Military Review

Anchor dropped, challenge accepted

362
Well, since Alexander threw an anchor in our direction, I will answer with pleasure. Indeed, I have never concealed that I am opposed to the theoretical construction of these dull and expensive troughs, and I did not even plan to argue on this topic. However, since Alexander, for the first time in a fairly large number of articles on this topic, substantiated the use of aircraft carriers, then he will not be able to remain silent.


Anchor dropped, challenge accepted

So, here were the questions:
A few questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers

Those who have not read - it makes sense, those who have read - can be refreshed, although there will be a lot of quotes without that.

Andrey from Chelyabinsk will act as my proponent, more precisely, this is his article, which I prefer to rely on in terms of numbers:

On the cost of the fleet that Russia needs

Here Andrey did a very impressive job in terms of numbers, and therefore I see no reason to recount everything. In the course of analyzing the swim, I will add something, but nothing more.

Perhaps I'll start by expressing my surprise with this phrase:

"The reason for this lies in the fact that the consciousness of a significant part of our citizens still bears clear signs of such a pre-industrial era, and such complex issues as the Navy simply do not fit into their heads."

Well, seriously, why such aggression? Our authors sometimes give out such couch analytics that surprise is off the charts. Well, seriously, let's decide: do we have a reasonable discussion or do the celestials go down to mortals in order to condescendingly carry out an explanation for the stupid and poor?

You need to express yourself more calmly, more calmly. Not all of our readers belong to this category. And it is not worth spending so many letters to show the way into the distance to those unable to appreciate Timokhin's genius. Firstly, it is ugly, and secondly, no one will go anywhere.

So, we flew.

“Question 1. How are you going to fight without aviation basically?"

The reasoning behind this question is frankly weak. I would say it is the weakest of all, because it relies on numerous “ifs”. Which is generally unacceptable for a person who considers himself an expert.

Alexander ... somewhat exaggerates the capabilities of "Admiral Kuznetsov", raising them to a higher level than he deserves.

“What if the militants, receiving occasional assistance from their creators, were too close to Khmeimim? To other airbases? How would we stop them then?
In reality, nothing. Because our only aircraft carrier and both naval air regiments were not capable of combat at that time. "

Alexander, история does not understand and does not accept the subjunctive mood. All these “ifs” are a bit of a wrong level. Let's look at things realistically: if the aviation of the United States or Turkey provided support to the militants, then any presence of Russian troops in Syria could be forgotten. And an airplane trough with three dozen airplanes would not help here at all from the word "absolutely".

Let's remember the epic trip of "Kuznetsov" to Syria. Having made all of Europe laugh and outraged environmentalists, the ship dragged to the shores of this country, so what? And nothing. Having lost two aircraft out of the blue, having made a number of "combat" sorties with a half combat load (and in terms of fuel too), so that there was no risk, the "aircraft carrier" safely crawled to the base.

This is called "imitation of ebullient activity" and "demonstration of the flag." No more. It is worth asking you, Alexander, do you have any idea how much this sad show cost? In addition to the loss of two aircraft, it is worth adding fuel costs for the entire "squadron", monetary allowances with all combat payouts due, depreciation of decrepit ships, and so on. And two planes lost out of the blue. Yes, this is what the economist says in me, who first of all thinks not about show-off, but about money.

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

This is a case of utter stupidity. If the Kuznetsov's planes had ventured to operate in the same mode as the Su-34 land bombers from the same 47th mixed air regiment were plowing, then in a week the cruiser deck would be empty.

And then, what is it, to compare the combat capabilities of a normal modern land bomber and a carrier-based fighter forty years ago, and even with a half load ...

Communicating more than once with the crews of bombers in Buturlinovka (there were enough reports from there), my colleague Krivov and I asked this provocative question. Why not ask? The pilots perceived with a fair amount of humor and said only that if everything that the Duck was dragging on to the MiG-29K, the wings of the MiGar would break off and the landing gear would bend. Because 2-2,5 tons versus 8 is ridiculous.

So, if it were not for the airfield at the land base, but the Kuznetsov wing and the distant ones from Mozdok, forgive me, Alexander, but the militants would have been in Damascus long ago.

Moving on.

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

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

Delightful. Two clarifications are required here.

Whose interests will the valiant carrier fleet protect? Russia? Sorry, private companies that do business in Africa are not Russia. Lukoil, Gazprom and Rosneft, for whose interests the show began and continues in Syria, are also not entirely Russia.

Well, for the sake of some economic interests there, our fleet will go to war with someone there.

There are two options.

The first is to bring third world regimes into submission. Not bad, not bad. That is, to try on the role of a local gendarmerie, bringing light to the dark and backward? Excuse me, we are not constantly trampling the States for this, no?

That is, to arrange another Libya, Yugoslavia, Iraq ... Did I understand you correctly, Alexander?

“And what should we do then, how to save our money? The answer at all times lay in phrases such as "marines", "commandos", etc. And we will not be an exception. Should any such event happen in a significant region for us, and it will be necessary to restore "constitutional order" there by the hands of the Marines, MTR and mercenaries. And for this, at the first stage, it will be necessary to provide air cover for our forces. And then after their withdrawal - to bomb all dissenting "according to the Syrian option", supporting local friendly forces, as in Syria. "

Excellent! I applaud while standing! Here you, Alexander, have shown your true colors. Nothing, by the way, differs from the cute faces of the Americans, who are ready to destroy everything and everyone in order to protect their money. Luxuriously!!!

And you do not want to tear yourself away from the sofa and take part in such an "operation" yourself? On the sofa, it is, of course, more comfortable. "Di erst to the marshirt column ...".

Yes, all these losses, they are for the sake of Russia's interests ... Why don't you become such a loss, Alexander?

Well, it is clear that it is more convenient to send ship groups to Africa from the couch than to send them yourself. In general - the same populism as that of some of our authors, only more vicious and vile.

I will also tell you, in theory, what will happen if it comes down to hitting opponents in the face for Tanzanian uranium, for example. Your aircraft carrier group, consisting of separately taken troughs of forty years ago, Alexander, will be blown to bloody shreds by a five times larger American group. Exactly five times, these heroes do not know how otherwise. Therefore, against your aircraft carrier there will be 4-5 American ones, against several covering ships there will be about 20 destroyers and other pleasures.

And any attempt by Russia to mew out something in the zone of US interests will end in bloody snot and payments to the victims.

Just because Russia today does not have fleetcapable of operating on distant lines, and even more so in the zone of US interests. And it won't. We have lagged behind the States forever. But more on that below.

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

No way. Neither with the help of an aircraft carrier, nor without it. As practice has shown, we will not fight at a distance. Two bloody examples are enough for you, Alexander?

The Su-24 was shot down by the Turks, the Il-20 was shot down by the Syrians with some help from the Israelis.

How did we rush to fight? Tomatoes and tangerines. Have you fought a lot? And I have nothing more to say on this subject, except what to repeat about the rattling weapons from the couch is not serious.

And your example with Greece against Turkey is just another stupidity. In case you don't know, Alexander, Greece has been a NATO member since 1952. So is Turkey. And they can push as much as they like, but the raven will not peck out a crow's eyes, because one devil eagle sits above them.

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

Basically, how do all developed countries get along. Satellite network. Much more efficient than airplanes, does not depend (almost) on the weather, does not make mistakes, unlike the human eye, and so on. But yes, in the case of a really developed country. The underdeveloped, of course, must rely on reconnaissance aircraft.

I agree that anti-submarine aircraft are yes, they are strength. Needed.

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

Well, what can I say ... Civilized countries have AWACS aircraft for this. Which are equipped with the appropriate equipment and crew members working on it. In our country, out of poverty, this will be done by a pilot of a one-seat fighter.

Well, I congratulate you on solving the problem, Alexander. How these fools of AWACS build or buy all over the world, I do not understand. It turns out that all you need to do is send one naval fighter into flight, and it will become the eyes of a whole strike group.

How in general this can be written - I also don’t understand.

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

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

I do not consider it possible to participate in the discussion at all, because this whole point is sheer stupidity and hysteria. The only thing that I will give in response is "Dice the marshirt column", that is, a picture with dots.


In the picture, Alexander lists FIVE districts from where you can conveniently launch rockets. FIVE. And with this scheme, as well as the date of a possible conflict:

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

Alexander makes it possible to assess the depth of his understanding of the issue. That is, according to Timokhin, after some 17 years the threat of missile launch at us will increase to the point that we need the presence of FIVE groups of ships in the zones of possible launch in order to disrupt these very launches?

Alexander, are you serious?

Even Americans of steel flop when their aircraft carriers stagger for six months on patrol. So we need to have TEN groups of ships to reliably cover your vulnerable areas? Right? Because while one group will puff from the Mediterranean Sea to Murmansk, and the second from the Indian Ocean to Vladivostok ... Yes, here half the world can be demolished.

Or are we planning some kind of gentleman's war? When will the enemy politely wait six months for us to change ships and crews?

Kindergarten on the crib. Not even a sofa, unfortunately. Where to get so many ships in 17 years, given that some are not even on paper? Alexander, confess, who are you going to recruit as allies? Harry Potter? Old Man Hottabych? Do you have a genie hidden away?

However, we will now talk about the timing.

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

The only point where I will not argue. Simply because he himself spoke out in favor of using long-range and strategic aviation for missile strikes instead of ship launches.

I will only note that the option indicated by Timokhin with a strike with high-precision weapons such as the same "Calibers" from such carriers as an ancient single-seat carrier-based aircraft without target designation is yet another nonsense. Alexander, well, now is the 21st century. The times of the Second World War, when they were aiming at the marks on the glass, are over. Now we need normal target designation, an operator who is able to point this high-precision weapon at a target, adjust ...

And all of you want to send planes using a pack of Belomor and shoot cruise missiles at the collimator ...

By the way, it would be nice to take into account such a complex thing as American air defense in your hands. Your "Kuznetsov" will not raise "eights" every hour. They will end after the second flight. Aegis, you know, is a serious and effective thing.

"At the request of the audience"

Well, I don't know who asked for that. Optimistic divanism again.

“Those who came to this job young are quite in the saddle. The aircraft carrier left for India 8,5 years ago, and someone probably survived over the years. "

Bravo! Very optimistic! Yes, India received its aircraft carrier trough. After so many postponements and scandals, but received.

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

Masterpiece again! Indeed, what is there? Give us a fleet of ten Kuznetsovs! The Americans are doing their best there, and we will set up another Kuz and we will be covered in chocolate! Aircraft AWACS will not land? And we have a fighter that will replace it!

Divinely ...

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

Well, yes, very similar to Andrey from Chelyabinsk. We just need to build a new plant in order to start riveting aircraft carriers, and create bases for them. And then the same thing. The MiG-29K is a very good aircraft! There are few weapons, the weapons are ancient, he himself has been "only" 30 years old, the radar station is about nothing, but it will serve well!

Like the T-72. A good analogue.

In general, everything is as usual. Populism designed for "hurray-patriots". Forgive me, Alexander, I do not want to deal with windbag, diving with you numbers and schematics, I will leave this to the geniuses of the sofa war.

From myself I will ask one single question:

Where will you get the money for all this?

Andrey from Chelyabinsk will help me with this, who has already done all the calculations with which I almost agree. Andrey has everything here without weapons, without bases, just figures of how much money is needed to build the Fleet.


By the way, it has only TWO aircraft carriers. That is, closing all the "pain points" simply will not work.

And now I have a question. 10 trillion rubles. 130 dollars. Where are you planning to get them? How long does it take? Where will the funding come from?

Considering that the WHOLE defense budget of Russia for 2020 was 61 billion dollars, where do you plan to take TWO defense budgets just for construction?

And all this must be maintained and serviced ...


Well, plus the additional expenses Andrei counted in one and a half trillion ...

The whole problem of our time is that the sofa has become the main platform for conducting battles and battles. Unfortunately, many authors took this simple path, fighting according to the principle that was described by the great Hasek. "Di erst column marshirt ..."

I'll just summarize what I have written.

Russia does not and will not have the money to satisfy all the wishes of our "hawks" who dream of an aircraft carrier fleet. And this is the most important question. And not a single author has really been able to answer yet where this money will come from.

They just have to draw. Because Timokhin considered it necessary. In general, it’s not even funny.

