lot of tanks were blown up by crews, or simply abandoned if it was not possible to blow up, precisely because of lack of fuel.

                        With live crews, no one abandoned the faulty tanks - they were burned and the consequences were already loud.
                        Quote: YOU
                        They did not know how to fight. But what about the Finnish one, Holhingol. It was there that the tactics of creating operational kulaks and deep envelopes were used. The Germans just learned this, just here

                        The Finnish was positional with the DRG.
                        Khalkhingol - there they were not crushed with a number (fist), but competently maneuvered (Zhukov).
                        The tactics of concentration of forces on a short front, the Germans worked on the Europeans and approached the USSR with great experience and well-developed plans.
                        Quote: YOU
                        As a result, a huge amount of equipment was simply destroyed, in parks, at airfields.

                        Quantitatively, a lot was lost, but there you talked about the I-16 (from which the victorious La-5 developed) - so they were mostly burned.
                        Quote: YOU
                        That's why the "fairy tales" about 5 rounds. And it was possible to accumulate more or less a certain amount of equipment only by the end of 42, through titanic efforts.

                        There were enough cartridges. Excavations of the battlefield show this. After the First World War, there were stocks and production was running.
                        By the end of 42, evacuated enterprises (conveyors) began to work - therefore, there were difficulties with equipment.
                        Quote: YOU
                        And the hardships suffered by those who forged victory in the rear and the blood that poured at the front, it is simply incomparable ...

                        Well, you ascribe to yourself - so you suffer.
                        Quote: YOU
                        So now a lot of money is being spent, and the output is still 0. Believe me, I am not against aircraft carriers in principle.

                        With any money, you will not give birth ahead of schedule.
                        And the aircraft carriers, in the form of the American George W. Bush, are already outdated as battleships in their time.
                        IMHO: but light aircraft carriers 40-50 thousand tons (deck without superstructures and one strip of 300 m) are needed for reconnaissance and a pair of shock UAVs up to 6 tons and receiving cargo aircraft up to 20 tons. This will allow the battle group of ships to be on a cruise for a long time.
                      6. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA April 12 2021 20: 07
                        0
                        Quote: Genry
                        Zagranotryadov on the order you specified - were not created. They were at the beginning of the war with a very small number and performed functions similar to those of the military police, i.e. patrolled and prevented "fermentation" (AWOL) in the front line.

                        Amendment: Directive of the Supreme Command Headquarters No. 001919 of 12.09.1941 created divisional detachments from the army (based on company per regiment, l / s - from the division), whose task was precisely to prevent the abandonment of positions:
                        The tasks of the barrage detachment are to consider direct assistance to the command staff in maintaining and establishing firm discipline in the division, stopping the flight of servicemen obsessed with panic, without stopping before using weapons, eliminating the initiators of panic and flight, supporting the honest and fighting elements of the division, not subject to panic, but carried away by the general flight.

                        Quote: Genry
                        I have not heard, but somewhere they could be mistaken.

                        There were cases before the war - in one of the divisions, three T-34s were written off like that.
                        Quote: Genry
                        Khalkhingol - there they were not crushed with a number (fist), but competently maneuvered (Zhukov).

                        Comrade Voroshilov had a different opinion. But winners are not judged.
                        Quote: Genry
                        There were enough cartridges. Excavations of the battlefield show this. After the First World War, there were stocks and production was running.

                        I'll tell you more - EMNIP, in August 1941, in the order for the SZN, an extremely low consumption of rifle cartridges was noted even in the offensive (no more than a dozen per barrel, and even machine guns), which is why the warehouses were literally packed with them. The same situation was with battalion and regimental calibers. heavy and group... On the other hand, the battalion commanders called fire from divisional and corps guns even against groups of servicemen and individual servicemen of the enemy.
                    2. Sergey Zhikharev
                      Sergey Zhikharev April 13 2021 03: 06
                      0
                      "But what about the Finnish, Holchingol. It was there that the tactics of creating operational kulaks, and deep coverage were used. The Germans just learned this, just from us. The question is precisely that the operational leadership of the troops on the eve of the war was not what. "
                      The Germans studied with the USSR until 1933 (it was then that the USSR taught Guderian). In any case, this is what the version of the rezunists and liberals says. The Germans could no longer study in Khalkhin Gol and in Finnish (late 30s). And where have all the tractors and tankers gone, which provide the troops with the creation of operational fists and deep coverage?
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA April 12 2021 16: 16
                  +3
                  Quote: YOU
                  You apparently did very poorly at school. or yourself from Ukraine. If you do not know about detachments, penal companies and battalions, Stalin's order No. 227, dated July 28, 1942.

                  You want to say that in July 1942, near Moscow, there was the following picture:
                  Quote: YOU
                  As he is near Moscow, with the same three rulers, 5 rounds per barrel, 5 grenades per platoon. 2nd forty-fives for battalion. A machine gun with cartridges is only in the detachment's barriers.

                  Regarding "5 rounds per barrel": the average consumption of cartridges for a rifle during offensives near Moscow in 1942 - 3-4 pieces per day per barrel. But for machine guns - from 600 to 900.
                3. Intruder
                  Intruder April 15 2021 15: 06
                  +2
                  or yourself from Ukraine.
                  And if even so and sho it is so scary that who else can be an ethnic Ukrainian, living in the Russian Federation or having Russian citizenship, as it smelled of nationalism, already with Russian roots !?
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 12 2021 16: 49
      +1
      where near Moscow, in what part, at what period and most importantly ... how he was able to stop the Germans with 5 rounds
      1. YOU
        YOU April 12 2021 18: 51
        -2
        I had 2 grandfathers, one was discharged in 43, lost a leg on the Kursk Bulge, the second reached Budapest, and then Mongolia. My friend also had a grandfather. There was a history teacher who was a holder of 2 Orders of Glory. I was also personally acquainted with the pilot, Hero of the Soviet Union. Yes, and with many people who have gone through the war and who know it not by agitation, but, so to speak, in person. You can joke as much as you want if history has been studied in scouting units, and hardly seen a living veteran. There were no penal battalions, no detachments, no 37-year. Everything was chocolate. And you need to build a spaceship, fly to Mars, and then gouge the Americos and the Chinese. Glory to Roskosmos !!! For this, the discussion is closed.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 12 2021 18: 57
          0
          only you are confused in the testimony of who told you about 5 rounds and detachments ...
          1. YOU
            YOU April 12 2021 19: 03
            -1
            Quote: Barberry25
            only you are confused in the testimony of who told you about 5 rounds and detachments ...
            I repeat about 5 rounds, my friend's grandfather. About the detachments All.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 12 2021 19: 05
              +2
              so you would ask .. and then somehow one "comrade" on another site shouted and cried about "1 rifle for 5th", and then it turned out that "when they left the encirclement and that because they threw their rifles" ... well, yes .. it is better to give a particular case for granted ... you also write that "your friend's grandfather" 5 times this detachment shot
              1. YOU
                YOU April 12 2021 19: 10
                -1
                Quote: Barberry25
                you also write that "your friend's grandfather" 5 times this detachment shot

                Yes, yes, he shot and buried it in the ground, and wrote the inscription. It's a pity you can't ask your grandfather anything. I said the discussion is closed, happy flight to Mars on the super Aircraft carrier, I wish everyone to win. Good luck.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 April 12 2021 19: 21
                  0
                  wink and we will fly and build a supercarrier, the main thing is then do not have a snack, otherwise you will begin to prove later that this is your personal merit)
              2. Intruder
                Intruder April 15 2021 15: 09
                +2
                you also write that "your friend's grandfather" 5 times this detachment shot
                And, ten times buried !? laughing drinks calloused hands of red commissars!
            2. SVD68
              SVD68 April 13 2021 06: 39
              +1
              Quote: YOU
              About the detachments All.

              Both of your grandfathers and your friend's grandfather tried to leave positions and therefore faced obstacles?
    3. Konnick
      Konnick April 12 2021 19: 25
      +1
      Now the archives are open, name the part in which the friend's grandfather fought, and there you can speculate about 5 cartridges. The friend should know the name of the grandfather and the year of birth. My grandfather fought near Moscow, in a unit where almost everyone had PPSh. The unit was formed in October 41 in Moscow.
  4. FIR FIR
    FIR FIR April 12 2021 11: 47
    0
    Quote: Lannan Shi
    In the mid-20s, the last century, the USSR was doing exactly the same with the production of aircraft and tanks. And if then they decided that we would never have either tanks or aircraft ...

    Thank God that then people at all levels, from the Kremlin to the plow, understood that they needed to work for the good of the Motherland, and not whine that there was no money.
  5. DMi
    DMi April 12 2021 11: 53
    +3
    Voentprom in those years was created by American engineers, on American machines. And it was the Americans who trained the first generation of Russian engineers. 60% of all world machine tool construction was sold in the USSR. Well, the personnel who knew how to use these stacks were exported for the country.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 12 2021 16: 53
      +3
      Quote: DMi
      Voentprom in those years was created by American engineers, on American machines.

      Who just didn’t create the military industry for us. "List of existing agreements on foreign technical assistance for the USSR People's Commissariat for Heavy Industry for 1934" looks like "Top 5 best foreign firms in its field". smile
      They all checked in - Ford, Demag, Sulzer, MAN, Krupp, Vickers, Curtis-Wright, Fiat, Ansaldo.
  6. Israel
    Israel April 12 2021 18: 46
    0
    In the mid-20s, the last century, the USSR was doing exactly the same with the production of aircraft and tanks.

    And even the USSR did not begin to build aircraft carriers. And the USSR sent a huge amount of funds to industrialization, part of which (one can argue more / less) was done by the same Americans.

    And from the point of view of protecting sovereignty, Russia is investing sufficient funds so that no one wants a direct conflict with Russia. Further, the economy needs to be developed, as long as GDP per capita is lower than Argentina, it will be difficult to build aircraft carriers without at the expense of other weapons.
    1. max702
      max702 April 12 2021 21: 19
      -2
      Then it was not Aviks who were in favor, but battleships and we developed them very successfully and began to build them .. Then we came to our senses, but it was too late, the resources were spent, but there was not even zero sense, but the deepest minus that backfired with losses in WWII .. Now Timokhin and the company are trying to organize this fornicator again, prophesying about the need for aircraft carriers .. Rake seems to teach nothing to certain "comrades"
      1. Israel
        Israel April 12 2021 22: 45
        0
        If the Pentagon has a department that has been tasked with reducing Russia's defense capability, then they should in every possible way support those who propose to build an AB. Because even in the most optimistic scenario, if AV starts building tomorrow, it will go to the fleet in no less than 10 years, then it will be tested and refined for another five years, before final acceptance. But there will be so many resources allocated to this AB that both the naval and "land" programs will suffer. And it will only be one AB.
        1. max702
          max702 April 12 2021 22: 49
          0
          That's what I'm talking about .. The enemy works in all directions ..
        2. Sergey Zhikharev
          Sergey Zhikharev April 13 2021 03: 11
          0
          Is it by chance that this department in the Pentagon says that "aircraft carriers are not needed", "aircraft carriers are outdated", "instead of aircraft carriers, you just need to ...."? At the same time, the United States itself does not refuse aircraft carriers for some reason ...
          1. max702
            max702 April 13 2021 07: 50
            0
            The main enemy of the US Navy. that's .... That's right, the US Air Force! For the army and the military-industrial complex have long been one of the most important businesses .. Hence we must look at the structure of the US army, AUG and everything connected with them remained from the time of the Second World War, when a lot of money was invested in this concept and millions of participants were fed on this, but then Yes, it was an advanced justified decision like once battleships and battleships, but time has gone, new means have come, now the Navy and the Air Force are desperately fighting for the budget of their loved ones .. And by the way, against the background of hypersound, they are beginning to talk about reducing AUG in the direction of the Air Force and missile technologies. We have this concept never existed because the tasks are completely different, plus geography .. You’re not Julia, tell me right for what? Give a specific case, where can we successfully apply AUG for no other?
    2. Intruder
      Intruder April 15 2021 15: 11
      +2
      part of which (one can argue more / less) did the same Americans.
      black and overworked hands, when to stand on one knee !?
  • Artyom Karagodin
    Artyom Karagodin April 12 2021 13: 38
    +4
    See Andrey's article. Everything is there point by point, with a detailed analysis, and not with emotions, like Skomorokhov's.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 12 2021 16: 35
    0
    Incorrect question .. 1) you need to know the appearance of the ship .. because it is one thing that they are now declaring a new interpretation of Krechet, but they may end up with the same a la Indian Vikrant, or, more likely, an aircraft carrier Varan or even a UDC with a springboard. .. and only after that you can discuss the question of where-who-and how much ... 2) in fact, if Russia is to do it, it is a budget-friendly light aircraft carrier
  • Leon68
    Leon68 April 12 2021 06: 35
    -1
    Quote: Hiking
    Hmm, a lot has been written, but nothing concrete, it smells of the very populism. Andrey is one of several respected and best authors on the site, in my opinion, and Roman is busy with populism, posting articles rewritten from other sources and without specifying these sources, which he was repeatedly told about.

    After reading the article, I came to a similar conclusion. Pouring from empty to empty.
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir April 12 2021 07: 06
      +2
      After reading
      Are you a patriot of the state pod, do you really know how to read? Then tell me where you can build aircraft carriers (ets). Port where to moor. Finally, name the carrier-based aircraft.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar April 12 2021 09: 37
        +4
        Quote: Gardamir
        Then tell me where you can build aircraft carriers (ets). Port where to moor. Finally, name the carrier-based aircraft.

        Where to build - has already been discussed. To moor - well, "Kuznetsov" dwells somewhere. Aviation - MiG-29K, in general. Conceptually, everything is feasible. In reality, of course, nothing like that will happen in the foreseeable future: it is much easier to continue to rivet rocket kayaks of type 21631 and tell stories about how any of them can unwind a whole AUG alone.
      2. Lannan Shi
        Lannan Shi April 12 2021 12: 13
        +7
        Quote: Gardamir
        Then tell me where you can build aircraft carriers (ets).

        Last year, the net capital outflow from Russia was almost 48 yards. Dollars. If at least half of this money is wrapped up, and half of it is spent on the Navy, then there will be no questions about financing "where to build and where to keep". And once in a couple of years, finance is also enough to launch an aircraft carrier.
        The question is about priorities. What is more important for the country. Yachts and mansions abroad, for Mordashovs, or aircraft carriers for the Navy. At this stage, yachts with mansions are more important. sad
      3. Intruder
        Intruder April 15 2021 15: 13
        +1
        Then tell me where you can build aircraft carriers (ets). Port where to moor. Finally, name the carrier-based aircraft.
        And sho, everything has already been built, what steel is needed: a port and a deck !? Where and what is the name of this great ship ... laughing
    2. 210ox
      210ox April 12 2021 08: 36
      +7
      This is just a statement of fact. In the next decade, we will not be able to build a huge ship, stuff it with equipment, train planes and pilots. This is not empty-to-empty transfusion. The economy doesn't allow it.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 12 2021 16: 52
        0
        laughing the whole joke is that both authors admit it ... but for some reason they start from the facts that you need to build right to start yesterday and under the current realities
  • Artyom Karagodin
    Artyom Karagodin April 12 2021 13: 37
    +1
    Straight off the tongue, Vitaly)))).
  • Uncle lee
    Uncle lee April 12 2021 04: 39
    +4
    And this, unfortunately, is reality.
    Yes, our real reality ...
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan April 12 2021 06: 57
      -2
      This is not only reality, but also a cold shower for many heads with inflamed brains.
      Under the bravura marches and beautiful fairy tales.
      But with what rapture the people watch these bravura marches on TV and listen to these fairy tales. And how solemnly showed cartoons about Poseidons and missiles with a nuclear engine? Why hasn't it been shown again for a long time? It's time.
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 April 12 2021 15: 05
        0
        I think 21 numbers will show, and no longer cartoons.
      2. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 12 2021 16: 53
        0
        cartoons on trials ... and new ones have not been drawn yet)
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty April 12 2021 04: 46
    +23
    Roman, I'll throw gasoline into the fire. At our shipyard in the Far East there is an unfinished long-build ship with a beautiful name "Kerch Strait", and so there is no one to complete it, because the equipment purchased from the Rolls-Royce company refused to install and launch because of the threat of falling under US sanctions! Thus, we can say that import substitution has died out safely, not really being born, because no one else makes such equipment in our country. The development and creation of your own equipment will cost at least 1 billion rubles! And you dream of an aircraft carrier! The Kremlin, not the country, not the navy, and the authorities do not need it!
    1. antivirus
      antivirus April 12 2021 05: 41
      -6
      I asked a question - ABOUT THE DESIRABILITY OF A WIDE DISCUSSION OF SUCH AND AIRLINE QUESTIONS.
      the village meeting decided. let there be a gathering of the townspeople.
      and most importantly - Eurasia requires other solutions. An increase in the number of "immigrants" from the south - several million were driven from Syria to the EU. Successfully. the training manual works.
      How can we respond to such an onslaught? AMY? allegedly already 30 years ago it was - there is a radiator and you can not go through, the head hurts. And so on 3 or 6 or 11 thousand km of southern borders? - depends on the neighbors, will they skip or close their southern borders and depend on our hands-lei - which borders will be our southern ones.
      This is where 10 units of AV 100 VI each drowned - in the steppes and deserts from the Danube and the Carpathians to Ussuri and Posyet.
    2. max702
      max702 April 12 2021 21: 30
      0
      Quote: Thrifty
      The development and creation of your own equipment will cost at least 1 billion rubles!

      Lord .. You can't even imagine what 1 billion rubles in government spending is .. It's a penny and no more! In my warehouse on the Power of Siberia, I had 5.4 billion goods and materials. rubles .. And this is one of the warehouses of the Power of Siberia .. Even a billion dollars is not a problem, that's all above 10, you have to think ..
  • Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. April 12 2021 05: 00
    -1
    I would like to become Ilya Muromets but my legs do not move, where are these old men with magic water from the earth - mothers.
    Roughly the same can be said about the wonderful aircraft carriers, which in order to build you need a magic ruble drink from the budget of Mother Russia.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 07: 31
      -3
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      a magic ruble drink from the budget of Mother Russia.

      with your pragmatism and adequacy, you and Roman Skomorokhov lower the pink ponies soaring in the blue clouds of their dreams (members of the aircraft carrier sect) to the sinful earth, they are not able to argue, but they will fiercely minus and swear, from their powerlessness to protect their rusty idol
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 22: 19
        +2
        three obscene comments and 13 minuses, the sect is not very numerous, only 13 people, but it is close-knit and aggressive, the percentage of those able to speak out is 1/4, and there was not a single one capable of speaking adequately, and not obscenely .... low IQ level is evident
  • The comment was deleted.
  • WHAT IS
    WHAT IS April 12 2021 05: 10
    +15
    "We were the first"

    By the way, yes ... 60 years ago.
  • FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 April 12 2021 05: 48
    +10
    I agree with the author of the article. Only desperate optimists still believe in the new aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier without a specialized aircraft for it, combat escort ships, support ships, infrastructure at the base.
    1. max702
      max702 April 13 2021 07: 52
      +2
      Quote: FRoman1984
      I agree with the author of the article. Only desperate optimists still believe in the new aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier without a specialized aircraft for it, combat escort ships, support ships, infrastructure at the base.

      These are not optimists, but prudent enemies striving to drag our country into an absolutely useless venture with the goal of reducing its defenses in other areas.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr April 13 2021 11: 43
        +1
        Quote: max702
        These are not optimists, but prudent enemies striving to drag our country into an absolutely useless venture with the goal of reducing its defenses in other areas.

        I completely agree with this assessment - we need to call things by their proper names, and only real enemies (the nicknames of these authors are known) are trying to impose on us the idea that without aircraft carriers we will have a pipe in 20 years.
  • apro
    apro April 12 2021 05: 49
    +1
    Great Wishlist faced great weakness and harsh reality, and a bleak prospect turned out.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar April 12 2021 09: 33
      +3
      Quote: apro
      Great Wishlist faced great weakness and harsh reality, and a bleak prospect turned out.

      The sad thing is that, if you look at it, the Wishlist is not as great as the weakness. The problem lies rather in the organizational plane: while the primary task of the Russian defense industry is to fill the pockets of a certain number of "right guys", one can hardly dream of aircraft carriers (and indeed of a intelligible fleet in general).
  • vostok68
    vostok68 April 12 2021 06: 07
    .
    We absolutely do not need aircraft carriers, why should we bomb the radioactive deserted shores of a foreign continent?
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan April 12 2021 07: 05
      -2
      Andrey, you look like that fox from the fable of grandfather Krylov, who also said: "I don't need grapes"
    2. Gardamir
      Gardamir April 12 2021 07: 11
      +4
      radioactive deserted shores of a foreign continent?
      Is this where all the families are? Where do kids study and old people get treatment? Where is the gold going by airplanes?
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 April 12 2021 15: 13
        +2
        A lot of relatives study with the leaders of the CCP, or do business, or simply live in Western countries, in Singapore, etc. Nobody keeps this fact a secret. But no one doubts that the Chinese leadership will respond with the full might of the country in the event of an attack on it.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 06: 29
    -1
    everything was correctly written by the respected Roman Skomorokhov, and especially since both A. Timokhin and Andrey from Ch. diligently evade the answer about the goals of AB and its role in defense, and their supporters, members of the destructive sect of aircraft carrier witnesses, are openly going to attack innocent Africans, rob them, kill women and children, bring grief and tears to people who are not at all dangerous for us and do not forge aggressive designs ... this is the purpose of the aircraft carrier voiced to us
    1. Sanguinius
      Sanguinius April 12 2021 10: 43
      +4
      openly, they are going to attack innocent Africans, rob them, kill women and children, bring grief and tears to people who are not at all dangerous to us and do not forge aggressive designs ... this is the purpose of the aircraft carrier voiced to us

      What are you lying !? Well, who was going to attack whom, they just thought out of my words, so as to put everyone else in a bad light! They took everyone who sees nothing wrong in the future construction of aircraft carriers, they called them murderers with a wave of the hand and accused them of all mortal sins! Are you generally adequate !?
      Don't you know the purpose of the defense?
      And why don't you ask a DIRECT QUESTION, let's say to the same Andrey, on whom you constantly sin ... directly to him, all these questions that you threaten here (and not how you do it there ... at the end of the comment thread) .. I've personally been watching the course of discussions on this topic for a long time ... and from you I can only see some teasing and assenting, but they themselves could not answer anything sensible in communicating with Andrey!
      And now your train of thought amuses ... it means that aircraft carriers are an instrument of aggression and murder, and submarines, destroyers, cruisers, frigates, these are the Doves of Peace straight!)
      By the way, in the previous dialogue, you said something about the fact that we do not have enough nuclear submarines and they need 10 times more. And here is the question that you yourself like to ask about an aircraft carrier, where is it interesting to put them, where they will be based (we have the first Borei in Kamchatka without a sensible infrastructure, which was what Klimov wrote about, and you here gave free rein to your imagination, ONCE IN 10 MORE QUANTITY OF SUBMARINES AVAILABLE !!!). But what about all those minesweepers, PLO aircraft, support corps that you talked about? We will also neglect for the sake of exclusively PL !?) Russia is a generous soul, what can I say! Also, how much will we be able to handle them, will we master their timely maintenance / repair / modernization ... if we already have a complete failure to meet the deadlines and problems during the modernization of Soviet nuclear submarines?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 14: 47
        +3
        Quote: Sanguinius
        Well, who was going to attack whom, they just thought out of my words, so as to put everyone else in a bad light!