Very sad couch populism in the style of Dmitry Rogozin instead of a serious conversation. But it looks so optimistic that one even wants to believe that the Russian attack aircraft carrier groups of ships will someday restore order in the world.

I wish I could see this. And I will not be able to admit that I am wrong about Alexander and Andrey.

And so I would like ...

Postscript: let's still remember that we are adults and serious people. And gradually we will stop imitating Dmitry Olegovich Rogozin in telling fairy tales about what might happen tomorrow. And we will evaluate what is happening in the country just like that, from a real point of view, and not in pursuit of cheap momentary authority.
Author:
362 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Anzhey V.
    Anzhey V. April 13 2021 10: 11
    +4
    Forgive me, Alexander, I don't want to deal with windbag, diving with you numbers and schematics, I will leave this to the geniuses of the sofa war


    Actually, there is no need for this - all of Alexander's concepts are broken on his own hypothetical calculations on the use of our hypothetical aircraft carrier fleet)

    https://topwar.ru/181821-flotskie-dramy-o-politike-vojne-i-celesoobraznosti.html вкратце можно почитать тут
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty April 13 2021 12: 20
      +8
      Roman, we have over the hill many hundreds of billions of dollars withdrawn from Russia, which no one is eager to return to Russia. This money would allow the country to rebuild a world-class economy from scratch. Simply, the Kremlin's policy is too peaceful "not to make unnecessary gestures, not to shine and be silent in a rag", therefore, with this power, the fleet will never even see new destroyers!
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 April 13 2021 12: 40
        +12
        Quote: Thrifty
        Simply, the Kremlin's policy is too peaceful "not to make unnecessary gestures

        And the colonial government is very limited in its choice of words and actions. request
        1. dorz
          dorz April 13 2021 12: 59
          +3
          Aircraft carriers are needed to project power and demonstrate capabilities in the oceans. In the medium term, if the concept of the "Besieged Fortress" is imposed on us and in the absence of funding, the Russian Federation will not need them. I want to remind you that the Chinese will have 2030 full-fledged AUG by 4... It's hard to blame China for stupidity, maybe the Chinese don't read VO? sad
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 April 13 2021 13: 17
            +4
            Quote: dorz
            Aircraft carriers are needed to project power and demonstrate capabilities in the oceans. In the medium term, if the concept of the "Besieged Fortress" is imposed on us ...

            it will be too late ...
            For such things (modern weapons systems) are not done in a year ... And the Navy has not been done in 10 years ...
            1. Overlock
              Overlock April 13 2021 13: 33
              +24
              Quote: Doccor18
              it will be too late ...

              Too late. Someone had to think about this the day before yesterday. In reality, nothing can be changed now - there are no factories, workers, components, money and much
              Quote: dorz
              if the concept of the "Besieged Fortress" is imposed on us

              Today's news:
              1.The Kremlin allowed Russia to be disconnected from Visa and MasterCard due to sanctions
              2.Minfin calls taxes for Russians extremely low
              3. The ruble was predicted to fall sharply in May
              1. Doccor18
                Doccor18 April 13 2021 13: 40
                0
                Quote: Overlock
                Quote: Doccor18
                it will be too late ...

                Too late...

                If you are not 75, in you did not have time to learn to do push-ups, then all is not lost. Competent coach + your desire = 50-60 times in 3-5 months, and 100 times in 1-1,5 years ...
                We are still alive! This means we can do a lot.
              2. bayard
                bayard April 15 2021 02: 11
                +2
                Quote: Overlock
                Too late.

                In many ways, yes.
                According to our original plans and our own needs, we needed to have an efficient Fleet by 2020:
                - two series of frigates (11356 and 22350),
                - about 20 new corvettes,
                - modernize the BOD 1155 of the project, the nuclear cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov", the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov",
                - update the DPL fleet in all fleets,
                - modernize and carry out repairs of MAPL pr. 971 and 945,
                ... about smaller ships and tasks - not worth it.
                But all these plans were thwarted and the Navy was conditionally ready.
                The reasons can be found for a carriage and a large cart, but almost none satisfactory.
                The power that Russia has is not capable of this by definition. For a whole range of reasons.
                First, she just doesn't want it.
                If there was a desire, then all the excuses ... no one would even have voiced.
                Here Skomorokhov says: "Where to get money for this." smile
                In Russia ?
                With her chronically surplus budget?
                With unspent TRILLION rubles from last year's budget?
                This is in addition to theft and abuse.
                The Russian Federation has a constant problem - WHERE TO DO THE MONEY?
                That inflated reserve and other Funds ... In which are hidden 4 - 5 full budget for the construction of the Fleet from scratch. smile But this money does not work for the development of the Country. smile do not work to strengthen defenses smile , do not even work for "self-replenishment" - they are not given on credit to domestic business, so that they grow in interest. smile
                What does this money do?
                Correctly yes - they work for Western economies ... and more recently for the welfare of China and Japan. smile
                If the resulting surplus of the current budget was directed to the construction of the Fleet ... smile , then in 15 - 20 years it is possible to completely renew its composition and have a powerful Fleet worthy of Russia and corresponding to its interests and tasks.
                And this is WITHOUT taking into account the amounts already allocated for the re-equipment of the Fleet in the current budget of the Ministry of Defense.
                And the surplus funds remaining from the construction of ships can be used to build a fleet of AWACS aircraft, PLO aircraft, MRA, VTA aircraft ... That's enough for everything.
                "But what about our inviolable reserve gold and foreign exchange funds?" - an inquisitive reader will ask me ... smile
                EVERYTHING IS GOOD with them. yes 500 - 600 billion dollars in such reserves will be enough for a long time ... After all, no one spends them anyway. request ... So that's enough for always. wink
                "So why do we constantly lack money for defense, social services, development and pensions?" - the inquisitive citizen is not appeased. smile
                They just don't want it. wink
                And they won't. smile
                Neither - ever - yes. bully
                This is the bourgeois truth for the average man in the street.
                hi

                ... and you say ... repeat ... aircraft carriers ... destroyers ... force projection ...

                ... Shoigu was surprised that a dock for an aircraft carrier was not being built smile
                ... And the aircraft carrier itself is not being repaired. smile
                ... Even not so long ago, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief was surprised ... smile that people in the state do not have enough money for food ... smile
                And how many more wonderful discoveries they have to voice ... winked
                And do not count. yes
                1. nickname7
                  nickname7 April 18 2021 19: 32
                  +1
                  With unspent TRILLION rubles from last year's budget

                  The peculiarity of Western systems is that they spend all taxes to the last cent and in addition they spend borrowed funds, there is simply no way that the collected taxes lie on the accounts and are not spent. They spend more than they earn by artificially accelerating development and overstating consumption, while in the Russian Federation, on the contrary, the economy is slowing down.

                  500-600 billion dollars in such reserves will be enough for a long time

                  Moreover, these reserves were obtained after a sickly "shrinkage and shake-down."
                  In theory, if you did not steal, then the money would be enough for two AUG.
                  1. bayard
                    bayard April 18 2021 20: 30
                    0
                    Quote: nickname7
                    In theory, if you did not steal, then the money would be enough for two AUG.

                    Two?
                    Or do you have a year?
                    That the stolen money will be enough for just that much?
                    The fact is that if you spend 3 - 3,5 billion dollars. for this program, then in 15 - 17 years it is possible to build an aircraft carrier fleet consisting of 6 AUG, each of one AB (VI 45 - 000 tons non-nuclear), 50 destroyers 000M, support and integrated supply ships, base infrastructure, including airfields for air groups, air groups themselves, education and training of specialists (flight technical personnel and naval officers) and personnel.
                    Only 3 - 3,5 billion dollars per year.
                    And they steal ... even from the budget, and not from budget revenues (which are always MORE).
                    So it's not about the money.
                    Yes, in fact, not only ships are not built here ... but also aviation.
                    Even combat ... fighter through a stump-deck.
                    Industry can build many times more ... There is money in the treasury for this ...
                    There is no desire.
                    But combat aviation also has very limited capabilities without reliable AWACS equipment ... but they were not there (6 - 7 old A-50 \ 50U are catastrophically insufficient), and they are not building ... Even excuses have stopped in recent years - if not " we say, "so no problem ...
                    Special-purpose aircraft:
                    - PLO,
                    - RTR and electronic warfare,
                    - tankers,
                    - VTA of the entire range of carrying capacity,
                    - MRA ....
                    ... they are simply not being built, or ... they are pretending to be built.
                    Despite the fact that the money for all these programs was before and is now.
                    It's just such a position in life.
                    So if any of the Kremlin towers is seriously concerned about defense, then in general it is in a clear minority.
                    But PR is "our everything" ... in the commercials we have already won everything.
          2. Gardamir
            Gardamir April 13 2021 15: 36
            +6
            maybe the Chinese do not read VO?
            At this time they earn money to produce and maintain AUGs
          3. Israel
            Israel April 16 2021 18: 33
            -1
            I would like to remind you that the Chinese will have 2030 full-fledged AUGs by 4. It's hard to blame China for stupidity, maybe the Chinese don't read VO?

            The Chinese also have an economy, to put it mildly, almost an order of magnitude larger than the Russian one.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 14 2021 09: 44
        +6
        And you can ask, even if some money was taken out, and in the 90s everything was taken out, how are you going to return it? I will not even discuss the amounts, or where you or your parents were when they were going to raid the country. Just tell me how you are going to return them, because without this, you get the typical Gold Half-Bottom, on which the whole Nezalezhnaya should have been buzzing for a long time.

        As for the Kremlin's policy, I have this expression: "Before the 45th year, there is always the 43rd." To bring someone with unconditional surrender will have to fight. That is, waste a huge amount of resources with a poorly predictable outcome. The Germans, for example, in the 41st had no doubts about the victory, but the war brought them to the Zugunder. Therefore, in the Kremlin, whenever possible, they try to come to an agreement so that you do not run to the attack under bullets and stand in line with a ration card. Hard blows, like the return of Crimea, follow only if it is impossible to agree. But you do not appreciate this, in your understanding, only we will always beat someone, but it does not even occur to you how much it will cost and that they can beat us too.
        1. nickname7
          nickname7 April 18 2021 19: 10
          0
          how are you going to return them?

          You can return it if the oligarchy decides to move with their capitals and families to the Russian Federation, but they do not want this. Secondly, it is not even necessary to return enough to reduce by half the annual capital flight and enough money, but again it depends on the goal-setting of the oligarchy.
          And the cherry on the cake, the deputies refused to pass a law banning the purchase of overseas real estate. The Russian Federation is a feeding place for the oligarchy, and apparently the cost of the fleet, infrastructure or roads are losses that need to be reduced.
      3. Israel
        Israel April 16 2021 18: 30
        -1
        This money would allow the country to rebuild a world-class economy from scratch.


        Who is stopping to rebuild it now, the problem is not only a lack of money. Corruption, inefficient spending, etc. hinder economic development more than lack of funds.
    2. Atlant-1164
      Atlant-1164 April 14 2021 16: 27
      +7
      well what! we are waiting for the answer of the head of the 8th transport department !!
      1. Atlant-1164
        Atlant-1164 April 14 2021 16: 29
        +7
        thanks for the article! read in one breath)
  2. xorek
    xorek April 13 2021 10: 12
    -4
    Immediately from the title you can see the author .. As he said in "this country" something needs to be changed! I agree, but not "IN THIS", but in OURS, and the difference is huge, I would like to note to all fans "all the way to perish" ..
    And we will put Kuzyu into operation, this is already a matter of principle.! hi
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 April 13 2021 10: 16
      +11
      but not "IN THIS", but in OUR

      Are you really sure that this is still OUR country? belay What is this confidence based on? what
      1. xorek
        xorek April 13 2021 10: 34
        +2
        Quote: paul3390
        but not "IN THIS", but in OUR

        Are you really sure that this is still OUR country? belay What is this confidence based on? what

        As long as at least one Russian is alive OUR and no matter how they throw mud at my country, Russia, I will defend it as best I can, maybe clumsily .. You are satisfied with the answer, I hope? I have something to compare with and I know how the collapse of the USSR began precisely with the humiliation of the Army and the Navy, and then it’s a matter of technology .. hi
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 April 13 2021 10: 44
          +10
          one Russian alive OUR

          Yes? Well, imagine - only Luntik survived. Or there Siluanov. Or Kudrin .. What do you think - whose country will be?

          OUR country was the Soviet Union. And the Russian Federation belongs to anyone, but not to US ..
          1. WHAT IS
            WHAT IS April 13 2021 11: 00
            +16
            Quote: paul3390
            OUR country was the Soviet Union

            I agree, one could say with pride about the USSR:
            My country is widespread,
            There are many forests, fields and rivers in it!
            I do not know another such country,
            Where man breathes so freely.
            From Moscow to the outskirts,
            From the southern mountains to the northern seas
            A man passes by like a master
            His immense homeland.
            Everywhere life is free and wide,
            Like the Volga is full, it flows.
            Young people - everywhere we have a road,
            Old people are honored everywhere.
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion April 14 2021 09: 46
            +3
            I would count how much the Russian Federation has invested in you since birth.
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 April 14 2021 10: 41
              0
              Quote: EvilLion
              I would count how much the Russian Federation has invested in you since birth.

              What are you talking about? Now parents are investing in their children. They also pay taxes. Do you think the state pays maternity capital from a good life?
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion April 14 2021 11: 57
                +3
                That is, I went to school for 10 years, did your parents pay for you? Did you pay a lot in the hospital?
                1. Single-n
                  Single-n April 15 2021 10: 50
                  0
                  Well, at least 13% personal income tax and 20% VAT on goods and services. Not including business taxes. Which SUDDENLY pay for the work of employees. Well, there are fees for "curtains and repairs", that's it, on the little things. And so yes, everything is DOROM, I get everything.
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion April 18 2021 13: 27
                    0
                    Everything is clear: "Don't pay taxes, don't give recruits."
                    1. Single-n
                      Single-n April 19 2021 19: 07
                      0
                      The conversation was about how much "RF invested" in me. I replied that the state, in principle, does not produce anything. It only redistributes. And then they later declare that the state does not owe me anything, and it cares about us orphaned and poor from the kindness of our soul. I am ready to give part of my labor in exchange for services, otherwise it is a robbery and I will dodge as best I can.
        2. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 13 2021 13: 20
          +3
          Quote: xorek
          Quote: paul3390
          but not "IN THIS", but in OUR

          Are you really sure that this is still OUR country? belay What is this confidence based on? what

          As long as at least one Russian alive is OUR and no matter how they throw mud at my country, Russia, I will defend it as best I can, maybe clumsily ...

          Absolutely agree!!!
        3. Overlock
          Overlock April 13 2021 13: 39
          +25
          Quote: xorek
          While at least one Russian is alive OUR and, as it were, my country Russia

          Pathetics! In our country, even Usmanov is Russian
          1. Woodman
            Woodman April 13 2021 14: 39
            +1
            Quote: Overlock
            In our country, even Usmanov is Russian

            Does this surprise you? If I am not mistaken, Dostoevsky said that Russian is a state of mind.
            Emperor Nicholas I once at a court ball asked the Marquis of Astolf de Custine, who was fleeing the French Revolution in Russia:

            “Marquis, do you think there are many Russians in this room?”

            “All but me and foreign ambassadors, Your Majesty!”
            -You're wrong. This one of mine is a Pole, a German. There are two generals - they are Georgians. This courtier is a Tatar, here is a Finn, and there is a baptized Jew.

            “Then where are the Russians?” Asked Custine.

            —But all together they are Russians.
      2. lopvlad
        lopvlad April 13 2021 11: 22
        -4
        Quote: paul3390
        What is this confidence based on? what


        on the fact that you are trying to convince us of this.
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 April 13 2021 11: 34
          +9
          YOU?? Yes, God forbid .. I have not been fond of hopeless pursuits for a long time .. Only those who have logic at least in the bud can be persuaded. Who thinks in terms of comparison, not liberal propaganda. For those are simply hopeless ..
      3. bk316
        bk316 April 13 2021 11: 36
        -5
        Are you really sure that this is still OUR country?

        We are, I'm sure. You definitely don't. But this is the lyrics.
        On the article, even you and I seem to agree with the author.
        I will also say that AUG is the most expensive and risky way for us to solve the problems voiced. Why go this way?
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 13 2021 13: 25
          0
          Quote: bk316
          I will also say that AUG is the most expensive and risky way for us to solve the problems voiced. Why go this way?

          What's the risk?
          The fact that someone else, besides the Anglo-Saxons, will receive competencies in the construction of the most powerful ships?
          Yes, it's a risk ... For our opponents.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr April 13 2021 14: 59
            +11
            Quote: Doccor18
            The fact that someone else, besides the Anglo-Saxons, will receive competencies in the construction of the most powerful ships?

            An aircraft carrier, by definition, is not the most powerful ship, because SSBNs are more powerful than any AUG existing in the world in terms of the total power of the withdrawn charge in TNT equivalent in terms of range and delivery time.
            Quote: Doccor18
            Yes, it's a risk ... For our opponents.

            This is not a risk for them - this is a way to ruin us, and they are well aware of this.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 April 13 2021 15: 24
              -1
              Quote: ccsr
              Quote: Doccor18
              Yes, it's a risk ... For our opponents.

              This is not a risk for them - this is a way to ruin us, and they are well aware of this.

              Come on ... And how many "friends of partners" have withdrawn wealth from our long-suffering Motherland over the past 30 years? Not ruined? And $ 8-10 billion spent over 10-15 years to increase its combat capability will be ruined ... It's not funny ...
              1. ccsr
                ccsr April 13 2021 18: 54
                +7
                Quote: Doccor18
                Come on ... And how many "friends of partners" have withdrawn wealth from our long-suffering Motherland over the past 30 years? Not ruined? And $ 8-10 billion spent over 10-15 years to increase its combat capability will be ruined ... It's not funny ...

                Let's leave indoctrination and go back to purely military issues. To begin with, decide for yourself whether we need aircraft carriers or not from a military point of view, and only then we will talk about money and who brought it where.
      4. NEOZ
        NEOZ April 13 2021 11: 48
        +1
        Quote: paul3390
        Are you really sure that this is still OUR country?

        maybe not ours with you, but mine for sure!
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 April 13 2021 12: 48
          +4
          Quote: NEOZ
          maybe not ours with you, but mine for sure!

          Do you get it from the sale and from the squandering? wink
          Every year, laws and amendments are adopted that only declare the improvement of people's lives, but in real life they only worsen.
          This can only be liked by two types of people - masochists, and those who are in the subject. Who do you consider yourself to be? wink
          1. NEOZ
            NEOZ April 13 2021 16: 00
            -2
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            Do you get it from the sale and from the squandering?

            falls to all !!! called the multiplier effect is called!
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            Every year, laws and amendments are adopted that only declare the improvement of people's lives, but in real life they only worsen.

            you're lying!!!!
            1999 thousand foreign cars were sold in 10, and how many foreign cars are sold now?
            in 1999, how many trips abroad were there, and how many now?
            in 1999, what was the percentage on the mortgage, and now?
            ps
            maybe it's something wrong with you personally? maybe it's just that you are incapable of anything?
        2. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 13 2021 13: 28
          +4
          Quote: NEOZ
          Quote: paul3390
          Are you really sure that this is still OUR country?

          maybe not ours with you, but mine for sure!

          Yes paul3390 meant something else ...
          In patriotism, judging by his comments, he definitely cannot be denied ...
      5. NEOZ
        NEOZ April 13 2021 11: 49
        +3
        Quote: paul3390
        What is this confidence based on?

        all confidence is based on attitude!
        if you do not have the feeling that this is your country, then it is not yours!
      6. Old shoe
        Old shoe April 14 2021 18: 07
        +2
        And here everyone decides for himself: "THIS" or "MY" And there is no need to play chamomile here: I'm sure, I'm not sure ... I now think that this is MY country. And you?
    2. Overlock
      Overlock April 13 2021 10: 20
      +17
      Quote: xorek
      but not "IN THIS", but in OUR and the difference in this is huge, I would like to note to all fans

      very good question
      Quote: paul3390
      Are you really sure that this is still OUR country?

      I now believe that this is not our country. Find evidence to the contrary
      1. Svarog
        Svarog April 13 2021 10: 45
        +7
        Quote: Overlock
        I now believe that this is not our country. Find evidence to the contrary

        Yes, no evidence is needed here. They are all obvious and on the face .. In their country, the population cannot decrease at the same rate as in war .. this is possible only when the Gauleiters rule. Everything in this country is subject to the extraction of profit from the country and the population. And for this ... Roman has a very correct question:
        From myself I will ask one single question:

        Where will you get the money for all this?

        The money should be earned, but who will do it .. now all our resources belong to a narrow group of people .. who do not intend to share ..
        In my opinion, we must return to the welfare state and mobilize society and its potential to build our own development strategy .. It was successful even in more difficult times. A planned economy, taking into account the development of information technologies, can work wonders.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 13 2021 13: 35
          +2
          Quote: Svarog
          Yes, no evidence is needed here. They are all obvious and on the face .. In their country, the population cannot decrease at the same rate as in war .. this is possible only when the Gauleiters rule. Everything in this country is subordinated to the extraction of profit from the country and the population ...

          Dear colleagues, "spears are breaking and shields are cracking" because of the aircraft carrier theme ... And what is the main thing? Russia - a Great Power (aircraft carriers, like other effective defense systems of weapons) - are necessary, for Russia - the "periphery of the West" / "resource colony" - aircraft carriers are unnecessary, unnecessary, pointless, empty spending ...
      2. Skay
        Skay April 13 2021 10: 58
        +9
        I now believe that this is not our country. Find evidence to the contrary

        The country is ours. But what the state does with it, I understand less and less ... request
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 April 13 2021 11: 39
          +5
          The country is ours.

          Yes? Maybe - then list what belongs to us in it? Apart from apartments and summer cottages, many inherited from Soviet times?
        2. Genry
          Genry April 13 2021 12: 56
          -5
          Quote: Skay
          The country is ours.

          Some of the territories are already theirs.
          Quote: Skay
          But what the state does with it, I understand less and less ...

          After what happened after the "collapse", there is a clear regression (Crimea is accepted, Donbass is peaking).
          It is necessary to continue amending the Constitution, in order to obtain full sovereignty, then there will be an argument in the direction of "reunification".
        3. Gardamir
          Gardamir April 13 2021 15: 44
          +3
          state
          And you did not pay attention to that in Russia. the word "state" is, as it were, prohibited. We have federal roads, federal institutions. Try to remember when you heard the word state.
    3. parusnik
      parusnik April 13 2021 10: 47
      +2
      I agree, but not "IN THIS", but in OUR
      Apparently, you have a large stake in Gazprom, Lukoil, etc. You have something to lose laughing
      1. Andrey Korotkov
        Andrey Korotkov April 13 2021 10: 57
        +1
        To everyone who is for Not Our Country, ask your children and grandchildren in which country they live.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. WIKI
          WIKI April 13 2021 11: 42
          +2
          Quote: Andrey Korotkov
          To everyone who is for Not Our Country, ask your children and grandchildren in which country they live.

          The answer is obvious. For the average Russian, she is a mother, and for children of power and capital of those who have, she is a stepmother.
          1. Andrey Korotkov
            Andrey Korotkov April 13 2021 12: 49
            +1
            Quote: WIKI
            Quote: Andrey Korotkov
            To everyone who is for Not Our Country, ask your children and grandchildren in which country they live.

            The answer is obvious. For the average Russian, she is a mother, and for children of power and capital of those who have, she is a stepmother.

            Totally agree good Honestly, with my previous comment I wanted to put an end to the pointless dispute, the article is about the problems of the fleet sad
            1. Overlock
              Overlock April 13 2021 13: 43
              +18
              Quote: Andrey Korotkov
              Honestly, with my previous comment I wanted to put an end to the pointless dispute, the article is about the problems of the fleet

              And these problems completely depend on this:
              Russia does not and will not have the money to satisfy all the wishes of our "hawks" who dream of an aircraft carrier fleet. And this is the most important question.