        Well, you yourself wanted to attack Africa and conduct a military policy there with the help of aircraft carriers, and not only you but your other like-minded people more than once offer us something to do there by military means in Africa ... I just continued your thought, this is a war in the picture beautiful, but real, but if you do not fight on a computer on the couch, but in reality there will be grief and tears, there will be innocent victims, and moreover, this is clearly not the defense of your country, but aggression, because we have no overseas territories except Kaliningrad, .. come back to reality and try to be aware of the consequences of your ideas
        1. Sanguinius
          Sanguinius April 12 2021 17: 48
          -2
          Well, you yourself wanted to attack Africa and conduct a military policy there with the help of aircraft carriers

          Please show me where I wrote about it. lol
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 21: 20
            +1
            Quote: Trapper7
            really shake his fist in front of the nose of some Papuan leader, who, for some reason, decides to start nagging Russia in one area or another. Yes, even the protection of the business interests of Russia, even in the same Africa.
            Quote: Sanguinius
            It's about protecting resources and your interests on distant shores, so to speak,
            1. Sanguinius
              Sanguinius April 13 2021 06: 03
              0
              Quote: Trapper7
              really shake his fist in front of the nose of some Papuan leader, who, for some reason, decides to start nagging Russia in one area or another. Yes, even the protection of the business interests of Russia, even in the same Africa.

              These are not my words! fool
              And you draw conclusions based on this comment !? That all those who, for the presence of aircraft carriers in the fleet, are eager to be killed !? And you, as I said, turn the words of your opponent upside down, pass off what you want as valid!)
              Quote: Sanguinius
              It's about protecting resources and your interests on distant shores, so to speak,

              Well, where did I write about the desire to kill Africans !?))) Or do you think that the only way to ensure the extraction or purchase of various resources and raw materials is through murder? Can't we negotiate with friendly states, as well as with the same Sudan or Syria ... by the way, it's not just that we go there and fly to Venezuela from time to time ... therefore, we have our own interests abroad! Therefore, these interests need protection, for example, a government loyal to us for this or that country where we are, and the overthrow of which could have a detrimental effect on us! This foreign policy is called Vladimir ... there is no way without it on this planet! So stop PLAYING in public!
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 06: 31
                +2
                Quote: Sanguinius
                the purchase of various resources and raw materials lie through the murder? Can't we negotiate with friendly states, as well as with the same Sudan or Syria ... by the way, it's not just that we go there and fly to Venezuela from time to time ... therefore, we have our own interests abroad! Therefore, these interests need protection, for example, a government loyal to us for this or that country where we are, and the overthrow of which could have a detrimental effect on us!

                it's great to help friends, but you don't need an aircraft carrier for that, there are airfields everywhere (Khmeimim) and friends will provide them for their safety, and if you want to use an aircraft carrier, then obviously there are not friends there, and those who did not call you do not want to provide you airfield .... then you want to attack another country with the help of an aircraft carrier to bring grief and death to women and children, why be so bloodthirsty and create a weapon of aggression
                1. Sanguinius
                  Sanguinius April 13 2021 08: 30
                  0
                  it's great to help friends, but you don't need an aircraft carrier for that, there are airfields everywhere (Khmeimim) and friends will provide them for their safety, and if you want to use an aircraft carrier, then obviously there are not friends there, and those who did not call you do not want to provide you aerodrome....

                  Vladimir ... there are airfields, but they are not always and not everywhere there is an opportunity to use them, and there will not always be such an opportunity, and the aircraft carrier here it is, can provide reinforcement of the Russian Aerospace Forces, which is based on airfields, also with an aircraft carrier nearby, VKSnikov will not be able to disperse their forces to contain threats from different directions, but focus on other tasks, while the AUG takes over and distracts part of the forces of a potential enemy, while freeing the forces of the VKS from being used where the AUG operates ... especially in such a stressful time is the build-up of forces, and it is better to meet him on the distant lines than to allow him to take advantageous positions to strike. The presence of an aircraft carrier in the Navy makes it much more flexible to use the potential of the RF Armed Forces as a whole!
                  then you want to attack another country with the help of an aircraft carrier to bring grief and death to women and children, why be so bloodthirsty and create a weapon of aggression

                  This means that again you are not building your judgments correctly, and you don’t need to attribute to me something that I didn’t say at all and didn’t mean!)
                  The weapon itself can serve as both a means of aggression and a means of defense, be it an aircraft carrier or an ordinary knife, so your words once again confirm your bias about aircraft carriers! lol
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 08: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: Sanguinius
                    while the AUG takes over and distracts part of the forces of a potential adversary, while freeing the forces of the VKS from being used where the AUG operates ... especially in such a tense time there is a build-up of forces, and it is better to meet it on distant lines than to allow it take advantageous positions to strike. The presence of an aircraft carrier in the Navy makes it much more flexible to use the potential of the RF Armed Forces as a whole!

                    if the AUG distracts part of the forces on itself, then this is no longer help, but a real war, somewhere in Africa, but we need it? like the Falklands ... and a few general words about "potential" is generally the bike of the entire sect of aircraft carriers ... I don't understand what you mean by "potential"? potential, this is some ephemeral potential that is not realized, not defined and questioned in its implementation, never real, because if they are realized, then this is not a potential, but force will be ... this is obvious, and here cunning aircraft carriers = sectarians invented a "projection of force" , or the "potency of force" is essentially the same ephemeral potential, but it looks like something significant ... yes, they sink your AV with the first torpedo like in Tsushima, that's all your potential
                    1. Sanguinius
                      Sanguinius April 13 2021 09: 35
                      0
                      if the AUG distracts part of the forces on itself, then this is no longer help, but a real war, somewhere in Africa, but we need it? like the Falklands ...
                      phahah, well, if you already decided to protect your friends with planes at airfields, then why not make it an aircraft carrier !?)))
                      We don't need this, BUT, and what did you want, defending your interests implies protection!) Or did you immediately decide to run away, a little bit of a naughty start !?)
                      So we are discussing partly ... what tasks it can perform in the event of a war, and there will always be a place in modern war for it, believe it or not, their tasks have been said more than once, and written everywhere, and what are you? then the tasks require that they write to you!)
                      yes they will sink your AV with the first torpedo like in Tsushima, that's all your potential

                      Yesaaaa everything will sink both cruisers and frigates and nuclear submarines, let's not build a fleet at all! lol
                      this is generally the bike of the entire sect of aircraft carriers

                      Why do you keep on attributing me to some kind of "aircraft carrier sect" invented by you!?! ??
                      It is your bikes that require special recognition!)))
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 16: 43
        +2
        Quote: Sanguinius
        TIME IN 10 MORE THAN THE AVAILABLE QUANTITY OF SUBMARINES !!!). But what about all those minesweepers, PLO aircraft, support corps that you talked about?

        yes, I think that more submarines are needed, more minesweepers, more aviation of all kinds, more missiles and frigates and PLO corvettes are needed because the existing 1135 1155 956 and others are not eternal, the fundamental difference between me and you in our dispute is that I do not want weapons aggression against innocent Africans, and weapons of retaliation for those who attack our peaceful country .. and weapons of ensuring the inevitability of such retaliation ... feel the difference? and you have already said everything yourself, the word is not a sparrow, Africa was appointed as your prey ... it's a pity that I answered you, if Andrey from Ch repeated after you, then he would be in fluff, he will now somehow try to get out, but nothing all the same, AB has no adequate goals, so he pulls with the answer, there is nothing to say to him
        1. Sanguinius
          Sanguinius April 12 2021 17: 50
          -2
          And again you continue to write all sorts of nonsense, hanging stamps on others, at which it is quite far-fetched!)))
          And you are absolutely wrong about me!)
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 12 2021 16: 59
      -1
      laughing tell the Americans .. are they also innocent Africans? or do you propose to defend our interests in the world .. nothing?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 17: 05
        +1
        Quote: Barberry25
        tell the Americans .. are they also innocent Africans? or you offer to defend our interests in the world

        you have a collapse of logic, in the first place the Americans will sink your Kuzya by two times, they have hundreds of destroyers, cruisers and submarines, but about defending our interests in the world with military actions ...., explain! we have all been waiting for a long time! but all of you do not say what are the tasks of AB? all some idle talk, about the vague projection of power and the lag of interests, the words of the amoeba without specifics, so far we have heard from your sect only the option to attack Africa, do you have another option? , .. I'm waiting for the judge
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 12 2021 17: 11
          +1
          do not tell me why they didn’t sink all the ships in the Mediterranean then? For many operations, it will be necessary to send not 1-2 corvettes, but a strike group, but for it you need air cover, but pardon me at every point in the world you cannot put a jump airfield ... therefore you need an aircraft carrier if Russia wants to defend its interests around the world, and not just in 3 puddles
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 17: 21
            +2
            Quote: Barberry25
            Can you tell me why they didn't sink all the ships in the Mediterranean then?

            because there is no war yet ... and by the way, they get along fine without AV
            Quote: Barberry25
            For many operations, it will be necessary to send not 1-2 corvettes, but a strike group, but for it you need air cover, and pardon me in every part of the world you cannot put a jump airfield ... therefore, an aircraft carrier is needed if Russia wants to defend its interests around the world, and not only in 3 puddles

            you, like all members of the aircraft carrier's witness sect, are consistently evading the question of the essence of the goals and the form of operations, where would AV come in handy, .... how and why and where are you going to "defend the interests"? As I understand it will be outside the Black Baltic and Sea of ​​Japan, (three puddles) .. yes there is definitely nothing for the aircraft carrier to do ... once again remind the question .... What are the goals of AB ??????????! !!!!!!!!
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 12 2021 17: 25
              0
              laughing Well, yes ... we are sectarians ... who are in the USA, and in England, and in France and in Japan with China .. Do not hyster ... the tasks of the aircraft carrier are well known, you can use the search and familiarize yourself .. I already wrote above that The aircraft carrier will have to be built, the question remains in its image, what it will be and in terms of time, in any case, the question of a real bookmark will only be in the 30s, so calm your nerves with a cup of tea)
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 17: 26
                +1
                Quote: Barberry25
                the tasks of the aircraft carrier are well known, you can use the search and familiarize yourself.

                in general, go there I do not know where .... this is not the answer! you do not have it, which was required to prove
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 April 12 2021 17: 37
                  0
                  um well, you can consider yourself to be the smartest ... Under this music, all the developments on art were hacked to death in due time. systems .. because "why do we need these guns if there are missiles" .. Modern interpretation, why do we need this aircraft carrier ... And really, why) laughing whether it's to solve problems 3 km from the border by sending an expensive bomber or an equally expensive cruise missile
                  1. Sanguinius
                    Sanguinius April 12 2021 18: 02
                    0
                    whether it's to solve problems 3 km from the border by sending an expensive bomber or an equally expensive cruise missile

                    And at the same time, everyone should bow at their feet, so that they give this bomber / rocket a "corridor" for flying from third countries ... and the bomber also to sit down and refuel, if refueling in the air is not possible)
                    1. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 12 2021 18: 12
                      0
                      not without it ... The aircraft carrier is needed .. the question remains in its appearance and, most importantly, the price .. I would still take a closer look at Varan in the place of the Ministry of Defense ..
                      1. Sanguinius
                        Sanguinius April 12 2021 19: 22
                        0
                        But I personally consider the option of a nuclear aircraft carrier, like Charles de Gaulle, it is not too big, and is quite sufficient for our fleet, there are catapults, it can accept AWACS deck aircraft, well, of course, 3-4 units are needed!)
                      2. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 12 2021 19: 24
                        +1
                        recourse alas, the Lyalka is very expensive .. of course knowing our MO, they will want all the bells and whistles and will do atomic ... but I personally like Varan, from the point of view of logistics / industry we can implement it faster and more profitable ... in general, by the time the second nuclear you can already have 2 full-fledged Varanas .. Here is an important point that you need to build a new shipyard
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 21: 04
                  +1
                  Once again I remind the question .... What are the goals of AB ?????????? !!!!!!!!!
                  1. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 April 12 2021 22: 08
                    -1
                    tongue Yandex to help, just familiarize yourself with the concept of "flexibility in decision-making"
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 22: 15
                      +1
                      Quote: Barberry25
                      tongue Yandex to help, just familiarize yourself with the concept of "flexibility in decision-making"

                      Quote: Barberry25
                      "flexibility in decision making"

                      = tolerance, lack of principle, unreliability ...
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      Once again I remind the question .... What are the goals of AB ?????????? !!!!!!!!!
                      Reply
                    2. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 12 2021 22: 20
                      -2
                      laughing and I already answered above, if you do not like the answer, this is your problem .. by the way .. about "we do not need flexibility in making decisions" .. this is 5 points ... then you immediately tell the enemy the action plan .. and then shoot ... so it will be easier
                    3. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 22: 22
                      0
                      Quote: Barberry25
                      we don't need flexibility in making decisions

                      why do you think you don't need flexibility in decision making? I'm very interested ...
                    4. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 12 2021 22: 42
                      -1
                      you just think, because you have a brilliant position, we don't need aircraft carriers ... from the same opera: we don't need guns, we don't need genetics, we don't need cybernetics ... and then we sit at a broken trough, wipe away our tears and we cry that "well, we missed the moment, well, what to do now" .. and all why? but because at one time experts of the level of Vladimir1155 declared ultimately that we did not need aircraft carriers ... we set up a kindergarten .. you can write to the Admiralty and demand to stop think about an aircraft carrier, as well as stop building Boreas and, in general, the fleet is evil, but we need tanks tongue
                    5. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 23: 01
                      +1
                      Quote: Barberry25
                      from the Admiralty to write and demand to stop thinking about the aircraft carrier, as well as to stop building Boreas

                      I am just a consistent supporter of the Borei, and the members of your "aircraft carrier sect" want to stop building Borei and give all the money to AB and switch to the construction of an unnecessary vulnerable and aimless AB
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      Once again I remind the question .... What are the goals of AB ?????????? !!!!!!!!!
  • ccsr
    ccsr April 12 2021 18: 52
    +1
    Quote: Barberry25
    Can you tell me why they didn't sink all the ships in the Mediterranean then?

    Because if the Americans tried to destroy at least one of our warships, then most likely the United States itself would cease to exist. And what is interesting, they know about this, which is why they will never attack even our destroyer.
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 12 2021 19: 00
      +2
      interestingly it turns out ... here a corvette or a frigate will not drown ... but a full-fledged aircraft carrier group consisting of, say, an aircraft-carrying cruiser, 4 frigates, 2 amphibious units and 4 corvettes, 3 supply vessels, 2 nuclear submarines and 4 nuclear submarines, for some reason they will sharply decide to drown in the 30s. ..The point is, if everything goes well in Russia, then there will be aviacs, and if everything goes bad, then aviks will not save ..
      1. ccsr
        ccsr April 12 2021 19: 20
        +2
        Quote: Barberry25
        interestingly it turns out ... here a corvette or a frigate will not drown ... but a full-fledged aircraft carrier group consisting of, say, an aircraft-carrying cruiser, 4 frigates, 2 amphibious units and 4 corvettes, 3 supply vessels, 2 nuclear submarines and 4 nuclear submarines, for some reason they will sharply decide to drown in the 30s. ...

        Nothing interesting, because if the United States decides to launch a surprise strike, secretly preparing for it, then all our naval bases will be destroyed along with all ships. Even if some of them are on the hike, their fate is unenviable, tk. they will either be destroyed or have nowhere to return. Remember the recent explosion of saltpeter in Beirut, where the power of the explosion was at the level of a few kilotons, and imagine what would happen if a 150 kt nuclear charge got there.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 12 2021 19: 22
          0
          for such surprises, there is a diverse nuclear arsenal, so that even if they are destroyed, then, as they say, "we go to heaven, and they go to hell."
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 21: 06
            +1
            Quote: Barberry25
            for such surprises, there is a diverse nuclear arsenal, so that even if they are destroyed, then, as they say, "we go to heaven, and they go to hell."

            so it means that it is precisely the nuclear arsenal of the means of its delivery and support
          2. max702
            max702 April 12 2021 21: 40
            +2
            Quote: Barberry25
            for such surprises, there is a diverse nuclear arsenal, so that even if they are destroyed, then, as they say, "we go to heaven, and they go to hell."

            So it all works without the AUG and the ocean fleet! Therefore, for what AUG then? For what? Here you need to hang the curtain. What are you doing? Do you go and take a Chinese hammer drill for this job or buy a diamond drilling system from Hilty? Each task should pay off the toolkit, and if you have invested in AUG, then be so kind that it will pay for itself in one way or another! But only we do not have tasks that would pay off, everything is solved by other less expensive tools.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 12 2021 22: 13
              -2
              an aircraft carrier-tool, like any other type of weapon, is, in fact, a floating airfield that can provide an air defense umbrella within a radius of 750-1 km, and strike the enemy with cheap FABs / KABs ... and with the development of weapon systems, the combat range application can grow significantly ... In fact, take the airfield out of the equation in the same Syria and ours would be very sad .. And imagine that we need to quickly carry out an operation somewhere in Africa? is needed, but it, like the destroyers a la Leader, until a sufficient number of BMZ ships, frigates, deple and mapple are built to build an aircraft carrier is nonsense ... and by the way an aircraft carrier should be, I already wrote, I like Varan ..

              Moreover, 1 km is the current radius ... the same UAVs can now provide strikes at a distance of 000 km
              1. max702
                max702 April 12 2021 22: 34
                0
                If we do not have an airfield in Syria, then we have nothing to do there, no one is waiting for us there, and no aircraft carrier or 5-6 will change this situation .. I cannot imagine the situation in Africa because I know how to geography and the political map of the world .. If we a full-fledged and successful operation is needed, which means that one planning will take several months and preparation for another six months (they carried cargo to Syria for three years before the BDK operation) and what kind of efficiency are we talking about? Remember the Gulf War in 91, how much did the whole world prepare for it? And what role did AUG play there? You really set tasks real, not invented, and it turns out that this instrument (AUG) is not suitable for these purposes in any way .. And yes, hypersound will appear not only in our country in the next 10 years and what will we do with the billions invested in these pelvis ? The bourgeoisie with ports for providing reconnaissance and target designation is all right, unlike us, even at today's technological level, and even more so tomorrow ...
              2. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 12 2021 22: 39
                -3
                laughing that's the joke ... that you start to develop a theory .. refuses "and that we have one aircraft carrier" .. it is always said that for the normal functioning of the fleets, several aviks are needed .. and you can talk as much as you like about the fact that we do not need aviks , but in the case of the systematic development of Russia, we still run into the fact that in order to defend our interests we need AUG..that at least burst, but without them there is no way ... not a word at all ... and yes ... following this logic ... we have the maximum that we need .. this is an IPC that even submarines are contraindicated for us) tongue
              3. max702
                max702 April 12 2021 22: 55
                +2
                AUG is very costly, this is a problem, that is, by investing in other solutions, we will get more results .. For 146 million of them, 1.5 billion, that's what suits them for us in no way .. We will rivet 1-2 AUG they are easy 20- 25 and how?
              4. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 12 2021 22: 59
                -1
                1) no one forces you to build an AK today .. 2) ships for AUG will have to be built in ANY case, otherwise there is no point in the fleet, 3) without AUG, you can forget about any state status and attempts to support the allies beyond 3 puddles, because there is already an operation on Assad's support became a headache, then what to say about the support of the "dictator Aibolit in Limpopo" .... I repeat once again, the point is not whether to build or not, but in what form and when .. my IMHO, you need to make a new one The shipyard, taking into account all modern trends with the calculation of the logistics of the delivery of components and specialists and the laying of a larger number of ships ... roll-in on corvettes and the transition to frigates / destroyers with an eye on UDC / aviki a la Varan ... Everything is standardized, by the beginning of the 40s the project will give results with minimal add. costs
              5. max702
                max702 April 12 2021 23: 13
                +2
                First, we will build shipyards, master a large-tonnage fleet, build infrastructure, create an economic basis on the capabilities that we have now (1/7 of the land), and only after that we will raise the question of the feasibility of AUG in those modern conditions .. Judging by the tasks set this will happen in at least 20 years, and whether then AUG will be relevant a big question .. Space, rocket technologies, radar, aviation are already questioning not only the AUG, but surface ships in general, and what is there in 20 years is not clear at all .. Armored vehicles are now experiencing something similar in connection with the development of anti-tank weapons, only in the navy everything is much more expensive, so choosing the wrong concept can be fatal for the state ..
              6. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 13 2021 09: 03
                0
                and? they responded to the appearance of ATGMs with the appearance of KAZ, and in a couple of years they will install automatic turrets that will not only shoot down but also destroy the ATGM crews with return fire ... We don’t need aircraft carriers and the fleet for nothing "..- I wrote above that before the 3s the issue of construction will not rise, as well as the fact that Russia NEEDS to build a new shipyard for the construction of ships, because old shipyards have limitations and the load is not weak .. so you will have to fork out for 30 billion rubles to build a new shipyard near St. Petersburg ..
              7. max702
                max702 April 13 2021 10: 03
                0
                So far, KAZ has not shown itself in real life, because it is expensive and not reliable, solutions to overcome it were found 20 years ago, with the miniaturization of the electronics of the batteries, the saturation of the battlefield of the PT with means will only grow, which has called into question the development of new BT samples. look at the facts all over the world they are finishing old samples and only we with "Armata" have tried something conceptually new, but the absence of this platform in the troops seems to hint at these problems, because the new BT is terribly expensive in relation to the PT means .. In the Navy, the same picture only there it is still more complicated and more expensive .. The current technological level does not provide solutions ..
                About the shipyard .. 250bn is a pittance for the budget, to build near St. Petersburg? It is possible, of course, but it makes more sense to build a Zvezda-2 in the Far East, there is a need for an industry cluster with steel plants and rolling mills, it is vitally important for us to develop the Far East. the pace of this ..
              8. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 13 2021 13: 56
                0
                those. jump like fools on a rake? those. All the centers for the development and production of engines are on the left of the Urals, but it’s very interesting to carry the engine across the country? And it’s very interesting ... everyone here buzzes about "no money", but instead of investing 250 billion in one shipyard you need to invest 750-1 billion in a somewhat ... ingenious plan ... reliable as a Swiss watch
              9. max702
                max702 April 13 2021 17: 30
                +1
                What are the centers? Not Motor Sich and Zorya? Everything that is done quite to itself on the railway from the engines will reach in extreme cases along the NSR, but we cannot deliver sheet metal for the same Zvezda already now. where jobs are needed like air, we won over 70 years of the USSR to bratskonarods that they just did not rebuild, and Siberia and the Far East are in complete shit, so we will invest in our Far East, too, people live ..
              10. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 13 2021 18: 11
                -1
                that's the joke ... that first we stretch the logistics to "bring the engine to 9 km, and then we say" why is everything so expensive ".. oh, yes, even experts are transported by plane if something happens .. is it really 000 hours ..You will decide whether you want to do well? Or just beautifully? And yes, SUCH trillions of yourself, in principle, will not pay off from the word at all and never
          3. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 13 2021 13: 58
            0
            and about KAZ .. About "terribly expensive" does not mean ineffective .. Or, according to your logic, you need to remove all the armored vehicles .. let the infantry run into the attack .... still give birth. it's not a pity .. because if expensive missiles on expensive tanks are expensive, But if cheap shells for the infantry are normal ... do not care about losses
          4. max702
            max702 April 13 2021 17: 32
            -1
            And I tell you that BT is at an impasse and no one knows what to do ...
          5. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 13 2021 18: 12
            -1
            Therefore, you propose to cut everything and let the infantry again climb into the attack under the cries of hurray .. or you don’t want to think, you have already decided everything for yourself)
          6. max702
            max702 April 13 2021 19: 12
            0
            I didn’t say a word about the fact that it’s your fantasies to cut everything, I mean that the role of BT has sharply decreased, but the price of these has increased ... Forgot how they hid the fleet during the time? for God forbid! So it will be with BT soon ..
          7. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 13 2021 22: 44
            0
            so during the Second World War, EVERYONE hid it ... the only one who really got into an adult in the sea, the Japanese and the Americans, when the islands were divided, the rest of the naval battles were reduced to the defense of convoys and occasional battles when they ran into each other, and the Soviet fleet was generally very weak and obsolete by the beginning of the war. The problem is that there are solutions to current problems - the development of KAZ and detection means ... I don't think that the ATGM calculations will like it when the same tanks start to work on them from 5 km on a UAV tip .. It's not in the tool , but in its correct use ..
  • ccsr
    ccsr April 13 2021 11: 47
    +1
    Quote: Barberry25
    And imagine that we need to quickly carry out an operation somewhere in Africa?

    And imagine that it is easier for us to send all of Africa in three well-known letters, and to start building up Siberia and the Far East with the money for which you are going to "save" Africa. How about this approach - you probably never thought of that ...
  • max702
    max702 April 12 2021 21: 35
    +2
    Quote: Barberry25
    Can you tell me why they didn't sink all the ships in the Mediterranean then?

    Because Russia has the Strategic Missile Forces .. This is precisely the guarantor of peace, not the AUG and other naval leviathans ..
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 12 2021 22: 44
      -3
      laughing and the crews of Boreyev and Dolphins are aware that they are useless clowns? and the crew of the Tu-95/160 are aware of their uselessness? After all, we have the Strategic Missile Forces !!! .. kindergarten .. by God.
      1. max702
        max702 April 12 2021 22: 52
        +1
        Quote: Barberry25
        laughing and the crews of Boreyev and Dolphins are aware that they are useless clowns? and the crew of the Tu-95/160 are aware of their uselessness? After all, we have the Strategic Missile Forces !!! .. kindergarten .. by God.

        By and large, this is exactly how the SSBN is under a big question, otherwise the local Morephiles would not have shouted about the AUG as a guarantee for the use of SSBNs, the VKS strategists generally not for a counter strike, but the Strategic Missile Forces, especially the silos, will check and checkmate anyone within 2-3 minutes from receiving an order .. So yes, against their background, the rest are more engaged in clowning ..
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 12 2021 22: 54
          -2
          what um .. especially silos? right now just by, and absolutely by ... not to mention the sayings about "do not put all your eggs in one basket, and that is what you propose to do ... Utterly stupid
          1. max702
            max702 April 13 2021 07: 38
            +2
            Quote: Barberry25
            what um .. especially silos? right now just by, and absolutely by ... not to mention the sayings about "do not put all your eggs in one basket, and that is what you propose to do ... Utterly stupid

            Why by and why stupidity? Argument! My arguments are that silos are the most combat-ready with a minimum launch time, missiles are the most powerful of all that is, besides silos are located in the depths of the territory and are the most protected, unlike others .. What are your arguments? Waiting ...
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 13 2021 08: 57
              -1
              laughing because for any type of weapon you can find a means of counteraction and since you are resting on silos, you should know that the Americans are developing an instant strike system + missile defense system ... in other words, knowing where the mines will be located, they will find a way to destroy them with a high proportion ... Why the Americans Are these "painted" Poseidons and Petrels who are nervous? because these are new types of weapons against which you need to look for means of counteraction, and you still propose to leave one old option .. in your opinion in the USSR they were absolutely stupid, since they created mobile complexes?
        2. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 13 2021 09: 19
          -1
          and yes, the local "morephiles" did not mention about the aug-like guarantee for SSBNs ... this requires corvettes, IPC and anti-submarine aircraft to ensure the deployment / exit from submarine bases ... you are clearly reading the wrong thing
          1. max702
            max702 April 13 2021 09: 52
            0
            How is that? You play something, just AUG, according to the sectarians, and it’s not the only thing that justifies AUGi is the guarantee that there will be no PLO aircraft over the SSBN .. Study the issue more carefully ..
            Now for silos, it is necessary to develop and look for ways, but the question of implementing this may be very far from reality, and it is such that today silos cannot be destroyed! At best, the blow will hit the empty mines and what is the point of it? And so it will be until the appearance of space platforms with shock weapons, by the way, all hypersonic actions were just aimed at the first disarming strike, but somehow it did not grow together .. The entire shock component of the United States is cruise missiles that fly to the silo for hours, there is an option to throw ballistic but this also does not guarantee 100% of the result, because they will detect and everything will go away with silos earlier, times have changed, which was 40 years ago now is not relevant .. Now according to the triad, when the USSR was and the delivery vehicles were only being developed, there were huge restrictions on the range and weight of the payload now, with the progress in rocketry, these issues are closed, the same silos can reach anyone through the South Pole .. By the way, the United States always feared silos because they had solutions with a sea and air component, PGRK posed less threat due to the small damaging effect, now, it seems, and here the question was decided, which even more casts doubt on the need for the triad in its current form .. Although here I think No one will take particular risks and will continue funding .. Why is it, and besides, the deployment of AUG is not a primary task for us, because there is a guarantee solution to the issue of the US threat, and this triad is a basket of eggs .. AUG is superfluous for this. And there are no other tasks for them in our country ...
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 13 2021 13: 53
              -1
              laughing "it is impossible or difficult to destroy" are different things, 2) if I know where the launchers are and will be located, then I can develop a plan to neutralize them, 3) Americans have been testing the X-10 space unmanned transporter for 37 years, which already speaks of the ability to deploy certain means ... I repeat, different types of weapons allow you to use different tactical schemes .. Therefore, the Americans are silent about Poseidons and Petrels because they do not yet understand how exactly they dance to neutralize them .. And yes .. winged missiles fly for a long time, fact , but the problem is that the same X-102 can be launched several thousand kilometers from the target and they will fly there unnoticed by the enemy .. That will disable the missile defense system and use the same silos more calmly .. So do not lay eggs in one basket .. the price of an error is very high
              1. max702
                max702 April 13 2021 17: 43
                0
                You can develop anything the question is whether you can implement it! "Eat something he will eat .. but only who will give him .." As for the US missile defense, ask about the air defense of the country, and our winged ones may fly because THERE they have nothing to counter, but we have a completely different matter, ask how things are going with the protection of silos there are many interesting things .. But there are many ways to neutralize the elements of the triad in the fleet and the aerospace forces and the enemy, and this has been discussed more than once .. Yes, and the General Staff is aware of how things are ... just in case and no more, here is the Strategic Missile Forces for real work, and our "partners" know about this, trying to delay the means by agents of influence on decisions who can easily neutralize lobbying for the development of AUG and other crazy things .. "If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser .." Since our country is big, they are trying to get us into the concept of AUG with the same purpose ..
              2. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 13 2021 18: 17
                0
                laughing that's why I say that you don’t think ... because "they have means of neutralization" .. otherwise they would spend all this money on finding a way to destroy mines and they, these methods are quite there, but since we ALREADY do not have a fleet and aviation, we have no other options to force the enemy to scatter means ... So do not write nonsense ... otherwise you have rocket-propelled missile carriers built to "scare the barmaley", and SSBNs are purely for show ... it seems ... otherwise, according to your comments, we need to write off the fleet, aviation, armored vehicles, take AKMs in our hands and sit in a friendly circle around the mines, because "well, they are cool" .. fool
              3. max702
                max702 April 13 2021 19: 10
                +1
                We know very well how they spend money in the United States, and once again, tell us about the means and methods of destroying the Strategic Missile Forces. Just let's go without your traditional conjectures and fantasies
              4. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 13 2021 22: 35
                -1
                lol you do not know this, you just think that for one Strategic Missile Forces division you need to put an air defense division next to it, and if it is still not so far from the border, then another division to provide defense ... well, these are trifles ... and yes ... do not try to cling to PGRK..You directly said that silos-wunderwaffle and only in them you need to invest ... Apparently, nevertheless, they got together and opened the Strategic Missile Forces. with the help of space weapons + add the Aegis missile defense system here and it turns out that it is not so difficult to reduce the damage from the actions of silos ... That is why all countries that grow to a nuclear club create several options for delivery vehicles with a specific purpose - reducing the likelihood of a disarming strike ... Why? Yes, because even one submarine missile carrier, which will not be detected and will receive an order, will be able to send 64 hot gifts ... This is the point.is armed with machine guns, hand grenades, under-barrel grenade launchers, rocket-propelled grenades and hand grenade launchers, machine guns and sniper rifles to have flexibility in combat ... But to get an effective argument in the future ... well, that's so-so
              5. ccsr
                ccsr April 14 2021 17: 37
                0
                Quote: Barberry25
                you do not know this, you just think that for one Strategic Missile Forces division you need to put an air defense division next to it, and if it is still not so far from the border, then another division to provide defense ... well, these are trifles ... and yes ... do not try to cling to PGRK.

                You are simply talking nonsense, because even in Soviet times, the country's air defense consisted of regiments, corps, districts and air defense of the Ground Forces, where there were no air defense divisions either. Moreover, for the missile armies of the Strategic Missile Forces, they chose such a location so that they did not need any new cover by air defense units, relying that enemy aircraft simply would not have time to reach them, because their silos would already be empty. There were no cover divisions for the units of the Strategic Missile Forces, because they were located in the depths of the country, and therefore all units of the Strategic Missile Forces relied on their security and anti-sabotage units and, as an extreme case, something could be given to them for reinforcement from the ground forces - at best battalion or regiment.
                So do not mislead people with your tales about the fact that the Strategic Missile Forces will require new costs to ensure their protection.
                Quote: Barberry25
                From the current means of suppressing the Strategic Missile Forces - the delivery of a tactical nuclear strike using ballistic and cruise missiles, on the approach, a strike with the help of space weapons + add here the deployed Aegis missile defense system and it turns out that it is not so difficult to reduce the damage from the actions of silos.

                An enchanting statement - a massive launch of cruise missiles by the Americans will have to empty silos, because while they are flying, all the regiments of the Strategic Missile Forces will already be firing at the territory of the United States. And against the massive launch of our Strategic Missile Forces, no Aegis can do anything at all, especially since the missiles will fly through the North Pole.
                Quote: Barberry25
                Why? Yes, because even one submarine missile carrier, which will not be detected and received an order, will be able to send 64 hot gifts ..

                You even have no idea that SSBNs do not have a permanent covert command channel to bring them a command to launch simultaneously with our Strategic Missile Forces in peacetime. To do this, they will have to float up and maintain a constant two-way channel of information exchange with the fleet control centers, and this will already unmask the location of our SSBNs, especially if they are near the coast of America. Well, what will happen next, even Timokhin will not be able to dream up ...
              6. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 14 2021 17: 56
                -1
                laughing Well, yes .. I don't know anything about the Strategic Missile Forces .. okay, I'll pretend that it is .. you know better .. lol ... about "launches of cruise missiles will fall on empty mines ..." subject to the detection of the launch of these same cruise missiles, not to mention the fact that there are hypersonic blocks, medium and short-range ballistic missiles and that in the end it is very easy to reduce the number of delivery vehicles due to a complex surprise strike, about "you need to surface and keep the exchange channel ... eh, why? get the command to start, check the keys and prepare for the launch ... and since they are on duty close enough to the enemy's coast, the opposite situation occurs, when the enemy does not have time to react to the missile launch ... So, given that the Americans placed yao under our noses, but we didn’t, then we cannot refuse a systematic approach to strategic nuclear forces ... either focusing on one thing automatically means a loss .. and yes, silos are gradually being abandoned in favor of mobile complexes, leaving only either Big clubs, or mines, which can be inexpensive go to adapt for Yarsy ... or, unexpectedly, silos is a very expensive pleasure ...
              7. ccsr
                ccsr April 14 2021 18: 46
                -1
                Quote: Barberry25
                subject to the detection of the launch of these same cruise missiles,

                The war with the United States will not start with the launch of cruise missiles, because this is too revealing a sign, and therefore ballistic missiles and their nuclear submarines will be the first to fly from the territory of the United States. The time for detecting this is minutes, and they will need to fly as a minimum 20-30 minutes. During this time, they will have time to make a decision and give a launch command to all our strategic nuclear forces, so our mines will be empty.
                Quote: Barberry25
                not to mention there are hypersonic blocks,

                Do the Americans already have it?
                Quote: Barberry25
                medium and short-range ballistic missiles and that, as a result, it is very easy to reduce the number of delivery vehicles due to a complex surprise strike,

                As a rule, they are not on alert, which means that it will be easier to open their preparation for launch.
                Quote: Barberry25
                So with the Americans placed yao under our noses,

                What strategic nuclear weapons of the United States are placed under our noses - can you name?
                Quote: Barberry25
                and yes, silos are gradually being abandoned in favor of mobile complexes,

                This is a great nonsense - the movement of mobile complexes too reveals our plans to deliver a preemptive strike.
                Quote: Barberry25
                , unexpectedly, but silos is a very expensive pleasure ...

                Nothing of the kind - this is the cheapest weapon in our armed forces in terms of the cost of a kiloton and the distance at which they can be used. And so far there is nothing that could replace the mines of the Strategic Missile Forces, of which the Americans are most afraid.
              8. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 15 2021 10: 18
                -1
                if the launch of cruise missiles would be "unmasking", then they would not be used from the word at all. About "they will have time to make a decision" - they will not have time if the launch is made from a short distance, which will disable a significant part of the launchers .. "they are easy open ".. yeah, provided that you are shown the preparation .. do you really think that the military are so stupid and will be demonstratively preparing launches? And yes, very cute. It turns out that the generals of the Strategic Missile Forces are also stupid once ordered by ascetics, and not digging mines). .About "the cheapest" .. this is thanks, you have now signed your complete illiteracy ..
              9. ccsr
                ccsr April 15 2021 12: 24
                -1
                Quote: Barberry25
                if the launch of cruise missiles would have been "unmasking", then they would not have been used from the word at all

                You do not seem to know the history of their appearance, but it was connected with the fact that the American and NATO strategists realized that they would not be able to break through our air defense system, tk. will suffer huge aviation losses. That is why they rely on subsonic missile launchers with a small reflective surface, which will fulfill the task of the first strike. But they missed - our designers very quickly created complexes for the destruction of missile launchers, and the aviation learned to hit them well during the flight.
                So now these weapons of the Americans are absolutely useless against us, especially since our electronic warfare systems already in Syria have shown how easy they can be withdrawn from a flight mission.
                Quote: Barberry25
                About "will have time to make a decision" - will not have time if the launch is carried out from a short distance,

                Can you name where this "short distance" is? And why can't we destroy the launch vehicles at this short distance, even before they launch?
                Quote: Barberry25
                , Provided that you are shown the preparation .. do you really think that the military is so stupid and will be demonstratively preparing launches?

                The military is not stupid, and they understand very well that before the first missiles are launched, the American establishment will have to take care of its own security, which is why this issue should be considered from the point of view of our intelligence capabilities. Well, the American military will have to at least disperse and take positions - do you think that this can be done without us noticing?
                Quote: Barberry25
                it turns out that the generals of the Strategic Missile Forces are also stupid times ordered by devotees, and not digging mines).

                These are not stupid generals, but our industry is too cunning, and knows how to instill in various drunken presidents what is more important for our armed forces. By the way, do you at least know why one high-ranking marshal was removed from office in Soviet times just because he openly stated that we do not need a probable deviation of missile warheads of the order of ten meters, because with a charge of 150 kt, an accuracy of one kilometer is enough ... And he was absolutely right. But the industry imposed this nonsense on us and received money, bonuses and awards for it. The same thing happened with mobile complexes - they were imposed on the military, like "Buran", they planted a lot of money, and the benefits from them are like a goat of milk.
                Quote: Barberry25
                About the "cheapest" .. thanks, you have now signed your complete illiteracy ..

                I know that you have wild ideas about the military economy, but this is not surprising - the victims of the exam have no idea what it is. This is known only to military professionals who were really involved in the development of equipment and weapons, and those who are aware of how the military budget was distributed among the types of armed forces. So your answer didn’t surprise me - you haven’t matured enough to discuss such issues.
              10. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 15 2021 12: 28
                0
                laughing Well, sound it ... how much it costs to build a mine and several bunkers to it and why they are not being built in Russia, and also tell me why stupid Soviet generals very actively developed the topic of mobile complexes ... but thanks, I already laughed ... but I want have some fun a little more over your knowledge ..
              11. ccsr
                ccsr April 15 2021 13: 13
                -2
                Quote: Barberry25
                Well, tell me ... how much does it cost to build a mine and several bunkers to it and why they are not being built in Russia,

                Yes, we have so many of them built in Soviet times that our drunk president signed their destruction in some places. By the way, these are typical projects, and the costs of their construction and maintenance were insignificant.
                Quote: Barberry25
                and tell me why the stupid Soviet generals very actively developed the topic of mobile complexes ..

                I don’t remember that in Soviet times the Strategic Missile Forces was preoccupied with low-power mobile complexes - can you give an example?
                Quote: Barberry25
                .but I want to have a little more fun over your knowledge ..

                Specifically, can you name what mobile complex of the Strategic Missile Forces, besides the railway one, was put into service in Soviet times?
              12. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 15 2021 13: 23
                -1
                laughing those. you have no idea about their cost .. Then think .. why suddenly in Russia now, with a very scrupulous attitude to the Strategic Missile Forces, mines that are "cheap" are not riveted, but are invested in "expensive" tractors ... It is simply touching when they say that to build a full-fledged mine with protection against a nuclear explosion is CHEAPER than to buy a tractor .. All the good .. I don’t see any sense in a conversation
              13. ccsr
                ccsr April 15 2021 13: 37
                -2
                Quote: Barberry25
                those. you have no idea about their cost ..

                I have approximately, and therefore I know that the Strategic Missile Forces was the cheapest type of the armed forces of the Soviet Union. When calculating the total charge in kilotons for ruble costs, this type of troops was not equal and there is no equal until now, which is why they cost us the cheapest.

                Quote: Barberry25
                which are "cheap" but are invested in "expensive" tractors ...

                All this is garbage - all our mobile complexes will launch near the hangars, and it is very bad if the roofs of these hangars do not move in order to launch without bringing the complexes out.
                Quote: Barberry25
                It is simply touching when they say that building a full-fledged mine protected from a nuclear explosion is CHEAPER than buying a tractor.