              By the way, besides the fleet, there is no money for the rest.
              1. Andrey Korotkov
                Andrey Korotkov April 13 2021 13: 52
                +2
                Quote: Overlock
                Quote: Andrey Korotkov
                Honestly, with my previous comment I wanted to put an end to the pointless dispute, the article is about the problems of the fleet

                And these problems completely depend on this:
                Russia does not and will not have the money to satisfy all the wishes of our "hawks" who dream of an aircraft carrier fleet. And this is the most important question.

                By the way, besides the fleet, there is no money for the rest.

                hi honey if you have it immediately -offshore sad , hooked - first about not our country and then about our fleet hi
      2. xorek
        xorek April 13 2021 11: 01
        -7
        Quote: parusnik
        I agree, but not "IN THIS", but in OUR
        Apparently, you have a large stake in Gazprom, Lukoil, etc. You have something to lose laughing

        Enough sarcastic, I understand everything and was born in the USSR ... Well, so far, and not like under the Gorbachev and Ebn the State Department was licked by all and sundry and Zyuganov indirectly too (although I always voted for the Communist Party, well, at least some kind of opposition) hi
        What do you suggest, divide everything again, etc. ? Well, no, that's enough, let it be for now, but then it will be seen .. The Chinese version would suit me for the first time (especially when the shootings began to presumptuous oligarchs and confiscation) There they have the Army and the Navy that is all right, but they are hucksters for its essence ..
        1. parusnik
          parusnik April 13 2021 11: 28
          +9
          Of course, let it be as it is. Subsidized rural settlements, districts. Lack of specialists, smile at shipyards. Or we bought tugboats, our iron, German filling, we buy special fuel, it is more expensive. It doesn't go on ours. Let it stay that way. hi
        2. paul3390
          paul3390 April 13 2021 11: 36
          +10
          divide everything again, etc.

          Since when has the return of the stolen goods been unexpectedly weaning and sharing ?? belay
          1. WHAT IS
            WHAT IS April 13 2021 11: 44
            +14
            And here's a reasonable question: Indeed, they grabbed it now inviolably, and anyone who brings up this topic is an enemy and a traitor? A curious approach to the question from comrades who are not at all comrades to us.
          2. bk316
            bk316 April 13 2021 12: 16
            -7
            Since when has the return of the stolen goods been unexpectedly weaning and sharing ??

            Everything is very simple if you have nothing except an apartment and a summer residence that you got for free in the USSR, you are a marginal and of course the slogan RIP THE PLAIN for you.
            Only you will not succeed - we will not give you enough of a swim.
            1. Overlock
              Overlock April 13 2021 13: 31
              +24
              Quote: bk316
              It's very simple if you have nothing but an apartment and a summer residence that you got for free in the USSR, you are a marginal

              And if bought after 2000, then a liberal? The logic of the one who clung to the trough
              Quote: bk316
              Only you will not succeed - we will not give you enough of a swim.

              Objective processes go beyond your desire, fortunately
              1. bk316
                bk316 April 14 2021 14: 29
                0
                Objective processes go beyond your desire, fortunately

                Do you want to say that socialism has collapsed objectively, and now it will revive objectively as well?

                And if bought after 2000, then a liberal?

                Do not write nonsense at what is a liberal. I want to say that man
                - who cries that he has nothing
                - dreams of taking it away from those who have
                - for 30 years, with this position, I have not had anything

                There is a marginal loser. It doesn't matter if you are a liberal or a communist. The main thing is that he wants goods, dreams of taking them away, but he himself has not created anything.
        3. Overlock
          Overlock April 13 2021 13: 29
          +21
          Quote: xorek
          Stop being malicious, I understand everything and was born in the USSR ..

          And what from this? Where were Yeltsin and Chubais born?
          Quote: xorek
          Well, no, that's enough, let it be for now, and then we'll see ..

          And what will be seen next?
          Streamlined education and healthcare? Minus 500 thousand population annually? Foreign policy failure and border conflicts? Much can be enumerated.
          Let's, in the beginning, set up the production of a RUSSIAN iron from RUSSIAN components, or a TV, or a refrigerator, or a car, or an airplane, and then gush with illusions
          Quote: xorek
          Some are afraid that we will modernize Kuzyu and put it into operation.

          Have you lifted the screws from the bottom? It can be seen that your dream will not come true soon, so the deck-ships were sent to guard the sky from land
          1. parusnik
            parusnik April 13 2021 16: 22
            +4
            Let's, in the beginning, set up the production of a RUSSIAN iron from RUSSIAN components, or a TV, or a refrigerator, or a car, or an airplane, and then gush with illusions
            hi good drinks
      3. kapitan281271
        kapitan281271 April 13 2021 11: 49
        +3
        Quote: parusnik
        I agree, but not "IN THIS", but in OUR
        Apparently, you have a large stake in Gazprom, Lukoil, etc. You have something to lose

        I understand correctly that if I do not have shares, a bank account, I must stop considering Russia as my Motherland, and if I need to build a fleet only to protect corporations, then we need it for hell, well then let's disband the army, because this is expensive and the army also, oddly enough, protects the interests of our moneybags and their corporations. And in the history of mankind there were wars, not for economic interests. But the economic interests of corporations, these are the economic interests of my Motherland. And so that these interests become the interests of each individual person, and the whole nation in general, is a serious problem, but this is not the reason why I should stop considering it my Motherland. And whatever the rich, we have already passed, I still a supporter of the fact that there were no poor. And if these corporations pay taxes, give hundreds of thousands of jobs, then whether we like it or not, their interests will have to be protected. And a more equitable distribution of wealth is a question of other categories, never a question whether this is my Motherland or not.

        PS And about aircraft carriers and the fleet in general, I'm certainly not a professional, but the world is globalizing, and our economic and political interests will have to be defended, whether we like it or not, and without the projection of force, this is not possible, and the projection of force requires a fleet, and without the aviation cover is difficult. Another thing is that the construction of aircraft carriers is now at least not timely. And it costs money, although if our yacht fleet is shaken, then the money will be found. But this is again a question of a more equitable distribution of national wealth.
        1. parusnik
          parusnik April 13 2021 16: 27
          +1
          And the economic interests of corporations are the economic interests of my Motherland.
          ... We will die in the struggle for this. We will defend the interests of corporations that pay taxes but do not share profits, these are the interests of the Motherland. laughing I understand, the interests of the bourgeoisie, your interests ..
          1. kapitan281271
            kapitan281271 April 14 2021 08: 40
            +1
            Alexey, I generally understand, and even in a sense I share, your indignation (as an example myself, I personally thought it was the case when at one time the leaders of large corporations were asked to publish their income, and the last time I saw it in 2015. So I took divided the income of one not the richest one by the number of working days and realized that I need to work for 12 years to get his income in one day, and his mother is 12 years old in one day), but nevertheless, our country consists of bourgeois, cleaning women , the mother of his fucking managers, and so on. And we are obliged to defend it, and today, paradoxically, the defense of the Motherland is not only its sovereignty, not only its territorial integrity, but also economic interests, and on distant borders, too, we will not protect economic interests, we will lose the country. And the question of a more equitable distribution of national wealth stands squarely, and if these Kremlin prisoners do not understand this and do not take effective measures in this direction, everything will end very badly. Another issue that causes concern is the complete lack of desire, and the mind to do something in this direction.
    4. Trickster
      Trickster April 13 2021 10: 53
      +3
      And we will put Kuzyu into operation, this is already a matter of principle.!

      The principled continues to eat the cactus with a tenacity worthy of a real donkey. A smart one would have long understood that there are more edible fruits, and would have replaced the cactus with a sweet apple.
      1. novel66
        novel66 April 13 2021 11: 13
        -3
        the main thing is to weld it to something in the ranks. so as not to drown from old age
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. Overlock
      Overlock April 13 2021 13: 38
      +21
      Quote: xorek
      And we will put Kuzyu into operation, this is already a matter of principle.!

      Type- "we will not stand for the price?" What is the price?
  3. paul3390
    paul3390 April 13 2021 10: 15
    +9
    For some reason, no one takes into account that for the full functioning of the AUG of aircraft carriers, there must be at least TWO. For repairs, then he needs to do? Otherwise it will turn out like the frog De Gaulle, who spends most of his time at the dock. No wonder the Naglich people built exactly two. And we need four. A pair to the North and the Pacific Ocean. I'm not talking about the basing and repair facilities. And that - can the noneshnaya bourgeois Russian Federation build FOUR aircraft carriers to provide real work, and not window dressing? Oh, something is very doubtful to me ... I'm afraid - a couple of horseradish will master. Barely one .. And it will be like with Kuznetsov - it seems like there is an aircraft carrier, but in fact - only sometimes ..
    1. max702
      max702 April 13 2021 10: 31
      +5
      Quote: paul3390
      For some reason, no one takes into account that for the full functioning of the AUG of aircraft carriers, there must be at least TWO. For repairs, then he needs to do? Otherwise it will turn out like the frog De Gaulle, who spends most of his time at the dock. No wonder the Naglich people built exactly two. And we need four. A pair to the North and the Pacific Ocean. I'm not talking about the basing and repair facilities. And that - can the noneshnaya bourgeois Russian Federation build FOUR aircraft carriers to provide real work, and not window dressing? Oh, something is very doubtful to me ... I'm afraid - a couple of horseradish will master. Barely one .. And it will be like with Kuznetsov - it seems like there is an aircraft carrier, but in fact - only sometimes ..

      There must be at least 6 of them, and then if the Burzhuins do not start building on a new one .. and now calculate how much this pleasure will cost ..
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 April 13 2021 10: 49
        +6
        Considering that out of 11 mattress aircraft carriers, there are usually 4 on alert, maximum - 5 .. And this is with their repair capacity and operating experience .. To which we are - like to Timbuktu on a sled ..
      2. antivirus
        antivirus April 13 2021 11: 09
        +1
        once again about birds - IT'S NOT AT THE PRICE OF AB - A FIRST TASKS. EURASIA IS EMPTY AND FROM THE DANUBE TO THE LOCATION THE BORDER IS DRY UNDER THE SEE OF REFUGEES.
        SOLUTIONS ON PROTECTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ARE ALWAYS CONTROL OF THE SOUTH DIRECTION.
        then all the other Wishlist.
        It is necessary to count rubles not in sofas, but by years and for 50 years ahead and taking into account:
        1. "do not build fortresses, build a railway"
        2. control of Eurasia.
        3. Strategic Missile Forces for Amertsev
        ..... and up to 16.-land route solutions where necessary with support from the fleet
        17 build AB
      3. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 April 13 2021 12: 59
        +2
        Quote: max702
        Now calculate how much this pleasure will cost ..

        Within 100 billion $. These are 7-8 newest ships. Plus a boost for the economy.
        ZVF 600 with a hook.
        1. max702
          max702 April 13 2021 17: 46
          +4
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Quote: max702
          Now calculate how much this pleasure will cost ..

          Within 100 billion $. These are 7-8 newest ships. Plus a boost for the economy.
          ZVF 600 with a hook.

          Not a push to the economy, but an economic push by such actions .. You better think about how the country can be rebuilt with these 600 billion ...
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 April 13 2021 20: 42
            -1
            Quote: max702
            Not pushing the economy, but pushing the economy with such actions

            I disagree Maxim. Any large-scale project gives impetus to industrial development, this is the basics of economics.
            Regarding the fact that the economy of the country can be unleashed by 600 yards - no doubt, but through large projects. The mechanism of related industries is launched. Now we are ordering ships abroad. So far, only civilians. But at such a pace, we will soon build the military over the hill.
            But the government believes that it is necessary to increase the GVF, and not spend it. request
            1. max702
              max702 April 13 2021 21: 56
              +3
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              But at such a pace, we will soon build the military over the hill.

              Well, you are juggling, we are in the second third place in the world in terms of shipbuilding tonnage .. an example for you Yamal LNG cost 2 trillion rubles .. So we poured this money into the military and what will we get in return? Well, there will be a dozen other ships and sense? How will we earn with the help of them? I'm only afraid to spend on maintenance and that's it .. So 600 billion can and should be spent much more efficiently ..
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 April 14 2021 09: 43
                -4
                Quote: max702
                Here's an example of Yamal LNG worth 2 trillion rubles.