                Protection from a nuclear explosion was a big overkill, and this was due to the fact that intelligence in the sixties was not as perfect as it is now, for example. Over time, it became clear that we could do it, and it makes no sense to build mines with such protection. By the way, where did you get the idea that such a mine costs more than one mine on an SSBN? It is cheaper, even in terms of service.
                Quote: Barberry25
                .All good ... meaning in the conversation I do not see

                Yes, your fantasies are too far from the realities of life, and it becomes boring to be touched by your knowledge.
              14. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 15 2021 13: 43
                -1
                laughing that's about "out of hangars and it's bad that the roofs don't move" .. here it is straightforward that a person has no idea what an RVSN is, he apparently does not know that on any sneeze divisions go into the fields with a regular change of position and disguise .. So dosvidos ... be alone with your fantasies
              15. ccsr
                ccsr April 15 2021 17: 33
                -2
                Quote: Barberry25
                that on any sneeze our divisions go into the fields with a regular change of position and camouflage ..

                They will not have time to move anywhere if the Americans secretly prepare and deliver a surprise strike. However, you are just an amateur in matters of time intervals for the enemy's use of his nuclear weapons, so you believe in this nonsense. In the same way, in 1941, some of our generals believed that the Germans would need several days or weeks to fully mobilize their troops, and during this time they would have time to deploy our troops in the border districts. Everyone knows how it ended.
  • tone
    tone April 12 2021 06: 32
    -1
    If everything goes like Skomorokhov sings, then not only will there be no aircraft carriers ... Russia will not exist!
    He writes that there is no money, they are only thrown into scams like Poseidons and Zaslonov. It is easy to write to Andrey from Chelyabinsk. And how to contact Timokhin weakly? Until he tramples Skomorokhov in the mud. As with the "anti-submarine" Tu-160. This "pearl" has already been included in Topvar's anal sex!
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 06: 45
      0
      Quote: tone
      And how to contact Timokhin weakly? Until he tramples

      and Timokhin what is the light in the window? guru? not weak, we defeated him more than once, and in general your degree of worship of the aircraft carrier and Timokhin exceeded all limits, you already think that the aircraft carrier is more important than Russia! The great Russia lived for centuries without an aircraft carrier .... and will survive you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GQHpich8kg Members of the destructive sect of aircraft carrier witnesses, not patriots, but "patriots" they do not mind not only the people's trillions, but the whole of Russia, they want to cancel the nuclear submarine, the basis of our security and criticize all new technological developments, before Poseidon they are afraid of in the us ... they are blinkered retrogrades and think in categories of the beginning of the century before last
      1. antivirus
        antivirus April 12 2021 09: 11
        -1
        once again - I am against giving the status of government decisions to such chatter on VO. argued and fell silent .. without reaching the meaning of life and ... empty articles about retired AV and other pensioners. one must laugh at the right time - including over the issues of building the fleet. And not to touch what the higher ones did not dare to do. There are reasons.
    2. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 12 2021 17: 45
      0
      Timokhin clearly cannot answer a single question.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 12 2021 20: 03
        0
        For example? Usually these are presented to me by guys who get hysterical from a collision with reality.

        Like you.

        Let me ask you a question as a "professional". At what distance from the airfield can the base fighter aircraft manage to protect the convoy or the landing party or the transport with refugees - of your choice - with the depth of the radar field from the ships or ships requiring protection in all directions 700 km? To strike, the enemy raises 32 aircraft, of which 24 are attacking the rest of the escort. The permissible error of your answer is 50 km. Can you?

        Can you calculate the dependence "the number of our interceptors - the flight time"?

        And then for the eyes to squeak you are all so smart, no words.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr April 12 2021 21: 49
          -1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Let me ask you a question as a "professional". At what distance from the airfield can the base fighter aircraft manage to protect the convoy or the landing party or the transport with refugees - of your choice - with the depth of the radar field from the ships or ships requiring protection in all directions 700 km?

          Well then, first formulate where we SHOULD send convoys - at least name a region of the world and why aircraft carriers should accompany them in peacetime.
          At the same time, tell us WHERE we are going to land troops - be sure to indicate the place with reference to the map, so that everyone understands the "greatness of your strategic thinking." Especially against the background of the fact that we cannot master the North, Siberia and the Far East, and from where our people are constantly fleeing and it is better to invest money there than to save unknown Papuans. From what hangover did you come up with convoys and landings, which we will not send anywhere - I wanted to fantasize verbiage, so Timokhin is fooling people.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Can you calculate the dependence "the number of our interceptors - the flight time"?

          Without any counting of time, it is clear that if such a task arises, then the available capabilities of strategic aviation will be quite enough to achieve their goals with cruise missiles against almost any state except the United States and China.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          And then for the eyes to squeak you are all so smart, no words.

          It’s you here who walk in front of the professionals, hoping that the peacock’s fluffy tail will hide the bare bottom, but you can’t think of anything from specific situations for aircraft carriers. Fail. Can you dream up something more real again?
          1. ramzay21
            ramzay21 April 13 2021 08: 02
            0
            Well then, first formulate where we SHOULD send convoys - at least name a region of the world and why aircraft carriers should accompany them in peacetime.

            AUG are needed primarily to cover SSBNs, only they can reliably ensure their deployment and combat patrols in different parts of the oceans. For example, patrolling our AUG in the Venezuela area, on the one hand, looks like support for this country, on the other, more important side, it provides combat patrolling of SSBNs in this area, with a short flight time, unexpected flight paths for their missile defense, and the complete impossibility of using their anti-aircraft missile systems against our SSBNs in the area of ​​operation of our AUG.

            We also have Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands, Shikotan Island, Habomai Islands, Sakhalin, Bering Island, Medny Island, and finally Kaliningrad.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr April 13 2021 11: 35
              +1
              Quote: ramzay21
              AUG are needed primarily to cover SSBNs,

              Lies - they only unmask the area of ​​our SSBNs, because the main strategy of our naval strategic nuclear forces should be the secrecy of the missile carrier's campaign itself.
              Quote: ramzay21
              only they can reliably ensure their deployment and combat patrols in different parts of the oceans.

              They will not provide a nifiga, because the Americans will deliver a nuclear strike against both SSBNs and AUG at the same time. And their joint presence in the same area will only make it easier for the Americans to destroy our fleet, and worst of all, our SSBNs.
              Quote: ramzay21
              For example, patrolling our AUG in the Venezuela area,

              This is generally not nonsense, because the closer our AUG will come to the shores of America, the faster they will crash in a shorter time. And it is completely unclear what kind of convoy or landing party you are going to land in Venezuela.

              Quote: ramzay21
              We also have Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands, Shikotan Island, Habomai Islands, Sakhalin, Bering Island, Medny Island, and finally Kaliningrad.

              There is further what? What are you planning to fight with America for months, well, well, "strategist" ...
              Quote: ramzay21
              If now we have few interests, this does not mean that they will not be in twenty years,

              Yes, you will first survive these twenty years, at least in the state that we are now, and then we will think about how to proceed further. Now it is impossible to even guess five years ahead, but he brings us heresy about twenty years - what kind of world do you live in?
              1. ramzay21
                ramzay21 April 14 2021 07: 28
                -1
                Lies - they only unmask the area of ​​our SSBNs, because the main strategy of our naval strategic nuclear forces should be the secrecy of the missile carrier's campaign itself.

                What the hell is this? How? The AUG just will not allow any PLO aircraft or enemy nuclear submarines to operate freely, and just will not allow them to detect our SSBNs.
                They will not provide a nifiga, because the Americans will deliver a nuclear strike against both SSBNs and AUG at the same time. And their joint presence in the same area will only make it easier for the Americans to destroy our fleet, and worst of all, our SSBNs.

                Complete nonsense. To begin with, you need to find the AUG, this is not for you at stationary airfields, with the previously known coordinates of the missile. Even if our AUG is discovered, I can still understand that they can destroy surface ships and an aircraft carrier with a nuclear strike, but how will they destroy our SSBNs and nuclear submarines, will they just fire nuclear warheads in squares? And with what result? While the AUG is operating, our SSBNs and nuclear submarines have nothing to detect. If they begin to destroy our AUG, our SSBNs are guaranteed to shoot back at targets.
                This is generally not nonsense, because the closer our AUG will come to the shores of America, the faster they will crash in a shorter time. And it is completely unclear what kind of convoy or landing party you are going to land in Venezuela.

                This is your reasoning reminiscent of the delirium of a retarded person. This is how the Americans with advanced experience act, and this is how the Chinese are going to act. AUG can perform any task, including supporting amphibious operations or ensuring freedom of navigation in the event of an attempt to block it or simply indicate presence. At the same time, our SSBNs under the protection of the AUG will carry out their tasks, and in complete safety. They will attack the AUG and SSBNs calmly shoot at targets. To destroy our SSBNs, which are under the cover of the AUG, is an almost impossible task.
                There is further what? What are you planning to fight with America for months, well, well, "strategist" ...

                And if the Japanese conduct a landing operation and seize our islands, do you think it is necessary to arrange a nuclear suicide? There is no other way to get them back now. To support the landing operation, an AUG is needed, and this is without options.
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr April 14 2021 17: 16
                  0
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  What the hell is this? How? The AUG just will not allow any PLO aircraft or enemy nuclear submarines to operate freely, and just will not allow them to detect our SSBNs.

                  First, the Americans will monitor all SSBN communications, including through satellite communication channels. Secondly, our PLO aircraft will not be able to fly around the clock in the SSBN launch areas when they are on duty in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. Thirdly, we have several SSBNs on duty at the same time - where do you find so many AUG and PLO to ensure their safety?
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  Complete nonsense. To begin with, you need to find the AUG, this is not for you at stationary airfields, with the previously known coordinates of the missile to launch.

                  Yes, they learned to do this in real time in the last century.
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  I can still understand that they can destroy surface ships and an aircraft carrier with a nuclear strike, but how will they destroy our SSBNs and nuclear submarines, will they just fire nuclear warheads in squares?

                  This is exactly what they will do.
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  This is your reasoning reminiscent of the delirium of a retarded person.

                  My knowledge, of course, lagged behind life, but you will not receive such knowledge until the end of your life - I am 100% sure of this.
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  To destroy our SSBNs, which are under the cover of the AUG, the task is practically impossible.

                  You will tell this in your sandbox - it will work there.
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  And if the Japanese conduct a landing operation and seize our islands, do you think it is necessary to arrange a nuclear suicide?

                  They cannot attack us without the permission of the United States - you first at least study the regulations regarding the use of the armed forces of Japan against other countries and the status of the American troops, which are occupying.
                  Quote: ramzay21
                  To support the landing operation, an AUG is needed, and this is without options.

                  Only in your fantastic movie.
                  1. ramzay21
                    ramzay21 April 15 2021 10: 22
                    0
                    First, the Americans will monitor all SSBN communications, including through satellite communication channels. Secondly, our PLO aircraft will not be able to fly around the clock in the SSBN launch areas when they are on duty in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean.

                    You list the shortcomings of just patrolling SSBNs alone, and to this list you must also add the Poseidon ASB aircraft, which can easily detect a single SSBN and destroy it, while SSBNs have no way of not detecting an ASBN plane or evading it.
                    SSBNs as part of the AUG will conduct communication sessions through surface ships, this is much easier than directly, this is in the first place.
                    Our PLO aircraft are not needed in the event of SSBN operations as part of the AUG. The order of the AUG escort ships, which can include the upgraded Nakhimov, the BOD and frigates 22350 will provide their HAC and PLO helicopters with a much more effective PLO from enemy MAPLs. This is the second.
                    Well, the same ships of the warrant and aircraft from the aircraft carrier will provide reliable air defense of the warrant, excluding the appearance of ASW aircraft and surface ships at the distances necessary to detect our SSBNs
                    Yes, they learned to do this in real time in the last century.

                    This even today and even they have nothing to do. And if such funds appear in the future, then even if they find the AUG and follow it live, they will not be able to start searching for SSBNs until they destroy the AUG, and during this time SSBNs will have the opportunity to be guaranteed to shoot back.
                    This is exactly what they will do.

                    They will not be able to attack SSBNs without detecting it, and AUG will not give it to them. This is why the Americans and Chinese have chosen this scheme. The USSR also planned to do this when common sense defeated insanity, but did not have time.
                    My knowledge, of course, lagged behind life, but you will not receive such knowledge until the end of your life - I am 100% sure of this.

                    Maybe so, but you always have to learn. And whoever forgets about it usually loses.
                    They cannot attack us without the permission of the United States - you first at least study the regulations regarding the use of the armed forces of Japan against other countries and the status of the American troops, which are occupying.

                    Only one thing is clear, the Americans will not report this to us.
                    Only in your fantastic movie.

                    No, my dear, the Japanese fleet is not for you to drive barmaley across the Syrian desert. In 1905, they landed with the same mood, which ended as everyone knows.
                    And now our Pacific Fleet is in a much worse condition than the RI fleet, and the Japanese have experience and ships with submarines of a different generation.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr April 15 2021 13: 06
                      -1
                      Quote: ramzay21
                      You list the disadvantages of just patrolling SSBNs alone,

                      I recommend that you think about one comparison, understandable to professionals - SSBN duty is similar to the operation of an illegal agent on a foreign territory, which is why all our AUG and other anti-submarine weapons will only make it easier for the enemy to destroy our missile carrier. All the rest of your reasoning is just a whim.

                      Quote: ramzay21
                      This even today and even they have nothing to do.

                      Holy simplicity, there are simply no other words. Sorry, but I will not deal with the educational program, but I recommend that you read the articles of some authors on VO on space reconnaissance satellites. They perfectly explained how many different parameters can be used to identify a group of warships in the ocean, ranging from communications equipment to dual-use satellites that detect large surfaces of metal on the water. Well, the coastal units of the naval osnaz have not yet dispersed - they knew how to take bearings of ships there even before the Great Patriotic War, read Strelbitsky.
                      Quote: ramzay21
                      They will not be able to attack SSBNs without detecting it, and AUG will not give it to them.

                      A strange conclusion, if only because many submariners talked about their campaigns to the shores of the United States without any cover of surface ships, and they remained unnoticed.
                      Quote: ramzay21
                      Only one thing is clear, the Americans will not report this to us.

                      The wrong conclusion - the Americans will not want to be destroyed if the Japanese, on their own initiative, want to attack us.
                      Quote: ramzay21
                      No, my dear, the Japanese fleet is not for you to drive barmaley across the Syrian desert. In 1905, they landed with the same mood, which ended as everyone knows.

                      Well, since you are operating with the concepts of a hundred years ago, then apparently you slept through the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in history lessons at school.
                      Quote: ramzay21
                      And now our Pacific Fleet is in a much worse condition than the RI fleet, and the Japanese have experience and ships with submarines of a different generation.

                      Where do the firewood come from? Did you inspect the Pacific Fleet? Share your memories ...
          2. ramzay21
            ramzay21 April 13 2021 08: 09
            +1
            At the same time, tell us WHERE we are going to land troops - be sure to indicate the place with reference to the map, so that everyone understands the "greatness of your strategic thinking."

            If now we have few interests, this does not mean that they will not exist in twenty years, the fleet is being built for a long time and should also serve for a long time and must be able to fight and not only display a flag. Our fleet, in its current state, is not able to fight a modern enemy.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 13 2021 09: 25
              0
              by 2030, the fleet will receive new ships: 8 frigates, 3 patrolmen, 4 patrol icebreakers, 16 mrk, 2 udk, 2 airborne ships, 8 mapples, 10 deplants, 11 corvettes. excluding upgraded
              1. ramzay21
                ramzay21 April 13 2021 19: 55
                0
                the fleet will receive new ships by 2030

                We have already heard this tale, only with the numbers for 2020, only 16 frigates were not received by the fleet.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 April 13 2021 22: 45
                  0
                  and what does this have to do with the fairy tales? the shipyards have already started deliveries of serial ships and I don't see the reasons why they should sharply disrupt technological processes.
                  1. ramzay21
                    ramzay21 April 14 2021 09: 48
                    0
                    There will definitely not be UDC. From the surface, only frigates 22350 are of value, but 8 pieces for four fleets is nothing. Patrolmen, RTOs are a waste of money, like corvette 20386. Varshavyanka can be directly in the museum. Bringing to mind Lada with VNEU is unlikely. MAPLs without anti-torpedo protection and with structural problems are also questionable.

                    One could rejoice at the cancellation of the construction and design of stupid toys and the launch of a large series of frigates 22350, in the maximum number. Two or three dozen such frigates could dramatically increase the combat capabilities of the Navy. The current program, taking into account the decommissioning of Soviet-built ships, will lead to a decrease in the combat capabilities of the Navy, against the background of the growing capabilities of our potential adversaries.
                    1. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 14 2021 09: 53
                      0
                      laughing always dissatisfied ... I wonder where you were 10 years ago .. probably in fear from under the table did not crawl out .. if for you "corvettes are not corvettes" .. by the way, it touches that out of 11 corvettes you decided to remember only the experimental Six .. Well, yes .. and 10 other corvettes, which are being built, as well as 8 more ALREADY handed over to the customer .. this is apparently, Well, they are not .. About RTOs ... well, that's your opinion .. About Patrolmen, well, yes, because only sending a cruiser or an aircraft carrier to escort a couple of ships, a super correct decision .. In general, your opinion comes out so-so ... You still write, Zircon will never be, and Calibers are lies, they are not, these are all cartoons ...
                      1. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 April 14 2021 10: 13
                        0
                        You already know all the answers, why do you need the answers?
                      2. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 14 2021 10: 15
                        +1
                        laughing it just touches me when at the beginning of the 10s everyone declared that "the fleet is kirdyk, nothing is being built", and 1 years later, when supplies went: 1 strategist, 1 MAPL, 2 frigate, 1 corvettes, 1 depl, 3 patrol, 5-10 MRK per year ... the statements are still the same ... Apparently, until they hand over XNUMX super destroyers Leader per year, we will always have dissatisfied ... and then they will say that everything is terrible ..
                      3. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 April 15 2021 01: 01
                        0
                        it just touches me when at the beginning of the XNUMXs everyone declared that "the fleet is kirdyk, nothing is being built"

                        At the beginning of the 1998s, we had a completely different situation. In 1997, the new cruiser Peter the Great entered service. In 90, Kalinin stood up against the wall, the cruiser Frunze also stood up in the mid-90s and they could be returned to service, the factories and personnel were there. In the 2000s, the fleet received several destroyers and BODs, several loaves and PLATs Shchuka B were handed over, and the MRA still existed. Now the fleet in terms of combat capability is significantly inferior to the fleet that was in the early XNUMXs.
                      4. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 15 2021 10: 20
                        0
                        laughing received several destroyers and amphibious assault ships .. which ones and how many? and yes. "inferior" .. it's nice .. especially with Onyx, Caliber and Zircon on the way ... thanks, I laughed
                      5. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 April 15 2021 10: 35
                        0
                        Destroyers Persistent and Fearless at the end of 1992 and 1993 respectively. BOD 1155, the latest was commissioned in 1992, the rest were about 2000 years old at the beginning of the 10s.
                        especially with Onyxes, Gauges and Zircons on the way.

                        Where are you going to put the calibers? On RTOs that have no anti-aircraft missile defense or air defense, and for whom a meeting with a submarine or a helicopter with anti-ship missiles will be the last? Or on the Black Sea frigates with practically no PLO?
                      6. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 15 2021 10: 37
                        0
                        laughing and where do you put the missiles on the BOD which, in fact, does not have air defense? this is purely in response) so mi-mo
                  2. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 April 15 2021 10: 32
                    0
                    and an important point - all these ships are the remnants of the Soviet reserve ... which somehow gave birth to a total of 10 years ... 5 current bpk and a cruiser ... at the same time, over 10 years the fleet received 8 corvettes and 5 frigates and, most importantly, they left on the series .. so the story about "but the FSE fleet" is a little exaggerated ..
                  3. ramzay21
                    ramzay21 April 15 2021 19: 27
                    0
                    That is, in 20 years, 2 modern frigates were built, 3, in fact, modernized Soviet SKR export performance in an over-trimmed version with weak air defense and practically no anti-aircraft defense, and 8 corvettes with not the worst anti-aircraft defense, and weak anti-aircraft defense. That is, in fact, only 2 full-fledged ships are capable of performing combat missions. And in 20 years one MAPL was mastered. There is no ship of the first rank and is not being built. Are you inviting this to rejoice?
                    As a result, the Black Sea Fleet has no modern PLO forces at all, and it is capable of performing missions only against the navies of Georgia and Ukraine, but not against the Turkish navy, especially with a reinforced US destroyer. The Pacific Fleet has neither ships nor aircraft capable of at least some cover for the deployment and patrolling of SSBNs, not to mention at least some kind of opposition from the US, Chinese or Japanese navies. One PLAT and several SSGNs, two corvettes and museum pieces are unlikely to pose a threat to modern navies in this region. On the Northern Fleet, there are no modern anti-mine forces at all, there is nothing to provide for air defense and anti-aircraft defense deployment and patrol areas.
                    But the Navy, in your opinion, got everything. Stunning laughing
                  4. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 April 15 2021 20: 36
                    0
                    winked only these "truncated" TFRs in terms of combat capabilities surpass the "destroyers" that were received .. Yes, and the corvettes are superior to those same destroyers in performance characteristics .. so don't "oh, I don't like it and I will subtract" here .. So fairy tales keep with you
                  5. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 April 15 2021 21: 37
                    0
                    wink I voiced my opinion, namely that 10-20 years ago they were whining and moaning in the same way ... and, according to your words, the fact that they received as many as heels of ships is cool then, but now that 12 ships have received in 10 years and have reached the pace of 2 -3 ships per year, not to mention the MRK, is trifles and wrong .. I indicated how many ships the fleet will receive over the next 10 years, excluding those ships that will undergo modernization. BUT, of course, 10 current corvettes, 8 frigates and 3 patrolmen are very few. .not that 4 bpk and a cruiser in the 90s from the Soviet reserve, yeah ..
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 19 2021 15: 18
    -1
    As with the "anti-submarine" Tu-160

    You can offer an option with the transformation on the fly in the submarine. Flew in, dived, drowned everyone and flew on laughing
  • parusnik
    parusnik April 12 2021 06: 33
    +9
    laughing
    Because nobody will allocate these huge sums. There is none of them.
    There is no money, but you are holding on. I know one rural settlement, subsidized. So, they were forced through the court, to start a fire station, with a car, a team, everything is as expected, money is needed 5 Lyams, ugh it seemed, but there is no money. The administration is fined annually for asking the district for money, but we will master Mars and the Moon. laughing And there is nothing to say about the construction of aircraft carriers. We will bake like pies. laughing
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Fan-fan
    Fan-fan April 12 2021 07: 10
    -2
    Remember how a Bulgarian recently said here: "You cannot build a chicken coop"
  • Niko
    Niko April 12 2021 07: 31
    +12
    Yes, POPULISM is not a good thing. Therefore, write this ... In response to an article with specific answers to specific questions (no matter how we treat the idea of ​​aircraft carriers). With numbers (even if it seems wrong) The idea set forth by Roman is POPULISM in its purest form. Most of us ( who remembers perestroika and the subsequent period not from the Internet and tales) these rhymes are well known: "Why do we need an army, give us sausages, why a fleet, why space, etc. why feed the freeloaders? (those who now we want to return at least somehow- then) And the thought that you need to WORK, that is, to build: shipyards (and for tankers too, as Andrei wrote about), and infrastructure (not only for the fleet), this idea is very frightening. Development of the economy in some amazing way in the heads of some people have nothing to do with the need to do anything ...
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 07: 35
    +26
    There is nowhere to build an aircraft carrier. Yes, theoretically there is a place, but there you need only a few miserable tens of billions and a certain amount of time. And it was emphasized that billions of rubles, not dollars.
    Indeed, Putin will go and borrow from another friend, as he did for the Sochi Olympics, right?