                This is not a push, it is a drain on power resources. So you are right, you can and should be more effective. I think the Chinese way is quite effective.
                1. max702
                  max702 April 14 2021 10: 02
                  +3
                  Having built Yamal LNG, we mastered the technology of liquefying and transporting gas, and, having improved it, increased the profitability of about 30% than the rest (due to the climate), mastered construction on the shelf, took the 3rd place in production in the world with excellent prospects for expansion, made significant progress in the development of the NSR which is also extremely promising, all of the above is real real money in the economy, plus another brick in the country's energy security .. This is a smart investment of trillions .. Alas, no one will give us too great risks to follow the Chinese path. China does not have natural resources and their own scientific schools, all they have is borrowing from other countries of the world, just like they borrow natural resources, we have ALL of this, it is extremely difficult to stop us if necessary to limit it. there is no Chinese way along this ..
                  1. Ingvar 72
                    Ingvar 72 April 14 2021 13: 59
                    -2
                    Quote: max702
                    Having built Yamal LNG, we have mastered the technology of liquefying and transporting gas and, having improved it, increased the profitability of about 30%

                    To sell resources more efficiently. Is this a successful investment in your opinion? belay
                    What are you talking about? And what kind of listed real money do you mean? Those that invest in securities (economies) of other countries?
                    Speaking about the Chinese way, I meant the development of industry. We are now lagging behind China by at least ten years.
                    We almost completely lack our own electronics, light industry. Zaputin's mantras about import substitution and "Made by us" stories are easily dispelled when visiting almost any store of electronics, tools, and clothes.
                    75% of raw materials for drugs are imported.
                    This is where to invest.
                    1. max702
                      max702 April 14 2021 14: 23
                      +1
                      I have already told you about China, there is nothing Chinese there, but only what the white people put in.
                      About resources, if the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa and many other countries that have them are selling them, why can they, but we cannot? Why is Norway gas and oil great and Russia fuu?
                      Having mastered LNG, we really created a new industry, now there is talk about floating HPPs on LNG, and in the future, all this infrastructure can be used for energy on hydrogen .. energy resources and what's wrong with that? For example, the gas at the SS was somewhat miscalculated, it turned out that there is a high percentage of helium in it, well, it doesn't matter now we are building the Amur GPP and we will not import helium, but export it .. At the expense of the tales we made, give them a refutation, but only with facts, and not with the next tales .. work on medicines and other things is going on and money for this is earned by such projects as Yamal LNG and Power of Siberia ..
    2. parusnik
      parusnik April 13 2021 10: 41
      +13
      About repair facilities. Back in the 10-10s of this century, we repaired tugboats at home. There was a shipyard, Zvezdochka, a shipyard, not repairing, the dock has been sold, the specialists have retired, they are renting berths for mooring ships. Zvezdochka is the same. The picture was held on by Uncle Vasya. Uncle Vasya retired. The picture is the same, they dragged the dock somewhere, to another Zvezdochka, to another coast. Now, they brought two docks, they were barely able to reactivate, they called specialists from the North. They are standing. There are no specialists. Now further, the 2013s have gone, they began to carry, to Novorossiysk, Primorsko-Akhtarsk, the dipped light, from the Taman Peninsula. The music played for a short time. The shops closed. They began to carry Ukrainian to the Crimea. Became Russian, we continue to drag. This is what I mean. I am writing about the towing fleet. Not about the aircraft carrier. I meet with colleagues from the Far East at meetings, they have been repairing their fleet in China since XNUMX, and so far. That's because they say cheaper.
      1. max702
        max702 April 13 2021 11: 00
        +3
        Duc can first build everything you need and only then think about whether we need aug? This is what they say to the sectarians .. but they don’t hear .. the prose of life is not interesting for dreamers .. There is still such a moment, so we will begin to do all this, we will build ports, shipyards, shipyards, towns, bases and much more, and then it will become clear what kind of 20 years of construction, all these AUGs are somehow not needed! And without them, the country was developing well and was safe .. And what should the witnesses of the church of the holy aircraft carrier do?
        1. Per se.
          Per se. April 13 2021 14: 19
          +1
          Quote: max702
          Duc can first build everything you need and only then think about whether we need aug?
          When built, it will be "too late to drink Borjomi", there will be no specialists left, technologies will be lost. How was the Soviet fleet created? We collaborated with the Italians before the war; projects for new destroyers and light cruisers were mainly based on this. After studying the trophies, we had the German unfinished aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin, and received the Italian battleship Giulio Cesare as reparations.

          A base was created, personnel were forged, the fleet would not be born instantly, when "and only then to think", it will be too late, my friend ... The same China studied Soviet projects for a long time, buying out our aircraft carrier cruisers under the guise of scrap metal, then buying documentation from Ukraine, enticing specialists for construction, before building the first own aircraft carrier, following the completed Varyag.

          We have already virtually destroyed the oceanic fleet, under the slogan, why do we need aircraft carriers. Why did we have boats that "did not fit in the sea", project 941 "Shark", on the destruction of which our "partners" first of all insisted. The ships of the project 1144 "Orlan" were brought to the handle, out of 4 it is good if two remain, with a long-term modernization-restoration of "Admiral Nakhimov", and how much they will torment after "Peter the Great" is not known. We can talk about this for a long time, but the same SSV-33 "Ural" BRZK (atomic project 1941, code "Titan"), we will not even be able to repeat it in the foreseeable future.

          After the collapse of the USSR, the patriots of the fleet managed to take the poor "Kuzya" away from the Black Sea, but other "patriots" still could not finish it off, the aircraft carrier did not drown, along with the PD-50. I well remember that orgy, in the dashing 90s, when the media screamed from all pages and channels, why do we need aircraft carriers. Why it started again, already on the site, through the efforts of Roman Skomorokhov and Andrey Voskresensky, is a question. Like, not traitors, not stupid people. I can “understand and forgive” only for the fact that they “want the best way”, if only it doesn’t work out, “as always,” as the present masters of life, who think that oil and gas is more reliable than the army and the navy, will lose our shipbuilding.
          1. max702
            max702 April 13 2021 17: 22
            +5
            Do you have a summer cottage plot? Let's assume that there is, so let's build a fire station on it .. With a tower, boxes for cars with calculations, with cars and all utensils, with a barracks for calculations, a dispatcher, an obstacle course for training so that firefighters do not lose their competence .. For suddenly you are on fire, but they have forgotten how! So you will have your own fire brigade for every fireman! Do you agree? Or does it all look crazy? So here AUG is even more delusional for our country, because there are no goals and objectives for this ..
            1. Sanguinius
              Sanguinius April 14 2021 06: 12
              0
              There are goals and objectives for them! You just do not want to admit them, considering that for us these tasks that the aircraft carrier performs are meaningless! And talk about whether you need it or not, you can endlessly.
            2. Per se.
              Per se. April 14 2021 06: 22
              +2
              Quote: max702
              Do you have a summer cottage plot? Let's assume that there is, so let's build a fire station on it ..
              Suburban area, you say? Sorry, Maxim, this is an example of classical demagoguery, whether you like it or not.
              No one is obliged to create a "fire station" at a private summer cottage, but they must have the same fire extinguisher and observe fire safety measures, especially according to the new rules. And, here, the fire station should be organized by the state in the settlement area with summer cottages and district settlements.
              "Duc, here's AUG", with this approach is needed not for one suburban area, and not even for a cooperative, and not for the region, but for the whole country. In addition, ships will build not only aircraft carriers, but other ships as well, and experience and technology will serve the entire industry, will develop science and technology.
              If this sounds crazy, it's best to think about other topics that are more understandable.
              1. max702
                max702 April 14 2021 10: 17
                +1
                You said a fire extinguisher, safety rules and enough! And the construction of a depot / aircraft carriers is redundant! Sogasen.Ne need not, it is better to build civilian ships with these funds, just like you instead of a "depot" on the site, a greenhouse or a bathhouse, or maybe build a garage! Why? Yes, because they will benefit you more than a "depot" which, subject to certain rules and the presence of a fire extinguisher, will never be needed! Why when it concerns you personally and your pocket do you understand this perfectly well, and when the whole country is not? Limited thinking? The fact of the matter is that aircraft carriers do not bring to shipbuilders the knowledge applicable in civilian life only in AUG .. Give an example of the technology needed for the construction of an aircraft carrier in civilian life?
  4. Woodman
    Woodman April 13 2021 10: 18
    +12
    The theme of aircraft carriers at VO turns into Santa Barbara ...
    1. xorek
      xorek April 13 2021 10: 37
      -2
      Quote: Lesovik
      The theme of aircraft carriers at VO turns into Santa Barbara ...

      Some are afraid that we will modernize Kuzyu and put it into operation .. As soon as it was not sabotaged .. And again the wave went, well, well
      1. antivirus
        antivirus April 13 2021 11: 12
        -3
        n about Kuzyu - and about dry put development and overseas departments speech.
        all the wealth is in Eurasia. in America we are not going after ore and oil yet.
        Kuzya is alone and will remain - for prestige until Paris.
        funny to read everyone about the meaning of life and the absentee fleet. other people make decisions and give money to others.
      2. novel66
        novel66 April 13 2021 11: 15
        +2
        afraid, yes! there is no group, no planes on it. and the pilots have already forgotten how to fly ... AWACS will never be, but in the ranks, damn it, all our parades!
    2. ccsr
      ccsr April 13 2021 18: 59
      0
      Quote: Lesovik
      The theme of aircraft carriers at VO turns into Santa Barbara ...

      If you rely on Marxism, someone is not sickly making money on it - the economy is our everything, the teachings of Marx-Lenin have not lost their relevance even in the field of Internet battles.
  5. sergo1914
    sergo1914 April 13 2021 10: 19
    +7
    I think the discussion has already developed into a hot phase. It's time for opponents to meet in the octagon or in the ring. And already to resolve the issue with aircraft carriers in a more constructive format.
    1. dzvero
      dzvero April 13 2021 10: 29
      +5
      As an option - to lock in a closet, turn off the light and whoever comes out, she took smile
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 April 13 2021 10: 36
        +7
        Quote: dzvero
        As an option - to lock in a closet, turn off the light and whoever comes out, she took smile


        And the fans? It's like hockey or Champions League. One of the teams leaves the stadium and says - "We won." Today, for example, “Bavaria” - “PSG”. How can you not watch it?
        And here? "Timokhin conducts a luxurious mavashi against Skomorokhov, Skomorokhov takes Timokhin to choke him in response ..." I am even ready to buy a ticket.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 18 June 2021 18: 21
          0
          Quote: sergo1914
          And here? "Timokhin conducts a luxurious mavashi against Skomorokhov, Skomorokhov takes Timokhin to choke him in response ..." I am even ready to buy a ticket.

          It's more like a fight in a kindergarten in the style of "but I have a BIG shoulder blade! I will give it to your Easter cakes! And won!" laughing in general, the level of discussion is approximately equal to the level of playing chess with a pigeon
    2. xorek
      xorek April 13 2021 10: 38
      -1
      Quote: sergo1914
      I think the discussion has already developed into a hot phase. It's time for opponents to meet in the octagon or in the ring. And already to resolve the issue with aircraft carriers in a more constructive format.

      Let's bet who's on whom .. laughing And everything will become clear ..)))
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 April 13 2021 10: 45
        +3
        Quote: xorek
        Quote: sergo1914
        I think the discussion has already developed into a hot phase. It's time for opponents to meet in the octagon or in the ring. And already to resolve the issue with aircraft carriers in a more constructive format.

        Let's bet who's on whom .. laughing And everything will become clear ..)))


        What? How can that be? And what about the weigh-in procedure, the duel of views, the press conference with a massacre? It is impossible without a preparatory stage.
        1. xorek
          xorek April 13 2021 11: 29
          -1
          Quote: sergo1914
          What? How can that be? And what about the weigh-in procedure, the duel of views, the press conference with a massacre? It is impossible without a preparatory stage.

          On a vacant lot (quarry) in the center of Russia, we will gather EVERYTHING and rushed. wassat
          Even on TV they will think .. Like "There was a massive fight among members of the forum", no one reacted to the shots of the riot police, additional military units were called .. There are victims, both from the riot police and members of the forum (several groups shouting "And we are for sho, managed to escape)))) .. An investigation is underway, the FSB is involved .. laughing bully crying
          He laughed himself to tears, presenting all this ..))) A joke of course ..
          1. Dante Alighieri
            Dante Alighieri April 13 2021 12: 03
            +4
            On a vacant lot (quarry) in the center of Russia, we will gather EVERYTHING and rushed

            Why on a vacant lot when there is a Yeltsin center ???
            no one reacted to the shots of the riot police, additional military units were called

            Are you going to cause the opponents of aircraft carriers to cause a gain? Will not work! angry
            1. xorek
              xorek April 13 2021 13: 46
              -1
              Quote: Dante
              Are you going to cause the opponents of aircraft carriers to cause a gain? Will not work!