    Even several tens of billions of rubles (and the reconstruction of Sevmash is unlikely to require so much) does not pose any problem for the RF Ministry of Defense, the annual budget of the Ministry of Defense is about 3 trillion a year, of which about 1,5 is allocated for the purchase of weapons, R&D equipment and repairs. XNUMX trillion
    Moreover, Andrei admits that there is nowhere to base this ship. That is, we automatically add a dock, berths and other infrastructure for a ship of this size to the reconstruction of the plant. Because we have none of this.
    Hundreds more billions went ...

    Uh-huh. In order to equip the berth and ensure the supply of water, steam, electricity, and so on, "hundreds of billions" are needed. And after that I am accused of populism, yes. laughing
    For the new ship of the future, new aircraft? And at the base, excuse me, what? Su-57? Well, when they bring it to mind, if they can do the naval version, then we'll talk.
    By the way, the same can be said in the direction of the escort ships. When the Super-Gorshkov is designed and built, then we'll talk. With pleasure.

    Serdyukovshchina in its purest form. "Let the industry show us, and we think, and maybe we will buy"
    In fact, it is only necessary to develop the same naval version of the Su-57 if we decide to build an aircraft carrier. If we decide not to build it, then the development of a carrier-based aircraft is unnecessary.
    And one more nuance, which Andrey modestly fell silent. We, unlike potential adversaries, do not have such a necessary component as a deck-based AWACS aircraft.

    Well, I have not been surprised by Skomorokhov's populism for a long time, but I am surprised at such an impudent lie. I wrote about the carrier-based AWACS aircraft in both articles devoted to AB
    In "The answer of the supporters of the aircraft carrier lobby to the" inconvenient "questions" was
    "Regardless of how successful the work on the creation of the A-100" Premier "is (officially everything is successful there, but the project is secret, and who knows how things really are?), It is obvious that we have gained tremendous experience during its creation, and this experience will greatly simplify and facilitate the work on the "people's" AWACS aircraft. On the basis of, say, the same Yak-44, which will be much cheaper than the "Premier" and which can be produced in much larger batches in the interests of the Aerospace Forces, and the Navy. "

    In "On the cost of the fleet that Russia needs"
    The same can be said about AWACS aircraft. There are problems there, because both the Russian Federation and the USSR were engaged almost exclusively in the ultimatum-giant AWACS aircraft of the A-50 and A-100 type, but work on relatively small aircraft of a similar purpose was practically not carried out. Yes, the carrier-based AWACS aircraft of moderate sizes - Yak-44, An-71, were being worked out, but they, especially in terms of the radar systems placed on them, remained at a very early stage of development. At the same time, aircraft of this type, in my opinion, would be extremely in demand, both by the Navy and the Aerospace Forces. Because the same A-100 "Premier" will be extremely expensive, and from this it will never be produced in a large series. While the plane, like the same Yak-44, is quite capable of becoming a "workhorse" of the Aerospace Forces and the Navy's aviation.
    At present, the Russian Federation is capable of creating very powerful and compact radars, both with passive and active phased array, installed on the Su-35 and Su-57. Taking into account certain successes in the development of CIUS and the experience gained in the design of the A-100, the creation of an AWACS aircraft of moderate size on the basis of, say, the "modernized" Yak-44 looks, although difficult and time-consuming, but quite feasible for us. In which, I repeat, not only the fleet is interested. "

    And after that, writing that I "modestly hush up" something there may ... well, decide for yourself who.
    In general, I would like to talk about the problem of specialists separately. I understand that from Chelyabinsk it is much better to see how there are at the shipyards, but after visiting the Crimea, in Kerch, having talked with the workers of the "Zaliv", which is a shipyard named after E.Ye. Butoma.

    Shine. The novel is taken to judge Sevmash, having visited ... the Black Sea factories wassat
    Roman, from Chelyabinsk really knows better. I've even been to the "Zvezdochka".
    Indeed, in his huge article, he did not answer any of the most important questions, the main one of which is where the money will come from for the construction of new factories, ships, aircraft, and so on.

    And again - a lie. A whole article was devoted to this, about the cost of the fleet that we need https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html And the conclusion is very simple - we can afford a powerful fleet with an oceanic component already today, given the current level of defense spending.
    Of course, I will not answer THIS with an article - there is no argumentation, except for the constantly repeated and unfounded mantras about "hundreds of trillions". But it's sad to watch when opponents sink to outright lies.
    It's up to you, dear readers
    1. Per se.
      Per se. April 12 2021 07: 52
      +18
      "It's up to you, dear readers", words of Andrey.
      "There will be no aircraft carriers", the title of Roman's article. If we position Russia as a" gas station country ", we will not have a lot of things, why do we need an army and a navy when there is oil and gas ... As they say, those who wish will find opportunities, not those who wish reasons ...
      For the rest, on an already hackneyed topic, I would like to repeat my comment on the article by Alexander Timokhin "A few questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers."
      Alexander, I personally do not need to be persuaded, as Vysotsky sang - "I have already proved everything to myself", it is necessary to prove to those who, at best, are mistaken, and at worst an adept himself, sagging the lobby of other people's interests. There is no "aircraft carrier lobby", just as there is no "lobby" of people with two hands, but those who persistently convince the Russians that they are residents of a "land country" that has enough ships for the littoral zone are not baked for the good of Russia. I just want to say that, go, dissuade the United States and NATO from aircraft carriers, they have a lot of land bases, and so Russia was besieged. No, they won't, the information war did not end, it just flares up, ideological sabotage is gaining momentum.

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

      Having a reduced fleet is like trying to play chess with only pawns, voluntarily giving up heavy pieces such as the rook and queen. This is what the "well-wishers" want from us.
      We do not need to have the same number of ships as the United States and NATO as a whole, much less more, but our fleet must have operational groupings at sea, capable of performing all the tasks that can and should be solved by the fleet. And, behind these groups, even each individual ship, the entire might of a nuclear and space power should stand. Try to touch. As the commander of our lone ship once said, to the insolent behavior of the NATO naval grouping, "I have all the might of the Soviet Union behind me!"
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 08: 02
        +12
        Quote: Per se.
        Having a reduced fleet is like trying to play chess with only pawns, voluntarily giving up heavy pieces such as the rook and queen.

        Very good comparison :)
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 09: 18
          -7
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          comparison:)

          you can clearly see how you moved on to discuss the personality of the respected Roman Skomorokhov, you have unanimity, but this only showed everyone your weakness, you have no technical arguments, and now you are splashing saliva and calling names .... from powerlessness ... weak!
          1. Andy
            Andy April 12 2021 12: 32
            -3
            it is a pity that the negative rating is not a ban on comments.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 14: 50
              0
              you can clearly see how you moved on to discuss my rating, the truth is not determined by voting, it is absolute, and as a rule is denied by a stupid, meaningless crowd, you have unanimity, but this only showed everyone your weakness, you have no technical arguments, and so you frenziedly minus .... from impotence ... but weak to win in an argument ?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIcM2W31FJE and you want to expel me, then you are afraid of me, which means I am what I am, and not a silent minus amoeba ... Blessed are those exiled for the truth! ... If anyone does not receive you and listen to your words, when you go out of that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet; Truly I say to you, it will be more joyful for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that city
              1. Andy
                Andy April 12 2021 18: 29
                -1
                In each comment, "spitting with saliva." This is at least disrespect for people on your part. Communication is just unpleasant.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 21: 24
                  0
                  Quote: Andy
                  This is at least disrespect for people on your part. Communication is simple

                  Quote: Andy
                  it is a pity that the negative rating is not a ban on comments.

                  you started first, why are you interested in my rating? do not want not to communicate, I don't care, by the way, I was never interested in your rating, and I'm not going to, you started this quarrel and now you yourself are offended, they carry water to the angry
              2. max702
                max702 April 13 2021 08: 01
                +1
                They just, as always, dream of dividing everyone into grades, and ideally becoming an overseer in a concentration camp .. That kind of hints about another light-faced nebrat ..
    2. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan April 12 2021 07: 56
      +13
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But it's sad to watch when opponents sink to outright lies.

      Andrei hi This is already the norm for VO. Nothing out of the box. About carrier-based aircraft DLRO is an obvious lie and a stone in your garden.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 08: 03
        +15
        Quote: Bashkirkhan
        Andrey This is already the norm for VO. Nothing out of scope

        Alas, yes. hi
        1. Bashkirkhan
          Bashkirkhan April 12 2021 09: 23
          +9
          In my opinion, it's time to stop publishing about a promising aircraft carrier for the fleet, to pour from empty to empty. Most commentators are not able to understand or remember what it is about, although you spend a lot of time trying to explain the essence of the matter every time, in response to your analyst, delusional false publications of graphomaniacs appear. There are so many interesting topics, such as the infrastructure for the fleet in the form of floating docks, the same trophy T-4 in which Tirpitz was docked, the huge Veleshinsky dry dock in Kronstadt, the Swedish PD-50. You had a wonderful series of publications "A Sad Look into the Future". It can be updated. For the same 949A, you can see how much more on the go.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 09: 27
            +15
            Quote: Bashkirkhan
            In my opinion, it's time to stop publishing about a promising aircraft carrier for the fleet, to pour from empty to empty.

            You are absolutely right, but still I promised an article justifying aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy, so I'll write. It is clear that this will not convince a significant part of opponents of anything (many have an irrational-genetic level of hatred of aircraft carriers), they believe that an aircraft carrier is not needed and will leave them without the last underwear :)))))
            But nevertheless, there must be some answer to the information noise about the uselessness of the ocean fleet for the Russian Federation in general and AB in particular. Why not mine?
            1. Bashkirkhan
              Bashkirkhan April 12 2021 10: 04
              +8
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But nevertheless, there must be some answer to the information noise about the uselessness of the ocean fleet for the Russian Federation in general and AB in particular. Why not mine?

              The owner is a master, if you are in the mood for publication and you like the topic, why not. drinks
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 10: 38
                +9
                Quote: Bashkirkhan
                if you are in the mood for publication and you like the topic, why not.

                Yes sir! drinks
            2. frog
              frog April 12 2021 10: 53
              +8
              It is clear that this will not convince a significant part of opponents of anything (many have an irrational-genetic level of hatred of aircraft carriers), they believe that an aircraft carrier is not needed and will leave them without the last underwear :)))))

              A significant part of the opponents (i.e., the so-called electorate))) do not even understand0 why an avik is needed. They have only two considerations on this score. Chi to threaten the Swede, h.z. where and how to butt with merikansky aviks .... That's it. You want the bottom, you want the ceiling wink
            3. Woodman
              Woodman April 12 2021 12: 00
              -1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              but still I promised an article substantiating aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy, so I'll write.

              After the practically unfolding battle on the topic of aircraft carriers, I decided to look at the history of the development of aircraft carriers in Russia ... And I was surprised to learn that the USSR had an aircraft carrier by the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. I was also surprised to find the mention of the role of the Soviet aircraft carrier during the Cuban missile crisis ... But there was not much information available. Maybe it makes sense to highlight these moments? Unless, of course, this does not make it difficult for you ... It will be more interesting than a skirmish with such a "feather shark" as Skomorokhov. At least - more informative.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 12: 31
                +6
                Quote: Lesovik
                And I was surprised to learn that the USSR had an aircraft carrier by the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.

                Alas, he didn’t. A seaplane carrier of some kind could remain afloat from the time of WWI, but without the slightest combat value.
                Quote: Lesovik
                I was also surprised to find the mention of the role of the Soviet aircraft carrier during the Cuban missile crisis ...

                And there were no Soviet aircraft carriers there either. The Cuban Missile Crisis is 1962, and we issued the first helicopter carrier in 1967 to the fleet. And the ship, even remotely similar to the AV - TAVKR Kiev - only in 1975
                Quote: Lesovik
                It will be more interesting than a skirmish with such a "feather shark" as Skomorokhov.

                I am not going to "mess" with him :))))))
                1. Woodman
                  Woodman April 12 2021 12: 35
                  -2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Alas, he didn’t.

                  Alternative history?
                  The aircraft carrier "Red Banner" shortly after June 22, 1941 left for Kronstadt, its air group participated in the defense of Leningrad, operating mainly from coastal airfields. The ship itself was disguised and repeatedly damaged. Was decommissioned in 1945.

                  At the head of the aircraft carrier formation, which also included the latest missile cruiser Grozny, the aircraft carrier was sent to the shores of Cuba to prevent its blockade. Under the cover of the Soviet AUG, several transports were escorted to Cuban territorial waters,
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 12: 45
                    +5
                    Quote: Lesovik
                    Alternative history?

                    That's right :)
                    1. Woodman
                      Woodman April 12 2021 12: 48
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      That's right :)

                      That's why I see that everything that I found on this topic is repeated word for word from one resource to another))) I see, thanks hi
            4. ccsr
              ccsr April 12 2021 13: 26
              -1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              You are absolutely right, but still I promised an article justifying aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy, so I'll write. It is clear that this will not convince a significant part of opponents of anything.

              Where is the promised article - I look forward to your "justification".
              Timokhin called for a barrier, now you have to go to him too.
    3. Aviator_
      Aviator_ April 12 2021 08: 04
      +9
      Andrey, this is Skomorokhov. It's time to get used to his writing style.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 08: 06
        +11
        Quote: Aviator_
        It's time to get used to his writing style.

        Thank you, but I don't want something :)))))
        1. Niko
          Niko April 12 2021 08: 36
          +4
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: Aviator_
          It's time to get used to his writing style.

          Thank you, but I don't want something :)))))

          But this is correct. "Let the giraffe be wrong, but it is not the giraffe who is guilty, but the one who shouted from the branches:" The giraffe is big, he knows better. "
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. antivirus
      antivirus April 12 2021 09: 25
      -1
      history will judge - if the southern borders are secured with a guarantee from refugees of 3-5 million hours and from the creation of chaos. in Ch, just near the Karakum desert and other deserts -1 day of driving by truck for several million not yet "refugees" ...

      How Erdogan bargained for their passage, remember the payment of the maintenance?


      ... and it's not AB that matters, but ensuring the country's security - they have spent money on missiles - there is a reason - they have not yet pinned them with AB.

      how will you control your neighbor?
      will they not let the HF to you in the temporary accommodation centers of 3-5 million Afghan and Bangladeshi "refugees"? all and sundry have climbed with the Syrians for half a year and in the United States 11 million are waiting for the status of a citizen - and the change of the white majority to the colored one - and we have another party in power, other songs and shiny things over the Kremlin ??? build 2 pcs Av -10-15 years.
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 April 12 2021 15: 29
        0
        The United States has already reneged on promises to grant citizenship to 11 million illegal immigrants. It was a lure for the Democratic Party to attract the votes of Latinos citizens of the United States in the elections. Neither white Americans nor African Americans are interested in this.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus April 12 2021 16: 08
          -1
          everything can be from the United States - and have already learned how to drive 3-5-10 million "refugees" around the world.
          empty steppes and vast dead spaces within the country and the countryside are the main threat. not the absence of AB.
          I joke about building them.
          I am not against AB, I just assume the train of thought of the country's hands. and one of the arguments against their presence. and "Andrei from Chelyabinsk" - want to break the decision (already taken place) - to change the opinion of the Kremlin old-timers. this is the usual lobbying of a part of the naval.

          1.If we take "a fleet without AV only 300 km from the bases, it confidently operates" - ALREADY GET FROM SPITSBERGEN (MEDVEZHY) TO KOMANDORSKY AND KUNASHIR-7 THOUSAND KM

          2. and again --- "collective Deripaska" (the masters of life) do not talk about AB - they need cheap credit and tax breaks.
          3.
    6. ramzay21
      ramzay21 April 12 2021 09: 59
      +4
      Well done Andrey!
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 12 2021 07: 36
    +8
    ... In general, Andrei refuted something of this according to Voskresensky's article, but I still did not understand that ...

    ... to build a great aircraft carrier fleet capable of bending America.

    ... this is idle talk and populism.

    ... trying to play with decrepit naval muscles ...

    Pierced .... another ....
  • parusnik
    parusnik April 12 2021 07: 37
    +8
    What to fight and with whom is also clear.
    ... laughing And under what slogans are we going to fight? Will we defend the conquests of August 1991 and October 1993? Ahh, just for the Motherland. For cubic meters of firewood exported abroad, for fish resources that bite at a price in stores, oil and gas of Lukoil, Rosneft, Bashneft, Gazprom, etc., we will boldly go into battle for Procter and Gamble. , McDonald's, Renault-Nissan-VAZ, etc., mortgages and how will one die, fighting for it? And, shall we defend our moral values, which are pouring from the screens of state television in streams? (See Checked. There is no bottom) For foreign cars that read: Thank you, grandfather for the Victory? The above listed values ​​want to take away from us, the foreign imperialists headed by the United States.
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 12 2021 07: 59
      +9
      Quote: parusnik
      And under what slogans are we going to fight?

      Let's give our lives for the bowels of Potanin!
      Let's protect what Mordashov has stolen!
      Let's not give offense to Abramovich's yacht!
      Long live our oligarchs, the noblest oligarchs in the world!
      May Alekperov prosper!
      Let's not let Zuckerberg offend Usmanov!
      Everything that is stolen from the people must be safely hidden and protected!
      The children and grandchildren of Gaidar and Gorbachev must have a secure future!
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 April 12 2021 15: 32
        +1
        Well, for example, the children and grandchildren of Gorbachev and Gaidar are neither oligarchs, nor even just rich people. What, Masha Gaidar, tumbleweed, is very rich?
        1. max702
          max702 April 12 2021 21: 59
          0
          Quote: Sergej1972
          Well, for example, the children and grandchildren of Gorbachev and Gaidar are neither oligarchs, nor even just rich people. What, Masha Gaidar, tumbleweed, is very rich?

          The children of the communists Grudinin and Zyuganov are quite well off, but the family of the orthodox communist Semin generally lives in the United States .. Probably being held hostage by the bourgeoisie, and that's why Kostik hates them so much ..
        2. Titus_2
          Titus_2 April 14 2021 00: 42
          0
          Gorbachev's offspring have a whole floor in Moscow City, and there is more than one so that they cannot be considered poor by definition.
    2. ramzay21
      ramzay21 April 12 2021 09: 46
      +2
      And under what slogans are we going to fight?

      This is the main question, you can't say it better!
  • Niko
    Niko April 12 2021 07: 48
    +10
    It's funny to read a passage about "aircraft from the 80s of the last century" and recall the author's previous article in which he (as a co-author) praises the Tu-160 developments of the 70s of the same century laughing
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 09: 11
      -6
      you twist, but just lie, as always! 160
      Quote: Niko
      extols the Tu-160 development of the 70s of the same century
      In April 2015, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced the need to resume production of bombers [53]. The RF Air Force will acquire at least 50 Tu-160M ​​bombers [54]. The resumption of production of new aircraft of the Tu-160M ​​/ Tu-160M2 classification is expected not earlier than 2023 [55]. Tu160M was clearly developed in the 21st century, and TU160M2 is generally only planned, these are new aircraft, although they are very similar to the first Tu160 without the letters M ... and Su33, as it was and remained in the last century, .. that's how deep your wrong is
      1. Niko
        Niko April 12 2021 09: 20
        +5
        Quote: vladimir1155
        you twist, but just lie, as always! 160
        Quote: Niko
        extols the Tu-160 development of the 70s of the same century
        In April 2015, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced the need to resume production of bombers [53]. The RF Air Force will acquire at least 50 Tu-160M ​​bombers [54]. The resumption of production of new aircraft of the Tu-160M ​​/ Tu-160M2 classification is expected not earlier than 2023 [55]. Tu160M was clearly developed in the 21st century, and TU160M2 is generally only planned, these are new aircraft, although they are very similar to the first Tu160 without the letters M ... and Su33, as it was and remained in the last century, .. that's how deep your wrong is

        Advice to you: first, either go to the doctor for a prescription for glasses, or again to the doctor, but already for a referral to shock therapy.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 09: 23
          -8
          Quote: Niko
          Advice to you: first, either go to the doctor for a prescription for glasses, or again to the doctor, but already for a referral to shock therapy.

          I didn’t find any sense in your statement, some callouts from a kindergarten nursery group ... it’s a shame that your lies about the obsolescence of the Tu160M2 (developed in 2021, and not in 1970 as you lied) were obvious to everyone ...
          1. Niko
            Niko April 12 2021 09: 34
            +2
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Quote: Niko
            Advice to you: first, either go to the doctor for a prescription for glasses, or again to the doctor, but already for a referral to shock therapy.