              Yes, figs they are needed .. He just joked about the opinions on the site in general .. laughing And you don't need to be angry with me! I am for peace and versatile opinions ..
              The dispute gives rise to the TRUTH! When everything is fair .. hi
              1. Dante Alighieri
                Dante Alighieri April 13 2021 16: 21
                +1
                Tse well banter, do not be alarmed)))) I'm not angry, just a smiley is too suitable wink
    3. 911sx
      911sx April 14 2021 23: 54
      0
      I agree. Better octagon.
  6. parusnik
    parusnik April 13 2021 10: 22
    +4
    Russia does not and will not have money
    ..What does it cost us to build a house? We will draw, we will live. laughing
    1. xorek
      xorek April 13 2021 12: 08
      -4
      Quote: parusnik
      Russia does not and will not have money
      ..What does it cost us to build a house? We will draw, we will live. laughing

      laughing good Russians always come back for their money ... hi We are not used to saving, but for some reason we always have them, if we scratch at the bottom of the barrel, but no, we will take ours ..
      1. parusnik
        parusnik April 13 2021 16: 33
        +2
        You may have Abramovich, Potanin, Vekselberg, etc. etc. the country does not, the region does not, the district does not, the rural settlement does not ...
  7. avia12005
    avia12005 April 13 2021 10: 23
    +7
    The design and further production of military equipment and weapons is determined by the tasks set by the political leadership for the military, and by production capabilities. We do not have either one or the other in full. Let's put an end to this useless discussion.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus April 13 2021 11: 15
      +1
      I agree.
      strange - few people put it that way - gutarim for personal show-offs.
  8. Pavel73
    Pavel73 April 13 2021 10: 33
    -1
    I fully agree with the author. Anyone who wants to have a powerful fleet with large ships such as aircraft carriers will find it useful to study the history of Izmail, Soviet Union, Kronstadt, Stalingrad and Ulyanovsk. What was started and what ended each time. There is no point in creating aircraft carriers for war. They will not protect us in any way. On the contrary, they will be the first victims. The ghost of Tsushima.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus April 13 2021 11: 16
      -2
      not Tsushima - but in the United States - everything is on the coast of the Okyan - there is no defense line - only the fleet. we have everything hidden 1-1.5 thousand from the sea - there are other solutions.
    2. novel66
      novel66 April 13 2021 11: 18
      -1
      Marat is still forgotten ...

      too, go get ready for battle
      1. Pavel73
        Pavel73 April 13 2021 11: 30
        +1
        In fact, all three Baltic battleships were floating batteries, much more vulnerable than coastal batteries.
      2. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 April 13 2021 13: 05
        +4
        Quote: novel xnumx
        too, go get ready for battle

        Marat was not destroyed in the first week, and not in the first month of the war, he made his contribution to the defense of Leningrad.
        1. novel66
          novel66 April 13 2021 14: 06
          -2
          those. In your opinion, the battleship should first of all deal with the defense of land cities ???
          so the aircraft carrier, apparently, will play the role of a floating airfield near its shores
          1. Mordvin 3
            Mordvin 3 April 13 2021 14: 59
            +1
            Quote: novel xnumx
            those. In your opinion, the battleship should first of all deal with the defense of land cities ???

            If the fleet is now blocking off our shores, as the Germans did in the Baltic, then you will also have to brush off enemy aircraft, I wonder what? Zirconia with Gauges? And naval aviation similarly defended Leningrad, and not at all the BF.
  9. Galleon
    Galleon April 13 2021 10: 38
    +12
    Kindergarten on the crib. Not even a sofa, unfortunately. Where to get so many ships in 17 years, given that some are not even on paper? Alexander, confess, who are you going to recruit as allies? Harry Potter? Old Man Hottabych? Do you have a genie hidden away?

    Well, seriously, why such aggression? Our authors sometimes give out such couch analytics that surprise is off the charts. Well, seriously, let's decide: do we have a reasonable discussion or do the celestials go down to mortals in order to condescendingly carry out an explanation for the stupid and poor?

    This is the style and argumentation of the article on the portal "Military Review" ?? Editors, what the fuck? What is this text doing here, or is it exactly your level ??
    Alexander ... somewhat exaggerates the capabilities of "Admiral Kuznetsov", raising them to a higher level than he deserves.

    The author moved the thesis - prove it! No, I immediately jumped to my next thought. And so the whole article is impossible to read. Sleep of reason.
    1. WHAT IS
      WHAT IS April 13 2021 11: 04
      +15
      You know, but it also annoys me when some authors on VO seem to
      the celestials go down to mortals to condescendingly carry out an explanation for the stupid and the poor?
    2. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan April 13 2021 11: 06
      +1
      Quote: Galleon
      This is the style and argumentation of the article on the portal "Military Review" ?? Editors, what the fuck? What is this text doing here, or is it exactly your level ??

      Another bottom is broken. Nothing new.
      1. Walking
        Walking April 13 2021 11: 53
        +1
        Skomorokhov was probably paid for a series of articles against Timokhin.
  10. Niko
    Niko April 13 2021 10: 46
    +4
    Everything is usual: "Russia has no money" belay So you don't need to do anything. Continue lying quietly on the stove.
  11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 10: 47
    +11
    And now I have a question. 10 trillion rubles. 130 dollars. Where are you planning to get them? How long does it take? Where will the funding come from?
    Considering that the WHOLE defense budget of Russia for 2020 was 61 billion dollars, where do you plan to take TWO defense budgets just for construction?

    That is, Roman did not even understand that these costs should be carried out within 40-50 years.
    Sadness :))))
    I'm wondering why Roman ignores this. I could not read the article to the end, apparently - the second table is the average annual expenses for the CONSTRUCTION of the fleet, and not for its maintenance.
    Roman, you will first learn to at least read the articles of your opponents to the end :))))))
    1. antivirus
      antivirus April 13 2021 11: 20
      -2
      and who has formally applied to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Defense? "from the concerned public" ..... or in the ONF? Kudrin.
      saliva is already splashing.
      not there to swear and look for the truth - the area under the lantern - and not where they lost - and there are no decision-makers on the Army and the Navy.
    2. Keyser soze
      Keyser soze April 13 2021 11: 20
      -1
      that these costs should be carried out within 40-50 years.


      50 years ... but then the aircraft carriers of the Mask will be crowded in Mars orbit ... In 50 years, technologies and methods of war will turn your aircraft carriers into useless targets. And your money will go to ancient concepts. laughing

      Better to make a station on the moon and master production there.
      1. WHAT IS
        WHAT IS April 13 2021 11: 27
        +9
        With rogosins from space, we will make, perhaps, bases on the Moon and Mars. These effective managers would not at all threaten the cosmonautics in the country, it would already be good.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 11: 57
        +8
        Quote: Keyser Soze
        50 years ... but then the aircraft carriers of the Mask will be crowded in Mars orbit ... In 50 years, technologies and methods of war will turn your aircraft carriers into useless targets.

        Yes, tell me bedtime stories :)))))
        To date, there is not a single technology that nullifies aviation as a class of military equipment. It is not seen anywhere in the world, which is why they continue to design and create new aircraft. And none of the existing aircraft projects have performance characteristics that would make it possible to abandon AB. The most technologically advanced USA builds aircraft carriers. The French are preparing to lay down an aircraft carrier. The British built 2 avics, which will serve for another 45-50 years.
        But you, of course, see such technologies :))))))
        "Count on ours, we drank a little,
        Tell Seryoga!
        And if the vodka would not have been driven from sawdust,
        What would we have had, with five bottles "
        1. bk316
          bk316 April 13 2021 12: 33
          -7
          But, of course, you see such technologies

          I see and have written about it many times.
          Therefore, in a capsule.
          I SEE TECHNOLOGIES OVERLOOKING THE ADVANTAGES OF US AUG OVER RF.
          And they are not new.
          The first (intermediate) - ICBM + space target designation system. ICBM, of course, preferably with a planning BB. As I understand it, China, with its enormous financial resources, is going exactly this way.

          The second is a strike weapon in orbit + a space targeting system. And it doesn't matter which blocks are nuclear, high-explosive, or even blanks. Avik is completely unarmed in front of a tungsten blank weighing a ton, lying from orbit on the first space. And the whole AUG in front of a small sphere with 100kt of warheads that fell on it from a height of 500 km. laughing
          The implementation of this technology costs a penny compared to 10 AUG.
          Technology hasn't just been there for decades.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 12: 55
            +7
            Quote: bk316
            I SEE TECHNOLOGIES OVERLOOKING THE ADVANTAGES OF US AUG OVER RF.

            Let's start with the fact that you famously changed the thesis. We are talking here about the usefulness of AMG for us. You are talking about the destruction of the US AUG. These are two DIFFERENT questions, and the ability to destroy the US AUG (even if we had it today) does not refute and does not confirm the AMG values ​​for us.
            Quote: bk316
            The first (intermediate) - ICBM + space target designation system. ICBM, of course, preferably with a planning BB. As I understand it, China, with its enormous financial resources, is going exactly this way.

            First, the "ICBM + space targeting system" against the AUG is the very method that the USSR tried to implement, but failed.
            Secondly, I'm glad you mentioned China. If the Chinese REALLY go this way (which I personally doubt very much), then they, with all this, believe that they need AB and implement the AB program.
            So your reference to China, excuse me, kills your very argumentation in the bud.
            Quote: bk316
            The second is a strike weapon in orbit + a space targeting system.

            Quote: bk316
            The implementation of this technology costs a penny compared to 10 AUG.

            You simply do not know how to calculate the costs of such a system.
            1. bk316
              bk316 April 14 2021 14: 22
              0
              Let's start with the fact that you have famously changed the thesis.

              Didn't change. I just answered your comment.
              To date, there is not a single technology that nullifies aviation as a class of military equipment.


              Regarding the benefits of AUG for making nightmares of Papuans in different parts of the world, I agree with you - a good tool. I just think that the Papuans should not be a nightmare. More precisely, this goal does not justify such expenses.

              with all this, they believe that they need AB and implement an AB program.

              They think they have enough money for both ways. But the question arises, why do they need AUG? And again we come to the "sailing nightmare".

              First, the "ICBM + space targeting system" against the AUG is the same method
              which they tried to implement in the USSR, but failed.

              Not properly. They did not fail, but there was not enough time - the UNION collapsed. Using the best practices and 30 years of progress, bring the best way to the end. But the USSR could not build a single full-fledged AUG. And what the Russian Federation could not repeat.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2021 14: 54
                +1
                Quote: bk316
                Didn't change. I just answered your comment.

                Didn't answer. Technologies "nullifying" AUG (even if they existed) do not necessarily nullify our AMG.
                Quote: bk316
                Regarding the benefits of AUG in order to nightmare Papuans in different parts of the world, I agree with you

                I did not put forward such a thesis. Although yes, as one of the use cases - AUG can nightmare the Papuans.
                Quote: bk316
                They think they have enough money for both ways. But the question arises, why do they need AUG? And again we come to the "sailing nightmare".

                It’s you who come :))) Personally, it’s obvious to me that the aircraft carriers that China is building are not very suitable for such a "nightmare", but not bad enough - for confronting the enemy's naval forces, which have their own aircraft carriers. Moreover, China's main geopolitical adversaries are technically advanced enough, or have appropriate allies (India-RF), to get AUG-nulling technologies in the coming decades - if they existed in nature, of course.
                Thus, even a minimal analysis shows the senselessness of China's existing AV program within the framework of exclusively scandalizing popuas.
                Quote: bk316
                Not properly. Didn't fail and didn't run out of time

                I remind you that there was not enough time since 1962, and the USSR collapsed in 1991. That is, 29 years have passed, and an effective system has not appeared either in the space component (Legend) or in the rocket component (R-27K)
                "This is a fiasco, bro" (c)
                Quote: bk316
                But the USSR could not build a single full-fledged AUG. And what the Russian Federation could not repeat.

                Apply these words to your "ICBM + Space" system :)
                1. bk316
                  bk316 April 14 2021 15: 02
                  +1
                  1962, and the USSR collapsed in 1991

                  Well, yes, 30 years. And from 91 to 21 in your opinion how much?

                  Apply these words to your "ICBM + Space" system :)

                  I APPLY. Unlike shipbuilding, military space not only can repeat the achievements of the USSR, but also confidently moves forward relying on the great achievements of our fathers! (by the way, and personally my father who worked directly with Chelomey)
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 14 2021 15: 13
                    +1
                    Quote: bk316
                    Well, yes, 30 years. And from 91 to 21 in your opinion how much?

                    30 years. And nothing:)
                    Quote: bk316
                    I APPLY. Unlike shipbuilding, military space not only can repeat the achievements of the USSR, but also confidently moves forward relying on the great achievements of our fathers!

                    It is clear :)))) That is, what you like, then the Russian Federation will succeed, although the USSR did not succeed, and what you don't like will not work :))))
                    1. bk316
                      bk316 April 15 2021 15: 51
                      +1
                      what you like, then the Russian Federation will succeed,

                      Eck drives you. And here I like it not like it.
                      I do not have familiar shipbuilders, well, only if at the Admiralty. Therefore, I believe you, and you constantly repeat that we have a trouble here.
                      For that in the military space industry (and by the way in the field of radar), friends and relatives are a dime a dozen and we do some orders. Therefore, I know that there is no trouble there, difficulties have always been so ...
                      Do you like it .... laughing
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 15 2021 16: 51
                        0
                        Quote: bk316
                        For that in the military space industry (and by the way in the field of radar), friends and relatives are a dime a dozen and we do some orders. Therefore, I know that there is no trouble there, difficulties have always been so ...

                        Vladimir, today we do not create ICBMs capable of hitting moving targets at all. There are at least how many relatives there :)))) As for the space control systems, Liana is extremely far from the required capabilities.
                        And on the radar, of course, there is progress, and very great
                      2. bk316
                        bk316 April 15 2021 17: 16
                        +1
                        After all, it was not about the systems adopted for service, but about technologies.
                        All technologies are there.
                        In addition, I somehow gave the calculation. AUG target is not so much moving as creeping.
                        Well, with orbital weapons, whether the target is moving at a speed of 50 km / h or standing still will make no difference at all.

                        Liana is still an attempt to revive what was missed at a new level, well, like Voronezh. laughing It seems that things have gone well. I don’t think we will limit ourselves to the remaining peonies.

                        The point is, and only the lazy one is not talking about this now, that we are on the verge of a revolution in Earth probing. By the way, they also wrote about this on VO. Receive images in different spectra of any area of ​​the surface with a meter resolution IN REAL ONLINE, process and determine targets also ONLINE. Pay attention to this question not 40-50 years, but 10-20. And this means that not only the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, but also you and I personally will be able to perfectly constantly conduct all the AUG of the adversary. laughing
                        And there is nothing fantastic in this, although 40 years ago, access to satellite images for an ordinary citizen was considered fantastic, and 15 years ago, public satellite Internet.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 15 2021 17: 48
                        +1
                        Quote: bk316
                        After all, it was not about the systems adopted for service, but about technologies.
                        All technologies are there.

                        None.
                        Quote: bk316
                        Well, with orbital weapons, whether the target is moving at a speed of 50 km / h or standing still will make no difference at all.

                        It seems so to you. In reality, the defeat of a moving target even with weapons placed in space is a very difficult task, which today we simply do not know how to solve.
                        Quote: bk316
                        Receive images in different spectra of any area of ​​the surface with a meter resolution IN REAL ONLINE, process and determine targets also ONLINE. Pay attention to this question not 40-50 years, but 10-20.

                        Only now, from the snapshot to the control center - so many years ... oh, how many.
                      4. bk316
                        bk316 April 16 2021 13: 37
                        0
                        The conversation becomes meaningless. laughing
                        Time will judge us, but I am more than sure that long before the appearance of the first full-fledged AUG, we will have a good satellite reconnaissance system and ICBMs will receive target designation from it.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 16 2021 13: 47
                        0
                        Quote: bk316
                        The conversation becomes meaningless.

                        I agree.
                2. ccsr
                  ccsr April 15 2021 18: 03
                  -2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Vladimir, today we do not create ICBMs capable of hitting moving targets at all. There are at least as many relatives here:

                  What kind of "moving targets" and why they need to hit ICBMs - can you formulate, without blah-blah-blah? Who told you that we are not able to predict the movement of objects at low speed, and not to use nuclear weapons across areas? For this, they even specially created a warhead with several nuclear warheads being bred fifty years ago, tk. even then they understood that it was problematic to hit ICBMs for sure, which is why they tried to increase the charge of all warheads as much as possible.
  12. Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 13 2021 19: 45
    -3
    = First (intermediate) - ICBM + space target designation system. =
    Those. "in the next 40-50 years" no one will be able to shoot down an ICBM? Good fantasy, but no longer.

    = Second - strike weapons in orbit + space target designation system. And it doesn't matter which blocks are nuclear, high-explosive, or even blanks. Avik is completely unarmed in front of a tungsten blank weighing a ton, lying from orbit on the first space. =

    Those. in the next 50 years no one can shoot down a satellite? Nothing that has been doing this since the 1960s?

    = And the whole AUG in front of a small sphere with 100kt of warheads that fell on it from a height of 500 km =
    Excellent height, just under the second block SM-3.

    = Implementation of this technology costs a penny compared to 10 AUG. =

    Therefore, carried away by satellite target designation within hundreds of km The USSR started building aircraft carriers, yeah.
    1. bk316
      bk316 April 14 2021 14: 27
      +1
      Those. in the next 50 years no one can shoot down a satellite?

      You can shoot down everything. And you can drown any AUG.
      You do not understand the main idea - you cannot shoot down a satellite with the help of AUG.
      So, in response to our asymmetric cheap and effective response, the US Navy will have to deploy its anti-satellite weapons. And we will compete where we are leading and not where we are hopelessly lagging behind.
      1. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 16: 02
        -2
        Quote: bk316
        You do not understand the main idea - you cannot shoot down a satellite with the help of AUG.

        1. Do you know how the satellite was shot down in 2008?
        2. And what difference does it make who knocks him down before the AUG is in range?

        So our asymmetric cheap

        Effective space targeting system is cheap belay ? This is for a start. Space is never cheap. Even the United States did not get involved with this.

        effective response

        He's godlessly ineffective. AUG will get "under the satellite" only if it wants to, while the position of the satellite is known with an accuracy of seconds for an indefinite time ahead. That is, before the first missile.

        their US fleet will have to deploy its anti-satellite weapons.

        All transamospheric missile defense is such a weapon, they have been deploying it for almost two decades. And now the militarization of outer space is unfolding at the suggestion of the United States, simply because in the correct missile defense the space echelon is the main one.

        And we will compete where we lead

        1. And where?
        2. And what difference does it make where we "lead"? The question is how it works.

        = and not where we are hopelessly lagging behind. =

        Well, the Americans have already provided this opportunity. Something joyful faces are not very visible. And even vice versa.

        By the way, in relation to = asymmetric cheap = there are two rules that are followed 99% of the time, plus one that is followed in 100.
        1. It is expensive
        2. It doesn't work
        3. This has already been thought in "Lockheed".
        Well, they are stupid at Zadornov, perhaps.
        1. bk316
          bk316 April 15 2021 15: 52
          0
          Lockheed has already thought about it.

          Well, if in Lockheed then yes, well, its space - we will build aircraft carriers laughing lol lol
          1. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 15 2021 20: 55
            0
            Well, there’s nothing funny. All the great ideas that can occur to you with a probability of 99% and ten more nines, stupid in "Lockheed" came in the year 50. "Cheap asymmetric responses" too. They are taken into account when designing weapons, of course. And when planning production. No one will cut an anti-missile laser, for example, in order to later discover that the thief has "painted the missiles with silver paint" (tm). For such penny and not very solutions, they will simply lay a power reserve (fortunately, they do not work very much) - or they simply will not do anything expensive.
            In general, if your idea was worth something (and it's not worth it), you wouldn't be writing about it now. And you would write something like: "the striped 100500 attack satellites, it is useless to compete, let's build underground steam-powered boats, there are no competitors there."
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik April 15 2021 21: 05
              0
              Musk's projects could create a serious bias towards the United States. For control center from space you need several thousand small reconnaissance satellites with fast transmission of information. Doesn't it look like anything? It is already a feasible task for them to make a reconnaissance analogue of Starlink. And not only intelligence.
              10 Falcon 9s can be launched 10 times a year, launching 60 satellites each time. 6 pieces per year 000 year. I don't want to count what Starship can do.
              1. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 15 2021 22: 55
                -1
                Theoretically, absolutely. But 1. ERS satellites are far from Starlink. 2. Americans have different priorities. Which is actually worse. This is clearly a) missile defense b) missile defense cover. At the same time, yes, an upgrade of the same infrastructure for strikes against fast targets on the surface is more than possible, but this, IMHO, is the next stage. At the same time, the low-orbit infrastructure is vulnerable; it is not a big problem, for example, to hang tasty and useful anti-satellite missiles on the same deck ships.
              2. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik April 15 2021 23: 05
                -1
                Reconnaissance and command control is the primary task. The weapon itself is secondary. The reconnaissance system that I am talking about should also track the launches of hypersonic missiles and aim anti-missiles at them. In addition, for a full-fledged missile defense system, you need to put weapons into space. Ground complexes are limited.

                Quote: Alarmist79
                tasty and useful anti-satellite missiles are not a big problem for deck-ships, for example.

                Shoot down 6 satellites yes, an understandable feasible task, to shoot down 2-3 satellites in a short period of time (I mean several months) is not a feasible task.
              3. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 15 2021 23: 26
                -1
                = The weapon itself is secondary. =
                But it (kinetic interceptors, etc.) is needed a lot.

                = The intelligence system I am talking about should also track the launches of hypersonic missiles and aim anti-missiles at them. =

                But this is a qualitatively different task than tracking AB with selection from completely free false targets of the "tanker" / "container ship" type. An amusing feature of hypersonic "gliders" is their absolutely marvelous visibility from orbit.
                Those. hunting surface ships will require a major upgrade.

                = In addition, for a full-fledged missile defense system, you need to put weapons into space. Ground complexes are limited. =
                I'm basically talking about the orbital. "Diamond Pebble" 2.0.

                = Shoot down 6 satellites yes, an understandable feasible task, shoot down 2-3 satellites, in a short period of time (I mean several months), not a feasible task. =

                Yes, about "worse" I'm talking about that. However, this is already a problem of combating missile defense, and not anti-ship space strikers and the accompanying reconnaissance system.
                And the orbital missile defense is practically an existential threat, yes.
              4. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik April 15 2021 23: 37
                0
                Quote: Alarmist79
                than tracking AB with selection from completely free decoys like "tanker" / "container ship".

                The US does not have this problem. They can monitor every AB in the world in real time.
                Keeping track of every floating little thing is a difficult task. Therefore, they only increase the purchase of R-8.
              5. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 15 2021 23: 50
                -1
                So far, the opponents have exactly three of them, and in the sea there is usually one, the neutrals have two, counting, God forgive Thai. Still not. And so ... The ocean is such a Bryansk forest, there is more than possible to partisan.
              6. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik April 16 2021 00: 05
                +2
                But what about the Brazilian ruler of the seas? laughing
                Quote: Alarmist79
                The ocean is such a Bryansk forest, it is more than possible to partisan there.

                Speaking specifically about Russia and China, then all our exits to the sea are under control. China does too. The entire Asia-Pacific region is crammed with bases of the United States and its allies.
                The main task is to link all sources into a single network for complete control over the Chinese fleet. They need something like Skynet.
              7. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 16 2021 00: 46
                0
                = But what about the Brazilian ruler of the seas? =
                So the Brazilian Herods scrapped it, about a month ago and handed it over. Sorry for the boat, however.