            I didn’t find any sense in your statement, some callouts from a kindergarten nursery group ... it’s a shame that your lies about the obsolescence of the Tu160M2 (developed in 2021, and not in 1970 as you lied) were obvious to everyone ...

            Vladimir 1155 is Roman's pseudonym? Oh .... leave me old lady, I'm in sorrow laughingps but I'm flattered that you follow my work so closely
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 14: 59
              +1
              I did not find any sense in your statement, some callouts from a kindergarten nursery group ... you are offended that your lies about the obsolescence of Tu160M2 (developed in 2021, and not in 1970 as you lied) turned out to be obvious to everyone ... I respect Roman and I am pleased that you are comparing me with such a respected author, thank you, for you all smart people look the same
              1. Niko
                Niko April 12 2021 15: 31
                -4
                Quote: vladimir1155
                I did not find any sense in your statement, some callouts from a kindergarten nursery group ... you are offended that your lies about the obsolescence of Tu160M2 (developed in 2021, and not in 1970 as you lied) turned out to be obvious to everyone ... I respect Roman and I am pleased that you are comparing me with such a respected author, thank you, for you all smart people look the same

                "I did not find the meaning in your statement" But this is not surprising laughing
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 12 2021 08: 00
    +2
    Everything is gloomy and gray! recourse Gray sky ... gray air ... gray life ... but in principle everything is there! Well, show me the way to this "Principle", where everything is there and there are no problems! angry But what about the popular opinion that "dreaming is not harmful ... it is harmful not to dream" !? And we dreamed! We were arguing! Who is talking about what! Who is in the subject: "Do we need wabche aircraft carriers or not?"; and who is in the subject: "What aircraft carriers are needed ... for 3 rubles or 5 ...?" We believed and dreamed! We rejoiced and suffered! We got married and got divorced! We made plans! We were not going to die until they build at least 1-2 aircraft carriers ... even those over 90! We had hope and a life perspective! And then ... suddenly ... a "member of our society" appears and declares that the "jade rod from China" is for all of us, and not aircraft carriers! How to live now? Does a person really lack the instinct of self-preservation at all? And if now among the supporters of the "aircraft carrier lobby" a group of popular avengers is hastily formed with the aim of tracking down the author, catching and teaching him: a) to love the homeland; b) to trust the native party and government; c) Putin is always alive; d) there should be aircraft carriers! ... And I again have a reason to break the oath given to my wife, explaining to her that Skomorokhov is again to blame ... and urgently visit the liquor store! Oh, poor, my liver! recourse Man bastard! Same woo ple! Give as much as you can! There have been so many reasons lately that no pension is enough! recourse
    1. agond
      agond April 12 2021 08: 26
      +2
      Quote: Thrifty
      At our shipyard in the Far East there is an unfinished long-built ship with the beautiful name "Kerch Strait"
      And you dream of an aircraft carrier! The Kremlin, not the country, not the navy, and the authorities do not need it!

      1 And what kind of ship, information was not found.
      2 If aircraft carriers are not needed, or, on the contrary, are necessary, then all the same there is nowhere to really place them, in our winter almost the entire coast freezes, then why dream of them.
  • Senior seaman
    Senior seaman April 12 2021 08: 59
    +2
    In general, Andrei refuted something of this according to Voskresensky's article, but I still did not understand what.

    Very noticeable.
    but after visiting the Crimea, in Kerch, after talking with the workers of the "Zaliv",

    And who told Skomorokhov that the aircraft carriers would be built in the Gulf?

    Earlier it seemed to me that the notorious Roman Ivanov wants to reach the level of Skomorokhov, but judging by this material, on the contrary.
    Sad.
    1. Walking
      Walking April 12 2021 14: 33
      -1
      [quote = Chief Sailor] [quote]

      Earlier it seemed to me that the notorious Roman Ivanov wants to reach the level of Skomorokhov, but judging by this material, on the contrary.
      Sad. [/ Quote]
      I think this is one person. The writing style is the same.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 April 12 2021 09: 04
    -1
    Alas, everything is true. Populism. None of the promises of the Kremlin has been fulfilled in time and in full.

    I remember the military mortgage that was promised some time ago and regularly reported for 10 years that it was just about, about, well, next year ...

    The phrase "no money, but you hold on" should be knocked out with a hollow wherever possible!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 09: 13
      +10
      Quote: Max1995
      Alas, everything is true. Populism. None of the promises of the Kremlin has been fulfilled in time and in full.

      Do not mix two immiscible questions in a heap. Whether we can afford a powerful navy with ships of all classes is one question, and it should be answered positively. Whether we will build a powerful navy with ships of all classes is far from a fact.
      But if we cannot, then the reason for this will be the indiscriminateness of the leadership of the Russian Federation, and not the lack of necessary prerequisites
      1. Maks1995
        Maks1995 April 12 2021 09: 55
        0
        In a purely ideal sense, you are right. In an idealized world - it is necessary, and they would build ...

        But in real life, questions change places. We will not build, and therefore we build what we can.

        Iran can only get boats, but Ukraine does not have them yet ...
      2. ccsr
        ccsr April 12 2021 13: 20
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But if we cannot, then the reason for this will be the indiscriminateness of the leadership of the Russian Federation, and not the lack of necessary prerequisites

        And if the General Staff and nafig do not need your prerequisites for the creation of an ocean-going fleet, because competent people are sitting there and have long considered everything and determined how to defend the country - has it occurred to you by chance? Or are you so bronzed by your articles on VO that you think all military men are dumb, unable to think at your "level"?
        I will disappoint you - among the military people who determine our military policy for the future, there are many more smart people than you can imagine. That is why they are not interested in what you and Timokhin are writing here, because they look at all your attempts about the ocean fleet as a coach from the Major League at yard football, i.e. with a big smile.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 12 2021 17: 05
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          And if the General Staff and nafig do not need your prerequisites for the creation of an ocean-going fleet, because competent people are sitting there and have long considered everything and determined how to defend the country - has it occurred to you by chance?

          Mmmm ... the same people who in 2014 closed the work on the OVR corvette because "OVR ships are not needed", and in 2020 they returned to the OVR corvette and even began to consider plans to modernize the 35-year-old Albatross, because " it is impossible to leave the OVR without ships "? wink
          Or the very people who ordered an anti-mine complex for the newest TSC, which was a generation behind its counterparts, and managed with their demands to bring the situation to the point of impossibility of basing the main element of the complex on board the TSC?
          Or the very people who first subordinated the fleet to the ground, and then subordinated the army corps, air defense units of the Aerospace Forces to this fleet and cut the naval defense zone on land?
          1. ccsr
            ccsr April 12 2021 18: 37
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Mmmm ... the same people who in 2014 closed the work on the OVR corvette because "OVR ships are not needed", and in 2020 they returned to the OVR corvette and even began to consider plans to modernize the 35-year-old Albatross, because " it is impossible to leave the OVR without ships "?

            Wasn't this all happening at the suggestion of the naval ones, when they were faced with a choice due to limited funding and the upcoming reorganization of the fleet? Otherwise, you might think that there is nothing more to do in the General Staff how to lead the naval forces that they should take into service.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Or the very people who ordered an anti-mine complex for the newest TSC, which was a generation behind its counterparts, and managed with their demands to bring the situation to the point of impossibility of basing the main element of the complex on board the TSC?

            Are you serious? Yes, the General Staff, in the person of the Main Operations Directorate, does not give a damn what kind of anti-mine complex there is, because they think in completely different categories, and the most important thing is that we can bring down on the enemy without preparation. At least in Soviet times, it was so.
            So it is not necessary to hang your internal naval squabbles on the General Staff - you can tell these tales to those who do not know what the General Staff is doing, and for what the General Staff of the Navy and ordering structures of the fleet are responsible.

            Quote: Alexey RA
            Or the very people who first subordinated the fleet to the ground, and then subordinated the army corps, air defense units of the Aerospace Forces to this fleet and cut the naval defense zone on land?

            I did not consider and do not believe that the fleet should have been subordinated to the ground, it was enough to reduce two out of four to flotillas, and leave two as they were before the reforms. But it is unlikely that my opinion interests those who conceived it all, so you can hardly blame me for what happened, especially since I hold different views.
            As for the current reorganization of the Northern Fleet, the naval ones should have understood that since they were reaching the status of a district, along with new posts, new tasks would appear for the naval leadership - this is the dialectic of building the armed forces, and you cannot argue against historical materialism, you need to understand it.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 12 2021 20: 15
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              As for the current reorganization of the Northern Fleet, the naval ones should have understood that since they were reaching the status of a district, along with new posts, new tasks would appear for the naval leadership - this is the dialectic of building the armed forces, and you cannot argue against historical materialism, you need to understand it.

              I'm not talking about KSF. I'm talking about the DKBF, which, when the ZOVO was created, was subordinated to the ground. And then they subordinated this fleet to the army and the air defense of the Aerospace Forces in the Kaliningrad region. That is, the army men are in command of the navy, which in turn command the army men. The command and rear of the DKBF had no worries - so the army corps was hung on the fleet. smile
              1. ccsr
                ccsr April 12 2021 21: 27
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                I'm not talking about KSF. I'm talking about the DKBF, which, when the ZOVO was created, was subordinated to the ground. And then they subordinated this fleet to the army and the air defense of the Aerospace Forces in the Kaliningrad region. That is, the army men are in command of the navy, which in turn command the army men. The command and rear of the DKBF had no worries - so the army corps was hung on the fleet.

                I understand everything perfectly - the naval forces will always disown the ground in any way, because they are not stupid people and understand what a lot of problems they will have with the reassignment of alien structures to them. And first of all, this concerns the command and control of the land units located in the fleet's area of ​​responsibility. So the story is not new to me, all this is predictable.
            2. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 12 2021 20: 33
              -1
              Wasn't this all happening at the suggestion of the naval ones, when they were faced with a choice due to limited funding and the upcoming reorganization of the fleet?


              No, not at the suggestion of the navy. At the suggestion of General Makarov.

              the naval should have understood that since they are reaching the status of a district, then along with the new positions, new tasks will appear for the naval leadership


              And someone asked them?
              1. ccsr
                ccsr April 12 2021 21: 34
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                No, not at the suggestion of the navy. At the suggestion of General Makarov.

                There is no need for an artistic whistle, because Makarov could act in relation to the fleet only by order of the Minister of Defense, because the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy is not subordinate to the Chief of the General Staff, but is in the same rank with him.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                And someone asked them?

                They themselves came up with such a proposal, or they came to this conclusion when they were threatened with reductions in the course of the reorganization of the armed forces - of that I am sure. Without their consent, it would never have been possible to impose on the naval administration of the district, albeit a small one, if only due to the lack of the infrastructure they have necessary for this.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 13 2021 16: 33
                  0
                  There is no need for an artistic whistle, because Makarov could act in relation to the fleet only by order of the Minister of Defense


                  Mkkarov wove all this to Serdyukov, and then his songs returned as a series of orders and orders signed by Serdyukov. This is known to EVERYONE who at least stood next to this topic.

                  They themselves came up with such a proposal, or they came to this conclusion when they were threatened with reductions in the course of the reorganization of the armed forces - of that I am sure.


                  No need to speculate, everything was different.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr April 13 2021 19: 17
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Mkkarov weaved Serdyukov this is all,

                    Stop lying, you will push your journalistic stories to your own kind, because the Ministry of Defense has a hierarchy and staff culture, according to which other bosses do not go into other people's profile issues until the minister gives a command to do so. But even in this case, more than one chief will not report to the minister his conclusions until he discusses them at least with those who understand this issue, i.e. with the same naval ones. And if their views do not coincide, then even in this case, Makarov was simply obliged to inform the minister about it. Eh you, homegrown nugget, you climb to teach people, but you yourself do not understand an ear or a snout in complex issues.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    This is known to EVERYONE who at least stood next to this topic.

                    Your topic is a figment of your illiterate imagination and has nothing to do with the real activities of the Ministry of Defense. And your "EVERYTHING" is the same verbiage as you are, so do not flatter yourself.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    No need to speculate, everything was different.

                    How it was otherwise, I already understood by your pearls on this forum. Burn on, Basilio's cat ...
        2. tone
          tone April 13 2021 05: 55
          +1
          I remember when ours started in Syria, they all wrote on these Internet why there are no caponiers on Khmeimim?
          And such clever ccsr were broadcasting: "What do you think are military fools? They know better!" Yeah, before the first mortar attack. How many planes were lost is still classified. But oops and caponiers are already there!
          1. ccsr
            ccsr April 13 2021 11: 21
            -1
            Quote: tone
            I remember when ours started in Syria, they all wrote on these Internet why there are no caponiers on Khmeimim?

            Which country declared war on Russia in Syria and fought against us there - you can name, only without different blah blah blah ...
            With what joy did we have to build caponiers there, and in general why did we climb there - can you explain it sanely, or can you just shed tears?
            Quote: tone
            How many planes were lost is still classified.

            If you had enough knowledge, then even from foreign media you can quite accurately determine what our losses are in Syria - if you had a desire, you would have known long ago. But you have no desire, so you suffer at VO from your incompetence.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa April 13 2021 16: 34
              -1
              With what joy we had to build caponiers there


              What a crazy question, though!
              With the one with which they were built after the shelling, about the inevitability of which the Ministry of Defense unsuccessfully tried to warn all sorts of bloggers from the Internet - and then it happened, yes.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr April 13 2021 19: 21
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa

                What a crazy question, though!
                With the one with which they were built after the shelling,

                You are so primitive in your reasoning that they did not even understand the essence of my question, but it concerned the ENTRY of our troops in Syria, which should not have been allowed at all. Maybe you will try to understand my question and answer it, you are our enlightened blogger:
                and why did we get there anyway - Can you explain it sanely, or can you just shed tears?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 13 2021 19: 26
                  +1
                  Right now there would be a thunderous Caliphate, with Russian as the second state language, with camps for militants from all Islamic Russian-speaking regions, both the Russian Federation and Central Asia, this infection would then require much more effort.

                  But in some parts of this Caliphate there would be a relative peace, without ISIS, and there would be a gas pipe from Qatar to the Mediterranean Sea, from which Gazprom could kneel down.

                  That's why, basically. Well, it will be possible to practice colonialism after Putin, for example. To master Syria economically, so to speak, as a bonus.

                  The airbase was received, Tartus was expanded to a full-fledged naval base.
                  Few?
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr April 13 2021 19: 43
                    -1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Right now there would be a thunderous Caliphate, with Russian as the second state language, with camps for militants from all Islamic Russian-speaking regions, both the Russian Federation and Central Asia, this infection would then require much more effort.

                    There would be no caliphate - they could simply be destroyed by the forces of the Aerospace Forces using high-power thermobaric ammunition in the places of their accumulation. By the way, the caliphate disappeared not because there are no fanatics, but because the Arab sheikhs and the United States stopped sponsoring it.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    But in some parts of this Caliphate there would be a relative peace, without ISIS, and there would be a gas pipe from Qatar to the Mediterranean Sea, from which Gazprom could kneel down.

                    In that area, it would be blown up periodically, depending on who pays the most.
                    By the way, now they will build a gas pipe to Europe from the north of Africa - should we send our troops there too?
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    To master Syria economically, so to speak, as a bonus.

                    Are you really naive, or do you really not understand that we have already burned ourselves with Arab leaders, including Nasser. Again decided to jump on a rake? Well, where did you get the idea that Assad will hold out for at least another five or seven years?
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    The airbase was received, Tartus was expanded to a full-fledged naval base.
                    Few?

                    Nafig it is needed there, do not accidentally explain, if we can fly to it only with the permission of third countries? It is better not to remember about a naval base - its maintenance without the constant presence of a squadron in the Mediterranean will never justify itself. And who told you that such a squadron will appear there in the foreseeable future?
  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 April 12 2021 09: 43
    +4
    You have completely correctly described the realities of modern Russia, and it's not about Andrei or the aircraft carriers, it's about the leadership. We have money, we have personnel and we have factories, the only problem is that no one can manage it. In our country, everything that is done at the expense of the state turns out to be insanely expensive and ineffective.

    We have an aircraft carrier, but it was brought to an incapacitated state together with the dock. Meanwhile, if you bring it to mind, finally replace the boilers, recruit a competent crew of contractors, install UKSK instead of non-working Granites or even remove them altogether, leave only the MiG 29K in service by removing the Su 33, then you will get an excellent aircraft carrier. He is at the head of the AUG from a pair of modernized Eagles, 3-4 BODs, and a pair of modernized Batons can create a serious threat anywhere, no matter more than five hundred Calibers or Zircons and more than four dozen fighters! In such an AUG, it would be reasonable to include a pair of SSBNs Borey, under the protection of the AUG, they can patrol anywhere, in complete safety.
    But no, this is not our way. We need to carry two types of aircraft, along with different sets of spare parts, different engines, different pilots and technicians, it takes a long time to decide how to change boilers, first order four boilers, then thinking about ordering all eight boilers, and abandon the first four because they were ordered for other fuel. Save money on people who were supposed to operate PD 50, reducing their number and salaries, which led to its flooding, but then figure out what to do with Medvedev at the state expense. Instead of training deck aviation pilots, technicians and the deck crew at least at NITK, everyone cooled off, and even during the trip to Syria, the deck crew sunbathed on the deck and wandered around, instead of practicing coordinated actions in different situations, as a result, due to carelessness and the incompetence of the deck crew sank one plane, and because of the unprofessional actions of the pilot and the crew of the other.

    Another example. There is an excellent modern, successful and efficient frigate 22350, it would seem it is necessary to launch it in a large series, not only at Severnaya Verf, but also at Yantar, ASZ, and possibly on the Gulf, to increase the pace of construction of gearboxes and engines using the most severe methods, to reduce its cost and within literally ten years to build two or three dozen identical, combat-ready ships, radically increasing the combat capability of the fleet. But no, this is not our way, we still need to construct a bunch of non-combatable ships, spend a lot of money, which you say that there is none, build a brood of useless RTOs, semi-corvettes, underfregates, UDCs, and at the exit there is an incapable fleet for big money and not a single similar ship.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 10: 40
      -4
      Quote: ramzay21
      combat-ready frigate 22350, it would seem that it should be launched in a large series, not only at Severnaya Verf, but also at Yantar, ASZ, and possibly in the Gulf, to increase the pace of construction of gearboxes and engines using the most stringent methods,

      you should go down to the sinful earth from the clouds which you soar along with other pink ponies ... the Amur river is too small for you and for the frigate ... and in general if everything were different everywhere ... if only if yes in the company grew mushrooms, it would not be a mouth but a whole vegetable garden ... in order to build thousands of frigates, dozens of aircraft carriers need money ... but they are not, there is not enough for retirement
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 12 2021 17: 11
        +3
        Quote: vladimir1155
        you should descend to the sinful land from the clouds which you soar along with other pink ponies ... the Amur river is too small for you and for the frigate ...

        Ummm ... are we still talking about the plant that built and handed over to the fleet two cruisers of the 26-bis project? smile
        The solution is standard: a transport dock and completion in Vladivostok. This song has been going on for the Far East since the construction of the "sevens" (the first of which was solemnly smashed by comrades Kuznetsov and Gorshkov on the stones just during the transfer to completion).
      2. ramzay21
        ramzay21 April 13 2021 04: 31
        0
        you should descend to the sinful earth from the clouds which you soar along with other pink ponies

        In the late 20s, our country had much more problems, but the country's leadership instead of palaces built schools and hospitals for itself, instead of buying cars for motorcade and luxurious airplanes, it built factories, instead of an army of bureaucrats that was swelling year after year, most of whom no longer understand what it is they who are engaged, they hired workers and engineers. And they built the second economy in the world. And if we argue that all our problems cannot be solved, then the movement is only downward.
        the Amur river is too small for you and for the frigate

        Was Pike B built there? Do they have much more draft than frigate 22350?
        in order to build thousands of frigates, dozens of aircraft carriers need money .. but they are not

        The money was and is they are simply spent on Poseidons with carriers, Zaslona, ​​MRK, corvette 20386, now here is the UDC, plus design cuts, admirals, fat uncles at the USC and other respected people. Remove this and we are able to build a navy in 10 years, capable of fighting, and not showing a flag.
    2. yehat2
      yehat2 April 12 2021 11: 29
      +3
      Quote: ramzay21
      In our country, everything that is done at the expense of the state turns out to be insanely expensive and ineffective.

      the point is not at whose expense, but in who implements.
      These are muddy schemes with orders, and monopoly markups, and budget theft, and the instability of financing - all this confusion is happening not because the state pays, but because the state does not actually control the industry in any way - it only regulates in the style of die now or a bit later. And until a single guiding will appears, nothing good will come of it.
      In what form it will appear - in the form of Napoleon, or Stalin, or a powerful social party, like the Republicans in the United States, or as it is in China. But as long as the country is ruled by a code of criminals who have divided the country into several of their raspberries, the state or private investments, everything will work very badly.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 12 2021 09: 56
    +8
    Su-57? Well, when they bring it to mind, if they can do the naval version, then we'll talk.


    Well, they will definitely bring him in and lick him, but will there be a deck for them?

    Everything that was conquered by the Soviet Union in the space race is hopelessly lost today.


    Nothing was lost there, also because the Soviet Union did not have technology for a flight to Mars either (automatic stations do not count, by the way, there were a lot of them too). And NASA, which even in Soviet times had 3/4 of the world's space funding, does not have such technologies. And there are no prerequisites that in the next 50 years mankind will be able not only to wallow near the Earth, but at least fly to the Moon, as they swam from Europe to America in the 16th century (long and very dangerous), because fundamentally different engines are needed , which will raise the speed by at least an order of magnitude, and lower the price by at least 2 orders of magnitude.

    The fact that the GPV will continue to decline is evident from the dynamics of recent years.


    And it should be reduced even without a crisis, firstly, our defense spending has been growing for 1 years in a row, infinitely, nothing can grow, secondly, simply because in the 17s the rhythm of supplies was disrupted, and the army by 2- It came with large stocks of obsolete equipment, and in the case of cars that are constantly used, and aviation, which deals with overloads, and also physically worn out. The worn-out had to be urgently changed, this task was fulfilled, of course, the supply volumes were reduced, and the factories were reorienting not so much to production as to servicing what had already been built. In the same aviation, if a big war does not occur, the next surge in supplies, and therefore an increase in costs, should not be expected earlier than 90-2000. when they can begin to write off and sell to allies all sorts of simplified models of the early 2030s and the first Su-2035SM.
  • Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx April 12 2021 10: 25
    +2
    I don't understand one thing - what kind of quirk is this - it is imperative to "threaten the enemy off the distant shores."
    It is imperative to scare the United States, make them tremble with fear and pee in striped pants, and if this is not the case, then we do not need AB too? What is this nonsense? More precisely, not delirium, but the feeling that the author just has some kind of complex.
    The aircraft carrier in the ranks will have its own, quite definite tasks, and the first and most important is the protection of our patrolling areas of strategic nuclear submarines. As long as our submarines are reliably protected at sea, no country will attack us. This is the main and paramount task of the fleet. Protecting your country from external aggression. Our MiGs don't need to bomb Washington. It is enough to prevent the bombing of Murmansk. This is the first thing.
    Well, the second (and nowhere without it, even today, even tomorrow, even a hundred years ago) is the opportunity to really shake his fist in front of the nose of some Papuan leader who, for some reason, decides to start nagging Russia in one area or another. Yes, even the protection of the business interests of Russia, even in the same Africa. Any country defends its foreign interests. This is normal.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 10: 49
      0
      Quote: Trapper7
      patrol areas of strategic nuclear submarines.

      it's under the ice by the way ... do you need an icebreaker AB?
      Quote: Trapper7
      really shake his fist in front of the nose of some Papuan leader, who, for some reason, decides to start nagging Russia in one area or another. Yes, even the protection of the business interests of Russia, even in the same Africa.

      Africa Africa! and you go there, you cannot offend the Papuans and Africans, they are far away, and so far away that they cannot do something to us, and they are not going to, they have their own lives, and you want to force them to leave peaceful labor and you want to kill their women and children with your monstrous aircraft carrier and take away something from Africa? it is not good to offend a little young man ... you are an evil aggressor for you, the Nyurberg tribunal is crying? hands off Africa! to the world Peace! do not dig a hole for another, you will not fall into it yourself, whoever raised the sword with the sword will perish! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkvAThrjQyo
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 April 12 2021 10: 27
    +4
    Maybe stop all these stories about the aircraft carrier?
    Well, we do not have an aircraft carrier, no, and will not be in the foreseeable future, and we cannot do anything about it. It's time to return to realities, no matter how bitter they are ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 11: 00
      +10
      Quote: Bez 310
      Well, we do not have an aircraft carrier, no, and will not be in the foreseeable future, and we cannot do anything about it. It's time to return to realities, no matter how bitter they are ...

      It may very well be that you are absolutely right. But this is not a reason not to say anything, and pretend that everything is going right and we warmly approve of the decisions of the leader and the party :)))
      After all, the essence of my publications just boils down to the fact that we can build a powerful ocean fleet, and instead, we stumble on corvettes and minesweepers, etc. etc.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 April 12 2021 11: 48
        +7
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        we can build a powerful ocean-going fleet, but instead we stumble on corvettes and minesweepers, etc. etc.

        Until there are "corvettes and minesweepers", there is no point in talking about a "powerful ocean-going fleet." Here we still need to think carefully about what to consider this "powerful ocean fleet".
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 12: 25
          +8
          Quote: Bez 310
          Until there are "corvettes and minesweepers", there is no point in talking about a "powerful ocean-going fleet."

          Still, in my opinion, there is a sense, and a very big one: taking into account the timing of the development of certain weapons, the program for building a fleet should be done for at least 40 years, since many decisions will have to be made today.
          So, for example, if we decide that we do not need an aircraft carrier fleet, and that the country's security and representation of our interests in the world's oceans can be ensured without it, then there is no point in investing in the repair and modernization of Kuznetsov. If, on the contrary, we believe that we need it, then it would be highly desirable to get an aircraft carrier from the industry by the time Kuznetsov finally depletes its resource, that is, by about 2040.
          At the same time, without a doubt, in the next decade it is necessary to focus on putting in order the light forces of the fleet (the same corvettes and minesweepers), as well as the restoration of the submarine fleet (according to SSBNs we are doing something else, but for multipurpose nuclear and non-nuclear ships - a blockage), replenish naval aviation (at least a regiment of modern fighters for the fleet), bring a new PLO helicopter to the series, as for me - a new PLO aircraft is badly needed ...
          I remember your comment,
          - Reconnaissance and command control is a very important issue, but it is being resolved
          not fighters with AVM, but "space" and aircraft
          patrol aircraft.

          But I don't quite understand what exactly you mean by a patrol aircraft. It seems to me that the described tasks can only be solved by a specialized AWACS and RTR aircraft. If I am right, then it is necessary either to transfer the A-100 in sufficient quantities to the fleet, or still develop a cheaper version of this aircraft. But the most important thing that I could not understand in your comment is how to cover patrol aircraft from air attacks, because if you do this from land airfields, then their radius and patrol time will be extremely limited. And without cover, they will be destroyed very quickly, the same Americans must cover their AWACS with fighters.
          Quote: Bez 310
          Here we still need to think carefully about what to consider this "powerful ocean fleet".

          I agree, but this should be determined by the tasks that the leadership of the Russian Federation wants to solve with this fleet. And there is no clarity, the "Decree", which I quoted, gives certain "Wishlist", but too watery from the point of view of setting specific goals.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 April 12 2021 13: 40
            +6
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            what exactly do you mean by a patrol aircraft. It seems to me that the described tasks can only be solved by a specialized AWACS and RTR aircraft.

            Patrol aircraft - "Poseidon", which is a submarine, and RA, and RTR.
            The main task of AWACS aircraft is to detect air targets and control the air forces, but not NK reconnaissance, and even more so, not the anti-ship missile center.
            Our MRA and PLA were never covered by IA.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 14: 15
              +3
              Quote: Bez 310
              Patrol aircraft - "Poseidon", which is a submarine, and RA, and RTR.

              Thank you for the clarification.
              Quote: Bez 310
              The main task of AWACS aircraft is to detect air targets and control the air forces, but not NK reconnaissance, and even more so, not the anti-ship missile center.

              In our fleet, as I understand it, reconnaissance aircraft such as Tu-95RTs, Tu-16R, Tu-16RM-1, Tu-16RM-2, Su-24R were engaged in opening the surface "obstakanovka". tasks of the Central Control Center, since it was equipped with the IDRC "Success". And for his work, the Tu-95RTs were equipped with a fairly powerful radar. That is, the Tu-95RTs was not an AWACS aircraft, but it was a large aircraft with a powerful radar, designed to search for NK and CU on them.
              The Americans, on the other hand, used the Hawkeye AWACS to reveal the surface situation, and quite successfully. Therefore, I completely agree with your words that in the USSR this functionality was not assigned to AWACS, but the Americans did. At the same time, the Hokai was not entrusted with the tasks of the Central Administration, but at present such work is in full swing (aiming missiles according to the Hokai data). There is a persistent feeling that the Americans did not demand a command center from the Hawaiian, for the reason that they relied on strike aircraft in the anti-ship fight, and not on anti-ship missiles.
              Quote: Bez 310
              Our MRA and PLA were never covered by IA.

              Do you think this is correct? As far as I know, this was considered a serious flaw.
              It turned out that the Tu-95RTs did not receive development, they hoped for the "Legend", but it turned out to be not self-sufficient, as a result, in the same 80s, in which case, the surface situation would have to be opened on outdated aircraft, and they would have coped with this task - Who knows. And even if they did, then the exit of non-covered by IA regiments of the MRA to the line of attack would lead to heavy losses.
              Actually, as far as I know, the construction of TAVKR 1143.5 and 1143.6 should have given our MPA such a cover.
          2. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik April 12 2021 14: 00
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            It seems to me that the described tasks can only be solved by a specialized AWACS and RTR aircraft. If I am right, then it is necessary either to transfer the A-100 in sufficient quantities to the fleet, or still develop a cheaper version of this aircraft.

            Where does this myth come from? AWACS works on air targets, other radars are needed to work on the surface, at the same time it is impossible to work effectively on air and surface targets. Therefore, separately AWACS, separately PLC. At best, AWACS can detect the appearance of a certain object in a square on the surface, but it will not determine what it is a container ship or an aircraft carrier (it simply will not see smaller targets) as well as its exact coordinates. The RTR aircraft is too broad a concept, they are needed, as well as AWACS and PLCs.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 14: 24
              +3
              Quote: OgnennyiKotik
              Where does this myth come from? AWACS works on air targets, other radars are needed to work on the surface, at the same time it is impossible to work effectively on air and surface targets.

              Why not? The Americans are doing very well. I mean their Hokai, of course.
              Of course, not everything came at once, and the first versions (E-2A) were not very effective in this regard. But on the latest versions of the E-2C, there were ANA \ PS-145 which very well distinguished surface targets and air targets against the background of a complex underlying surface.
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik April 12 2021 15: 04
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                ANA \ PS-145 which very well distinguished surface targets and air targets against the background of a complex underlying surface.

                The question of this efficiency, they will see a rocket, a hot speed target is not such a problem. The ship has many questions here: speed, range, EPR, sea waves, land / sea border, etc. Something under certain conditions he certainly sees, but what exactly is in question.

                It is to search for surface (on the ground, they also work) and submarines in the Navy use the MH-60R with the APS-153 (V) radar and the P-8 with the APY-10 radar. What is significant is only increasing their number.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 15: 27
                  +3
                  Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                  The question of this efficiency, they will see a rocket, a hot speed target is not such a problem. The ship has many questions here: speed, range, EPR, sea waves, land / sea border, etc. Something under certain conditions he certainly sees, but what exactly is in question.

                  Quite a lot - at least the Hawkai were often involved in controlling attacks against ground targets, starting at least with "Storm in a Glass", were involved in the fight against drug trafficking, etc.
                  1. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik April 12 2021 15: 54
                    -1
                    So he AWACSУ it is logical that they were involved in the coordination and control of the airspace, he will find out that it is also difficult. The cabin of the submarine and the boat is definitely not there, the destroyers of the Arlie Burke type are no longer at their maximum ranges, respectively, the less the EPR target, the less this range. The Poseidon X-band APY-10 centimeter radar has the following characteristics: Range for an aircraft carrier type target of 450 km, a destroyer of 320 km. The ANA \ PS-145 decimeter radar distinguishes targets on the surface much worse, my respect to the state radio engineers and developers, if at least half of what is written about this radar is true.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2021 16: 39
                      +1
                      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                      The Poseidon X-band APY-10 centimeter radar has the following characteristics: Range for an aircraft carrier type target of 450 km, a destroyer of 320 km. The ANA \ PS-145 decimeter radar distinguishes targets on the surface much worse, my respect to the state radio engineers and developers, if at least half of what is written about this radar is true

                      Well, we know that the staff members of the technical characteristics of their radars are kept secret, so if we find out the truth, it will be very long ago. Nonetheless, these guys argue that ground / surface surveillance of the newest Edwanst Hawkeye is only limited by the radio horizon. It may well be that they are not lying, at least the mode of the synthesized aperture is declared.
                      In addition, it would be nice for an aircraft searching in the sea to see not only surface, but also air targets - after all, when the radar is on, it glows like a Christmas tree, and the main threat to it comes from the air
          3. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 12 2021 15: 07
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            At the same time, without a doubt, in the next decade it is necessary to focus on putting in order the light forces of the fleet (the same corvettes and minesweepers), as well as the restoration of the submarine fleet (according to SSBNs we are doing something else, but for multipurpose nuclear and non-nuclear ships - a blockage), replenish naval aviation (at least a regiment of modern fighters for the fleet), bring a new PLO helicopter to the series, as for me - a new PLO aircraft is badly needed ...

            Well, finally, even though a sensible thought, ... only now you will be hated by the local cesspool "Klaker (French claqueur, from French claque - claque) is a profession of a person who is engaged in creating artificial success or failure of an artist or a whole performance. [1 ] Klaka (French Claque) is the organization of one's own surrogate success or the failure of someone else's performance by a group of dummy spectators - claqueurs hired by an entrepreneur, leading actor, playwright, orator, politician, etc. In general, any insincere and organized collective support in advance. " https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%91%D1%80 minus and you will suffer for the truth!
  • dgonni
    dgonni April 12 2021 10: 37
    -4
    Great article! Respect! Everything is clearly laid out on the shelves!
  • YOU
    YOU April 12 2021 10: 55
    -2
    The very correct word "Populism" was sounded here. Recently, a lot of hats have appeared
    offensive moods. And what is in practice. Of the magnificent 7s in real life, we have only "Peresvet", "Vanguard", and "Dagger". About "Peresvet" thing is completely mysterious and incomprehensible. And "Vanguard" is not clear even if the regiment has already been delivered or not. "Dagger" ten carriers. How much hypersound we have. The rest is still a project that still needs to be done. And knowing how our terms are shifted to the right. From SU-57, "Armat", "Kurgansev", "Boomerangs", "Coalitions", how many real subdivisions have been created ??? But already 6 years have passed since the so-called solemn show, and before that, too, they had riveted it not in a year. How many were built, ships of project 22350. 11356, "Ash", "Boreyev", minesweepers (albeit without modern anti-mine systems), landing ships, and the notorious 20380 - 20386. And how many according to plans, let alone real urgent needs of the fleet? ?? Here, wherever you spit, every ship is rented to the fleet for 2-3 years. We will generally keep quiet about the timing. By the way, there were snide comments here, they say, where do we have "Kuzya". So, that's just the point, it's worth it. And it is not yet clear to repair. Yes, and before that, except for one trip to Syria, what waters of the world ocean he plowed. What enemy squadrons chased, frightened. The aircraft carrier is a good gift for USC. So much money. And what kind of reporting. After 3 years, the project is ready, after 5 years the first section was assembled. And so for 15 years. Hurray for patriots knocks out a tear, top managers of the USC count profits. Idyll. But what if there’s a war tomorrow. By the way, I also once rejoiced at the promises of our military industry, so in 13-14, and now, after 7-8 years have passed, I am looking at what we have as a result. And pink glasses somehow immediately become transparent white. You just have to look at life more soberly. 7-8 years is the period for which you can summarize. and they are not comforting.
  • Niko
    Niko April 12 2021 11: 01
    +3
    In general, of course, Korea was lucky (the one that builds tankers for half of the world). And the climate is good and the shipyard has grown on palm trees and the hands of workers are skilled. But our trees are not growing at all. And in China, again, everything went to growth SAMO (the climate is probably again) (True, Germany somehow coped with the trees after two consecutive defeats, three decades and again the leader) Roman has a great idea, even the ancient "smart" people in Russia loved say: "Well, where are we dark with Europe to compete?) And the idea that you can take like others (not richer, not smarter, but simply working) and WORK is not for us
    1. max702
      max702 April 12 2021 22: 20
      0
      No luck, but ALLOWED! It was necessary to hold back Japan, but in Europe the shipbuilding was to be muted because a competitor .. They gave technologies, gave loans, We supplied equipment, trained personnel, provided orders .. Here is all the Korean miracle .. And the fact that Koreans are biorobots has long been known ..
  • yehat2
    yehat2 April 12 2021 11: 13
    0
    We, unlike potential adversaries, do not have such a necessary component as a deck-based AWACS aircraft. And even in the future it is not planned, because we cannot figure out the A-100 yet.

    there are no technological obstacles to build a carrier-based AWACS aircraft. Recently, a carrier has also appeared and approached the status of readiness to work on the a-100.
    Problems of a different nature are budgetary.
  • iouris
    iouris April 12 2021 11: 22
    -2
    And what will happen to Ukraine and Ukraine? To resolve this issue, aircraft carriers are not needed.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 April 12 2021 11: 24
    +1
    Roma, it is necessary to say more clearly that the resources of the Ministry of Defense should depend not on ambitions, but on the capabilities of the economy. Our economy has long been incapable of building aircraft carriers.
    No, if you sell a couple of oligarchs' palaces, there will be money, and having strained, we will still build 1 avik. But ... we need a long-term program of a high-quality aircraft carrier fleet, or we do not need it at all. You just don't need anything in between.
    1. max702
      max702 April 12 2021 22: 24
      -1
      Quote: yehat2
      No, if you sell a couple of oligarchs' palaces, there will be money, and having strained, we will still build 1 avik.

      Well, not $ 10 billion is worth TWO oligarchs' palaces .. You fair-faced, as always, have trouble with mathematics ..
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 April 13 2021 09: 00
        -1
        well, look at the estimated estimates of the object in Gelendzhik
        and then back to math
        1. max702
          max702 April 13 2021 10: 15
          0
          Quote: yehat2
          well, look at the estimated estimates of the object in Gelendzhik
          and then back to math

          Lets do it ! But only facts! And not the numbers taken from the ceiling, or the bulk of the stories for you is the truth in the first person? And so that it is better considered I will say $ 10 billion is about 750 billion rubles .. So the facts in the studio!
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 April 13 2021 10: 35
            -1
            Quote: max702
            Lets do it ! But only facts! And not figures taken from the ceiling

            you propose to smash the presidential administration to dust, to confiscate the documents with estimates there and put them here? There are no other objective facts, this object is being built with the concealment of a lot of data and it is evaluated only indirectly - by general indicators, screenshots with the decoration of individual rooms and photographs from afar.
            However, if only 1 small room of the palace with decoration and furnishings costs more than 150 million rubles, you can at least roughly estimate its total cost.
            The website estimated that, in general, about 5 trillion rubles are needed to build the head heavy avik. FBK has estimated the palace at 100 billion, although I think that the price is even understated, because the reconstruction of the palace is already in full swing and the whole infrastructure network around it has not been taken into account. Personally, I estimate the entire facility at $ 300-400 billion.
            But these are already quite comparable figures with the estimate for Avik. At least this money from 1 palace should be enough to completely build a base on the World Cup for basing Avik and other heavy ships, and there will still be. So it will definitely not be possible to treat the costs of "palaces" with disdain.
            Personally, I am against the construction of an avik in the coming years - the economy is completely unprepared for this.
            But the impact of corruption on the failure of shipbuilding programs is literally screaming.
            I will just remind you that Putin has a new palace in Sochi, which costs much more than the facility in Gelendzhik, the construction of which was formally supervised and financed through the Duma by the presidential administration, this follows from the published documents
            1. max702
              max702 April 13 2021 10: 50
              +1
              FBK appreciated! That's right, it's just a luxurious and non-profitable source, keep it up! You would immediately say that you are a witness to the bulk sect then and the logic of involvement in the sect of aircraft carriers explains a lot!
              1. yehat2
                yehat2 April 13 2021 11: 03
                -1
                you stupidly ignored 90% of what I said and dug into the word FBK
                I never said a word about bulk. Do you offer a form of communication in the form of a discussion of your sick fantasies?
                1. max702
                  max702 April 13 2021 11: 32
                  -1
                  What's the point? If a person cites the example of FBK, the rest is superfluous .. I worked on the construction of Sochi 2014, in the Power of Siberia, in Kaliningrad, in the UP .. Therefore, in the course of what and how much it costs, that modest little house like FBK showed, God forbid, 1 billion with everyone it will cost perversions because the transport shoulder is minuscule, there is plenty of workforce, everything is nearby, there is nothing expensive in that project, fairy tales about hundreds of billions are utter nonsense ..
                  1. yehat2
                    yehat2 April 13 2021 11: 36
                    -1
                    you are confusing cost and price
                    besides, if you worked in Sochi, then you know that what was built there was done at 15-20% of the allocated budget. The rest of the money went to thieves and middlemen.
                    and finally, you missed an important nuance - decoration and furniture.
                    it is this, and not the construction in the palace itself, which costs exorbitant sums
                    when they buy an Italian chair for 24 million and a curbstone for 40, the estimate looks more interesting.
                    1. max702
                      max702 April 13 2021 11: 41
                      0
                      Quote: yehat2
                      you are confusing cost and price
                      besides, if you worked in Sochi, then you know that what was built there was done at 15-20% of the allocated budget. The rest of the money went to thieves and middlemen.
                      and finally, you missed an important nuance - decoration and furniture.
                      it is this, and not the construction in the palace itself, which costs exorbitant sums
                      when they buy an Italian chair for 24 million and a curbstone for 40, the estimate looks more interesting.

                      The fact of the matter is that I know how much was done there because I worked with documents that with seals and signatures of real people .. I did not see the facts of theft, it happened three times altered the same thing because the marriage was driven .. If you have such facts, share them, or again infa from FBK and analogs?
                      1. yehat2
                        yehat2 April 13 2021 12: 42
                        -1
                        my cousin was in charge of the construction of one of the facilities in Sochi.
                        and there are a number of familiar participants.
                      2. max702
                        max702 April 13 2021 17: 49
                        0
                        And then there is the familiar general from the five, and the taxi driver, the FSB colonel! they know everything ..
                      3. ccsr
                        ccsr April 13 2021 19: 27
                        0
                        Quote: yehat2
                        my cousin was in charge of the construction of one of the facilities in Sochi.
                        and there are a number of familiar participants.

                        With such theft, as you describe, he has already made it to the Forbes list at this construction site in Sochi. Give his last name and what line he is on the list so that we can be proud of your relative.
  • Roman070280
    Roman070280 April 12 2021 11: 36
    -1
    Yes, it seems, and so everyone understands that there will be no aircraft carriers ..
    What is the dispute about ..))
  • xorek
    xorek April 12 2021 12: 38
    -5
    Well, such articles are harmful to read, especially for young people, sheer whining and everything is gone ..
    How long can the author kick Russia? Maybe you'd better migrate somewhere? Although, who will receive you, besides Ukraine ..
    That you do not have an article, then at least shoot yourself wassat The Libera here are about to tear themselves away from joy .. laughing
    PS your hatred just goes off scale to Russia, and to the USSR .. What do you want in general? It is not clear .. Breakup?
  • YOU
    YOU April 12 2021 12: 51
    -1
    Quote: Genry
    Tell your idiots about 5 rounds and detachments.

    You apparently did very poorly at school. or yourself from Ukraine. If you do not know about detachments, penal companies and battalions, Stalin's order No. 227, dated July 28, 1942. Maybe at least you have heard such an order "Not a step back", as it is called for brevity. So who of us is from Ukraine and who is pouring water into whose mill. The trouble is that no one teaches history, and then pays dearly for it. Only yesterday the veteran was shown on TV, his words “If only in 41 I was on“ Messer ”and a German on“ Ishak. ”There were only a few new aircraft and tanks. We lost a lot in the first days from sudden air strikes. And fairy tales about 5 rounds, these are just fairy tales for you, although, of course, in Ukraine, as they say, studying history is a bit tough, especially during the Great Patriotic War.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter April 12 2021 12: 59
      +2
      Quote: YOU
      If you do not know about detachments, penal companies and battalions, Stalin's order No. 227, dated July 28, 1942.

      Well, if we started, then climb! I would like to voice the order itself in the original, and only then-
      Can you name the number of penalties in the Red Army? or have you seen enough filmlf "penaltybatof?"
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 12 2021 17: 32
      0
      Quote: YOU
      If you do not know about detachments, penal companies and battalions, Stalin's order No. 227, dated July 28, 1942.

      And you can find out - about which of the detachments we are talking about: the NKVD troops of the rear, special divisions of divisions, defensive battalions of rifle divisions, etc.?
      Quote: YOU
      There were only a few new aircraft and tanks.

      In the Western Districts on 01.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX:
      New tanks: 469 KV, 832 T-34 (935 on 22.06), 115 T-40.
      New aircraft: 205 Pe-2, 77 MiG-1, 845 MiG-3, 102 Yak-1.
      The problem is different - there are not enough trained crews. The tankers have a "bottleneck" - the forced economy of motor resources due to the wild lack of spare parts and new engines. Aviators have no gasoline, few UTIs and other "advanced" training machines.
      Quote: YOU
      We lost a lot in the first days from sudden air strikes.

      Much less than constant redeployments due to the rapidly moving front line. If you urgently need to move away from the approaching tanks, then even a slightly damaged vehicle, which otherwise would have been restored in a day, is irrevocable.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 April 12 2021 13: 02
    +1
    - No, we have shipyards, shipyards, engineers, and there are practically no carpenters. There are no sailors: no pilots, no sailors. Where can I get the money? Money for the army is needed, but here the navy also requires the same amount. Maybe his this fleet, Pyotr Alekseevich?
    - Never mind, Aleksashka, we will build shipyards, and let the forest out, and train engineers, and carpenters, and pilots, and sailors. And we will find the money - we will build factories and Russia will become rich from the sale of its products abroad.
    1. rjpthju
      rjpthju April 13 2021 23: 01
      0
      By the way ... about Peter I.
      Back in Soviet times (mid-80s) there was a controversy about Russian rash guild. And in the magazine "Kommunist" I read the following story (it was in Soviet times, there were no fakes then): Allegedly, Peter I's correspondence with merchants sent to Voronezh to build a fleet is kept in the Starozagorsk monastery. What I read at that time, I repeat:
      “The merchants write:
      Tsar, you sent us a hundred rubles for the construction of ships ... Ninety-three rubles - we spent on drink and relieved our lust (in Soviet times it was possible to write, as in a historical document, but now I have two remarks) .. There are seven rubles left. Tsar, write the answer as soon as possible, we will build, or not. "
      And on their letter there are actually hand tables of Peter I.:
      "With whom you have drunk, you have relieved your lust, with those you build ships."
  • g1v2
    g1v2 April 12 2021 13: 07
    +3
    The aircraft carrier will not be, not because money for it cannot be found. It just won't pay for the costs. Plus there are no tasks for it. He will not be able to give our fleets any serious advantage. It will expire before it is built. Defending him will be difficult and will require a serious escort. Etc.
    And most importantly, our fleet has goals that are much more important to spend that kind of money. Necessary goals, not a luxury. Our auxiliary fleet largely consists of ships built more than 40 years ago. We need to change and build tankers, dry cargo ships, weapons ships. Suffice it to recall how we bought 5 ships from the Turks for the Syrian express. We need to change hospital ships. We are now actively changing the fleets of hydrographs and GUGIs. We need rescue ships. We still have the same rescuer at Belousov Square - at the Pacific Fleet. At least you need the same on the Northern Fleet, and it is desirable to have the same on the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic.
    You can treat Klimov as you like and laugh at him, but we really need the same minesweepers badly. We need to build in fact in the region 40 pieces of Alexandrite for all fleets. So far, 4 have been built, 4 more are under construction and 4 more have been contracted, and in general, at least 40 are needed.
    We need to change all MPKs for 2038x corvettes and old MRKs and missile boats for new MRKs of the Karakurt type. We need at least 18 frigates, and at good 30 frigates 22350 and 22350m, in order to eventually replace the last Sarich and 1155 bpk.
    Out of 21 bdk, we have 15 old Polish, and 4 Soviet, ancient as the shit of a mammoth. We have only 2 new bdk, 2 more bdk and 2 udk are being built. Here work - for years.
    In the civilian sphere, we need icebreakers, container ships, tankers, gas carriers, supply vessels. And all this requires building berths, resources, personnel, money.
    And instead of all this, let's ditch a lot of money, energy and scarce big stocks on the wunderwaflu? Seriously? belay
    1. max702
      max702 April 13 2021 08: 23
      +2
      Quote: g1v2
      And instead of all this, let's ditch a lot of money, energy and scarce big stocks on the wunderwaflu? Seriously?



      By the way, this sect has already been asked him a million times, but they just don't hear him .. Apparently they are here at work ...
  • ccsr
    ccsr April 12 2021 13: 08
    +2
    Author:
    Roman Skomorokhov
    I am ready to argue for anything, neither in 10, nor in 15 years, Russia will not have any aircraft carriers. And not because they are simply not needed by anyone other than couch strategists. Not because we don't have technology. Not because we have nowhere to build them and there is no one especially. Because no one will allocate these huge sums. There is none of them.

    If we assume that we have all this (money in the first place) and, relatively speaking, we could painlessly start creating aircraft carriers from tomorrow, all the same, this could not be done, because in the military-political doctrine of Russia there are simply no tasks for them. All my requests to aircraft carrier lovers to formulate operational and strategic tasks for Russian aircraft carrier groups in the 21st century remained unanswered, and Timokhin and his hop-company took water in their mouths, and will not blow this terrible "state secret" even under torture, because it don't know.
    I think that the country's top military leadership has long formed an opinion about the benefits of Russian AUGs for the security of our country, and therefore there is now a senseless rush of water in a mortar, which some officials at the VO, so actively talking about the benefits of aircraft carriers, have bought into.
  • Ivan Polozhy
    Ivan Polozhy April 12 2021 13: 45
    +3
    Why is a significant part of the articles in VO carrying a strange mixture of politics, economics and technology? One gets the impression that, depending on the proportion of the constituent parts, any idea can be cheated, or extolled. Whatever thoughts are thrown out by authors and commentators, after reading them, you can quickly lose the main idea of ​​the discussion. About aircraft carriers. More precisely, we need them or not. Any weapon created always pursues one of two main goals: in wartime - to destroy or protect, and in peacetime - to threaten or stop threats. This also applies to aircraft carriers. An aircraft carrier has a "long arm", but it can only be located in the area of ​​dominance of its forces. Where do we plan to have such areas? Off your coast Then why do we need aircraft carriers?
    1. rjpthju
      rjpthju April 13 2021 22: 49
      0
      Why is a significant part of the articles in VO carrying a strange mixture of politics, economics and technology?

      "Politics is the concentrated expression of economics."
      VI Lenin
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz April 12 2021 13: 59
    -1
    Autorovi plus no s ogovorkami.
  • alexmach
    alexmach April 12 2021 14: 28
    +1
    And we righteously express our anger when Rogozin bursts out with another populist package of promises. We criticize and laugh through tears, because we understand that all these are just words.

    What is the difference between Andrey's deal with aircraft carriers? Yes, nothing.

    It differs in general and very much. Anderej just expresses his honest opinion while he may be right, and may be wrong. Maybe you really don't know something. Rogozin, on the other hand, is an official person standing at the head of an entire industry, and when he carries an obvious populist nonsense that does not fit at all with reality, this is a very serious symptom.
  • bandabas
    bandabas April 12 2021 14: 34
    -1
    Dmitry Rogozin is certainly not Taburetkin. But from the same cohort as the entire guarantor team. Unfortunately, populism is off the charts. recourse
  • Israel
    Israel April 12 2021 15: 14
    +2
    Meanwhile
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 April 13 2021 10: 47
      -1
      By the way, this is an excellent argument in general to take the fuck out of large shipbuilding from the north.
      listen how much overhead
    2. rjpthju
      rjpthju April 13 2021 22: 41
      0
      I wonder what kind of scoundrel put a minus? Does he work there in production? Not in the HR department.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 12 2021 16: 23
    0
    phew what a bad article ...

    1) The aircraft carrier will be built due to the fact that "Russia is a state", therefore, such prestigious things as nuclear weapons, aviation and aircraft carriers will have to be built ..

    2) the emphasis on "nothing to cover the aircraft carrier with" - even the most optimistic terms indicate the beginning of construction of the ship in the early 30s, which even under current conditions suggests that the issue of providing the fleet with modern frigate-type ships will be closed.

    3) By this time, the question of what will fly from the aircraft carrier will also be closed, because it is not so difficult to bring to mind the mig-35 in version K or start making the su-57K in 10-15 years.

    soldier the report is over.
  • Drugov
    Drugov April 12 2021 19: 24
    0
    Everything is clear and to the point. Without a long smear of wet dreams. It remains to add - as long as there is Putin, there will be no aircraft carriers !!!
    1. Vladimir Vitalin
      Vladimir Vitalin April 12 2021 23: 35
      0
      Dear - it remains to ask you who do you think of as a President, someone who will bring us into the light of God from our wretched existence, who, like the Lord, will feed us all with one bread, who will lead the country to unparalleled prosperity and general prosperity, and so on. ... In general, remembering the powers that be and talking about how bad they are, you need to look at yourself and remember where you work yourself, how you get your salary - in "white" or under the table in an envelope, how you pay (if you pay at all) taxes on which and our "prosperity" is being built. And then all around are thieves and corrupt officials, and what about himself? Like "white and fluffy" and holier than the Pope ...
      1. Drugov
        Drugov April 13 2021 16: 39
        0
        Pray in the evenings for the image of Puting? Well, of course, where can we find a better challenger than the head of the garrison club? My candidacy is Platoshkin, and then there are fair, free and transparent elections. I don’t need to look at myself, I’m not a saint and not sinless, but I don’t steal or fatten at someone else’s expense.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa April 12 2021 19: 33
    +2
    Skomorokhov continues to justify his speaking surname ... or a literary pseudonym, nickname - in our opinion. The condescendingly ironic tone is insulting, because in such a tone they speak not with opponents, but with small children, unreasonable ...
    So, what does our author sculpt? Let's start in order.
    we will not have an aircraft carrier. Never.
    And what to do with Kuznetsov? And a new one will be in time. Without this, it is impossible to ensure the combat stability of the NSNF, the deployment of naval forces in the RBD ...
    There is nowhere to build an aircraft carrier.
    but Roman never mentioned the sites that Andrey wrote about in his article! simple: nowhere - that's all !!! (Star of Sevmash, in the future - the Bay)
    we put aside the construction of nuclear submarines and roll up our sleeves ... to give birth to hundreds of billions more to build an aircraft carrier.
    In fact, they give birth in a different place .... and then, are you going to build a PLA forever? Can you take a break between episodes and projects?
    by that time they will have all the same 11 aircraft carriers stipulated by the law.
    And we have one.
    Why alone? Let us be honored and depict 3-4 for greater persuasiveness ... It is not a century for us to grieve. Life will force - we will expand!
    in 15 years we will get the desired aircraft carrier. The powers are terrible. It really will be just a terrible threat to the American fleet. The Americans will burst with laughter.
    Sarcasm, of course, is a good thing, but this one smacks of de-bilism. They are the ones who run to our shores, not us to theirs. Therefore, their AUS will be met at a prepared position and air cover for the forces of the fleet will obviously not be superfluous.
    there is nowhere to base this ship,
    I don’t know about the Pacific Fleet. In the North - Ara-lip, and in the Kola Bay they will find where you can stick an AVM. Depths allow. In winter - to Mediterranean or Cuba for a visit, for example.
    automatically add a dock, berths and other infrastructure for a ship of this size. Because we have none of this.
    There is. In the North - for sure. At least 2 dry docks in Kola, which can accommodate 70 thousand meters of this size. Learn materiel.
    For the new ship of the future, new aircraft? And at the base, excuse me, what?
    New developments. Previously, there was even talk about the Su-47 as a deck I-B. Wing materials failed. Now composites keep twisting. So anything is possible.
    escort ships. When the Super-Gorshkov is designed and built, then we'll talk.
    You can talk now. The main thing is plans to translate it into metal. Are there any doubts that the 22350M will not be? Oh well...
    deck-based AWACS aircraft. And even in the future it is not planned, since we cannot figure out the A-100 yet.
    Are you exactly aware of your plans for the future? And why should it necessarily be an airplane, and not an UAV-AWACS? Or will the lighting of the situation be through spacecraft, the same aircraft of other forces of the fleet?
    you only need 30 years and several tens of trillion rubles... And everything will be.
    With such "bookkeepers" and "planners" - it will definitely not be!
    our USC, the United Shipbuilding Company, is jointly unable to build a ship larger than a missile boat without adventure.
    "We, as shipbuilders, are able to design and build ships with a displacement of up to 40-50 thousand tons." - the official statement of the head of the USC Alexei Rakhmanov. “When it comes to competitiveness, we admit that we still have many problems to work on. At the same time, we have already proved to everyone, using the example of RSD59 dry cargo ships, tankers, diesel-electric submarines, that we can make serial products cheaper and faster. than most competitors, "he said.
    In general, I would like to talk about the problem of specialists separately.
    Sevmash has been preparing its own shift for a long time.
    how much of this money will be needed to build a great aircraft carrier fleet capable of bending America.
    And here is the substitution of concepts: no one is talking about the great aircraft carrier fleet. We are talking about the air cover of the naval forces in the DMZ. Because no one stutters about infantry air cover. But the Navy - a fig!
    on the allocation of such huge sums for the construction of infrastructure for the construction of aircraft carriers, the construction of aircraft carriers and, in parallel, the construction of infrastructure for servicing aircraft carriers. Yes, aircraft for aircraft carriers, supply vessels, tankers and escort ships.
    What, our author does not cut the chip at all? Or does he think that some special ships are needed in the order, and not from the composition of the DREAM of the fleet? And if they build an AVMA? then what will happen?
    more and more empty shaking of air and attempts to play with decrepit naval muscles inherited from the USSR.
    Reference. These "decrepit muscles" have the Navy ... the second most powerful after the US Navy. The Russian Navy alone is capable of destroying any country in the world. Only the Strategic Missile Forces from the Aerospace Forces can do this.
    Russia will not have any aircraft carriers in either 10 or 15 years. And not because they are simply not needed by anyone other than couch strategists. Not because we don't have technology. Not because we have nowhere to build them and there is no one especially. Because nobody will allocate these huge sums. There is none of them.
    There are amounts. Need will force, have to allocate. But this will be the decision of the country's top leadership, based on the strategic necessity and the challenges ahead.
    The newest samples are replaced with the old modernized ones. Everything is logical in a crisis ... Today's reality is the modernization of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, bombers and tanks originally from the USSR.
    We are not the only ones doing this. "I perceive the current modernization, first of all, as an overhaul of the engine, which after it will work for another 15 years. Other fundamental changes are hardly possible - you need to build a new ship."- said Alexey Rakhmanov.
    about the oceanic fleet of Russia, which will oppose something there to the US Navy off the distant shores
    Do not you believe that SSGNs of type 885M can handle this task? Or that 4 APRK SN of the Belgorod type are capable of seriously upsetting the Yankees? Again, our rpkSN are also capable of something (and very significant).
    There will be no aircraft carriers. We disperse.

    Not yet. I agree. We disperse. yes
    1. Vladimir Vitalin
      Vladimir Vitalin April 12 2021 23: 38
      -3
      I agree 100%. In general, we have some whiners divorced - "and that is bad and that", and who and what did he himself, what would be good? This simple question is often not answered ...
      1. Nirvanko
        Nirvanko April 13 2021 00: 10
        -1
        No whiners, tired of hearing about getting up from your knees. 20 years since we got up and no result.
      2. rjpthju
        rjpthju April 13 2021 22: 33
        -1
        and who did what himself, what would be good? This simple question is often not answered ...

        Try to do something ... all over the place with articles from the Criminal Code. You can't open your mouth already. What will you do? The only way out is elections. To the Duma, the President. But even there they either do not let undesirable candidates through (Platoshkin, for example. Or they simply reject the subscription lists) or they simply manipulate the results. The same thimblers from the 90s. "I twist, twirl, I want to deceive."
  • Andshhuk
    Andshhuk April 12 2021 20: 27
    -2
    This particular article is much more populist than the one it responds to.
  • Diverter
    Diverter April 12 2021 21: 39
    +1
    1. "Kuzyu" needs to be modernized and systematically repaired before the appearance of a NEW aircraft carrier. (it can be small, so-called light)
    2. A new aircraft carrier is needed. Let it be light / small but needed. Only not to bend the mattress covers, but as an integral part of the Expeditionary Force. Like an umbrella over a specific point of sea routes or the coast of a country. or an SSBN deployment point.
    3. If there is no new one, important competences of naval aviation will be lost.
    4. Large ships are already under construction. Afromax was built, the UDC was laid - they are building.
    5. Homeland will order / will pay to build anything. An example is the same bridge. They never built, but it was necessary and built. The cosmodrome was built (yes, with problems, but it works). Nuclear power plants are being built all over the world. SSBNs are excellent build.
    6. Don't panic. There are few fools left at the top.
    1. Nirvanko
      Nirvanko April 13 2021 00: 09
      -2
      Afromax built? The nose was built to him and not Afromax.
      1. Diverter
        Diverter April 14 2021 00: 56
        0
        Down and Out trouble started
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal April 15 2021 04: 24
      0
      Remind me why an expeditionary force is needed? To punish the population of overseas colonies? So they don't seem to be ...
      A large fleet needs a large economy. At least the level of Germany or Britain. Excessive enthusiasm for military toys leads to the well-known ending.
      There are enough fleets capable of operating near their coast (under the cover of aviation). Provided that the Russian leadership is not going to play the "Age of Empires".
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal 6 May 2021 03: 54
      0
      Afromax built

      Building tankers and aircraft carriers are completely different things.
      Nuclear power plants are being built all over the world. SSBNs are excellent build.

      The USSR has built many nuclear submarines. But not a single heavy aircraft carrier, as well as the coastal infrastructure for (at least) the same Kuznetsov.
      A new aircraft carrier is needed. Let it be light / small but needed.

      I suggested in the comments of one of the recent articles the British version: a clone of “Queen Elizabeth” (no need for catapults, brake finishers) and deck-mounted SCVVP (clone F-35B).
      The latter can be used from a large UDC (which is also never Nimitz in terms of complexity), significantly expanding the capabilities, in comparison with helicopters.
      1. Diverter
        Diverter 6 May 2021 17: 03
        0
        SKVVP is an underplane.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 6 May 2021 17: 30
          0
          Compare the F-35B and F-18E Superhornet in terms of flight performance. Lightning surpasses it: the combat radius is 125 km longer, the practical ceiling is 3 km higher and the combat load is twice as large.
          In terms of filling, they are incomparable.
          Another thing is that your own F-35B still needs to be created.
          1. Diverter
            Diverter 6 May 2021 18: 06
            0
            I say, VTOL is an underplane. Even if they call him names Fu 35. With F 18 it is incorrect to compare it.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 6 May 2021 18: 13
              0
              It is incorrect to compare it with F 18.

              Why is it incorrect?
              Is the Super Hornet an underplane, in your opinion?
              "Fu" is inferior to the Su-27 only in practical range and maximum speed at afterburner.
              1. Diverter
                Diverter 7 May 2021 11: 28
                0
                The Hornet is a classic aircraft, but the F-35B (Lightning) is not. Since in this version he is a VTOL aircraft.
                Hornet is an air fighter, albeit an old generation, Fu 35 is a fighter-bomber.
                Have you seen a lot of videos where he performs aerobatics? He can have higher speed, can have more range and better stealth. But he flies like a drunken crow. IMHO
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 7 May 2021 12: 32
                  0
                  Have you seen a lot of videos where he performs aerobatics?

                  I saw it, and Hornet can't do it like that (turn 135 'in 3 seconds, 45' per second).
                  Su-27 too, it has a maximum of 36 'per second.
                  https://youtu.be/MJLoW1ClNE0

                  Here's how "Fu" can do Su in his own Cobra maneuver? wink
                  But he flies like a drunken crow. IMHO

                  Don't believe the rumors, double-check the information.
                  1. Diverter
                    Diverter 18 May 2021 23: 12
                    0
                    but the link is not working ...
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal 19 May 2021 16: 17
                      0
                      Copy correctly, everything opens for me:
                      1. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 19 May 2021 16: 26
                        0


                        Better to do it through the insert, everyone can look at once wink
            2. 3danimal
              3danimal 7 May 2021 03: 37
              0
              Just in case, I’ll clarify:
              F-35B (Lightning) outperforms F-18E (Super Hornet): by 125 km along the combat radius, by 3 km - by the practical ceiling, twice - by the combat load.