                = Speaking specifically about Russia and China, then all our exits to the sea are under control. China does too. The entire Asia-Pacific region is crammed with bases of the United States and its allies =
                Yes, but aircraft carriers have an extremely unpleasant habit of breaking away from escort. At the same time, the same Chinese AB will operate, IMHO, not in the literal mode of coastal defense. They have 1. to the first line of islands (Ryukyu-Taiwan) with a reserve of coastal aviation gets, 2. to shell the naval RC, etc. at the first stage they will be far away because of her. Those. they have nothing special to do in both Chinese seas.
                Probable option: quite far beyond Ryukyu, at the same time posing a threat to communications. Those. an area almost the size of the North Atlantic at least with the possibility of volatilizing even further.
  • Keyser soze
    Keyser soze April 13 2021 12: 50
    +1
    The British built 2 avics, which will serve another 45-50 years.


    So that's the point - "built". With today's technology. And your saying was:
    that these costs should be carried out within 40-50 years.


    Build while master ..... your experience in aircraft carriers to American, as to Beijing on foot. There are no fighters, no sea-based AWACS aircraft. There are no schools and traditions in Aviks. I took your hint that I am drunk, but the question is not that, but what do you smoke ... laughing

    And in Space, you still have competencies - so build aircraft carriers and bases there, while you have not completely lost what is left. A colleague from above gave you a list of technologies that will make aircraft carriers useless, like battleships. There will be laughter, the Americans will throw away aircraft carriers, and you will master them for another 50 years ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 13: 15
      +9
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      Build while master ..... your experience in aircraft carriers to American, as to Beijing on foot. There are no fighters, no sea-based AWACS aircraft. There are no schools and traditions in Aviks. I took your hint that I am drunk, but the question is not that, but what do you smoke ...

      Therefore, it is necessary to drive Kuznetsov, stuffing bumps and learning, and build an AV to replace him, so as not to lose the experience gained. We have as many as 2 deck fighters - Su-33 and MiG-29K, and the experience of upgrading land-based vehicles to deck-based ones is the richest. AWACS really is not, but it is really needed, and not only for the Navy
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      A colleague from above gave you a list of technologies that will make aircraft carriers useless, like battleships.

      Only in his unbridled fantasy.
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      There will be laughter, the Americans will throw away aircraft carriers, and you will master them for another 50 years ...

      Only in your unrestrained imagination :)))) Well, in their thirty-year plan of military shipbuilding, the Americans are going to transfer 7 heavy AB to the fleet, of which 2 have already been financed
    2. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx April 13 2021 13: 36
      0
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      your experience in aircraft carriers to American, as to Beijing on foot. There are no fighters, no sea-based AWACS aircraft. There are no schools and traditions in Aviks.

      We will ask you to share. Brotherly. Would you mind hoping to provide us with a couple of your aircraft carriers and planes for them to train crews? We can also rent a shipyard for construction. Well, as soon as they get free, of course. When you finish building your series of aircraft carriers? Never thirty-second?
      1. Keyser soze
        Keyser soze April 13 2021 14: 01
        0
        we will ask you to share. Brotherly.

        When you finish building your series of aircraft carriers?


        We are a small, modest country in Geyrop. We bend and our goals and objectives are different. We just had time, by the beginning of the 21st century, to clean up toilets in our homes, so as not to drive away the wolves, until .... yes ... And we are happy with that ... We will leave the aircraft carriers to you. laughing

        We can also rent a shipyard for construction.


        And by the way, you can. The shipyard in Varna is repairing your ships anyway, and the length is suitable for an aircraft carrier, in any case, we built ships of 100 tons there, so I heard your offer and will tell our government tomorrow. laughing
        Then you really will have an aircraft carrier and we will not drown or burn anything. laughing
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx April 13 2021 14: 07
          +1
          Quote: Keyser Soze
          And by the way, you can. The shipyard in Varna is repairing your ships anyway, and the length is suitable for an aircraft carrier, in any case, we built ships of 100 tons there, so I heard your offer and will tell our government tomorrow.
          Then you really will have an aircraft carrier and we will not drown or burn anything.

          For a second, I imagined how it would look in the press - Russia is building its aircraft carrier in Bulgaria)))) Oh, I'll tell you this will be news))) You may not burn the ship, but the fifth points for some will burn for sure.
          1. Keyser soze
            Keyser soze April 13 2021 14: 14
            +1
            You may not burn the ship, but the fifth points for some will burn for sure.


            Damm ... they will beat me here with a shovel and no NATO will save ... laughing
          2. Keyser soze
            Keyser soze April 13 2021 14: 29
            0
            but the fifth points for some will burn for sure.


            By the way, I just checked it - you also repair warships with us. Perekop, the training ship of the Russian Navy. It seems from the Baltic Fleet .... Modernization and repairs in the Naval Arsenal Varna.

            And in Varna and Burgas you repair dozens and dozens of commercial ships. Here is a link with a list -
            https://www.bulnas.org/news.html.


            So we're joking here and having fun ... ugh, I won't pull the cat by the tail ... laughing This will not happen, but we will lay there in this year 2 corvettes for our Navy.
  • Artyom Karagodin
    Artyom Karagodin April 13 2021 11: 52
    +8
    He's just in his own style. Instead of clear, verified arguments, like you and Alexander have, a set of emotions and rhetorical techniques. The thought seems to be trying to build, but it all ends with anger and questions "Are you serious?" and so on. Although, in principle, even what he dashed off here can be described less hysterically and would not have turned out as stupid as it turned out.

    And what just annoys Skomorokhov is the transition to personalities. A very nasty character trait. For this in the "Free Press" at one time he was smashed well, but, apparently, the lesson did not go for the future.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    That is, Roman did not even understand that these costs should be carried out within 40-50 years.
    Sadness :))))
    I'm wondering why Roman ignores this. I could not read the article to the end, apparently - the second table is the average annual expenses for the CONSTRUCTION of the fleet, and not for its maintenance.
    Roman, you will first learn to at least read the articles of your opponents to the end :))))))


    Why read, argue? We make noise, brother, make noise. And do not care that in the end everything looks not like a discussion, but like some kind of cheap "ale scandal" from "Let Them Talk".
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 12: 00
      +5
      Quote: Artyom Karagodin
      Why read, argue? We make noise, brother, make noise.

      Quite right. "Slander, slander, let something remain" (c)
      However, you can find a plus in this - the reader sees who speaks in defense of AB, and who is against :))))))
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin April 13 2021 12: 05
        +3
        I would even say that he sees arguments on the one hand and their almost complete absence on the other. Only snot with saliva - fringed and in all directions. In general, it seems that this discussion was started not so much for the sake of defending one's point of view, as for the sake of hype. They read, comment, increase the statistics, thereby working to improve the well-being of Roman personally as the editor of the department. I would be glad to make a mistake and am ready to apologize to Roman if this is not the case.
        1. Woodman
          Woodman April 13 2021 15: 01
          +2
          Quote: Artyom Karagodin
          I would be glad to make a mistake and am ready to apologize to Roman if this is not the case.

          It is unlikely that you will have to apologize, because one of the authors said to me right during the discussion:
          Quote: kalibr
          You, I live, want to prove something to me, right? Do not! Since 2014, everything here is separate to me ... they prove everything to no avail. You do not understand that only clicks are needed from you. And your opinion is not needed by anyone, and me in the first place. By the way, it was in the real sector, it was a long time ago, and it turned out to be not profitable. It is profitable to write here and get clicks from people like you. Explained easily?
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin April 13 2021 18: 22
            0
            Remind, please, "caliber" - who is this? I've heard a nickname, but I can't remember the name. Not His Majesty Roman Skomorokhov, by any chance?
            1. Woodman
              Woodman April 13 2021 18: 58
              0
              Quote: Artyom Karagodin
              Not His Majesty Roman Skomorokhov, by any chance?

              No, Skomorokhov, as I noticed, is only in public hmm ... extravagant, in personal correspondence he is quite an adequate person. And the caliber is a certain Shpakovsky.
              1. Artyom Karagodin
                Artyom Karagodin April 13 2021 23: 51
                +1
                Exactly, Shpakovsky ... I read about the true Russian faith, which was born from the synthesis of Christianity with paganism, which supposedly is the Old Believers. Bredyatina the rarest. So not at all surprised. I just thought that he really believed in it, now I understand what's the matter. Thank you from the bottom of my heart)))).

                I think Roman should still apologize for suspicions of such an overt "calibriism". It is unlikely that he reads and reviews these comments of ours, but nevertheless I was wrong, even incorrect, and this must be admitted. Nevertheless, the suspicions about the desire on his part for the hype, expressed earlier, have not disappeared.
            2. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 April 13 2021 20: 48
              -1
              Quote: Artyom Karagodin
              caliber "is who we have

              Shpakovsky Vyacheslav.
          3. ccsr
            ccsr April 13 2021 19: 02
            +3
            Quote: Lesovik
            Quote: kalibr
            You, I live, you want to prove something to me, right? Do not! Since 2014, everything here is separate to me ... they prove everything to no avail. You do not understand that only clicks are needed from you here. And your opinion is not needed by anyone, and me in the first place. By the way, it was in the real sector, then for a long time, and it turned out to be not profitable. It is profitable to write here and get clicks from people like you. Explained easily?

            Brilliantly, Shpakovsky, as always, is in his repertoire, this is what the district committee propagandist of the Soviet era means, he knows how to cut the truth-womb, especially when she helps him to cut down a deny ...
            1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 17 2021 11: 42
      0
      Quote: Artyom Karagodin
      And what just annoys Skomorokhov is the transition to personalities

      The personality of Timokhin asked, in his opinion, "a series of deadly questions" questions. The novel gave a reasoned answer to each question, coloring some with sarcasm. Timokhin is silent. Doesn't comment in any way. Probably absent. But most likely - there is nothing to say. This is called a discussion.
  • WIKI
    WIKI April 13 2021 11: 59
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    That is, Roman did not even understand that these costs should be carried out within 40-50 years.
    Sadness :))))

    The sadness is that all these costs have to be made taking into account the cost of the raw materials that we export. "Moscow. January 27. INTERFAX.RU - According to the inventory of the economics of field development, carried out on behalf of the Russian government, out of 30 billion tons of recoverable oil reserves in Russia, only 36% is profitable in the current macroeconomic conditions." This is at a price of $ 58 per barrel.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 13 2021 12: 57
      +4
      Quote: WIKI
      According to the inventory of the economics of field development, carried out on behalf of the government of the Russian Federation, out of 30 billion tons of recoverable oil reserves in Russia, only 36% is profitable in the current macroeconomic conditions. "

      Victor, did you accidentally specify what kind of profitability it was - after the payment of the severance tax, or before? :))))))
      I guarantee - after. And the remaining 36% of profitable ones are provided by Gazprom and others like them with awesome profits. So don't worry about them
      1. WIKI
        WIKI April 16 2021 17: 51
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        crazy profits

        Rosneft's net profit decreased by 79,1% in 2020: from 705 billion rubles to 147 billion.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 17 2021 08: 52
          0
          Quote: WIKI
          Rosneft's net profit decreased by 79,1% in 2020: from RUB 705 billion to RUB 147 billion.

          For the IV quarter of 2020, net profit reached a record 324 billion rubles, thanks to which a positive financial result was ensured for the year. The company explains this indicator by the effect of non-monetary factors and the success of transactions on the Vostok Oil project, and the decline year-on-year - by the dynamics of EBITDA and the impact of exchange rate differences. EBITDA of Rosneft in 2020 fell by 42,6% compared to 2019, which, according to the company, was caused by an increase in the tax burden.
          More questions?
  • ccsr
    ccsr April 13 2021 13: 04
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    That is, Roman did not even understand that these costs should be carried out within 40-50 years.
    Sadness :))))

    Are you out of your mind when you talk about 40-50 year defense planning? Yes, during this time such weapons may appear, in comparison with which the aircraft carriers will look like the mounted armies of the Civil War in comparison with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki from strategic bombers. Wake up, you are not even able to predict what will happen to Russia in 10-15 years, but you have already swung for a fifty-year term, well, you are a dreamer ...
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Roman, you will first learn to at least read the articles of your opponents to the end :))))))

    I am not a supporter of either Roman or his opponent, but I only adhere to common sense, which is inherent in most service people, and from this point of view I agree with Skomorokhov, because he is more of a realist and evaluates the situation more carefully. As for the combat use of Russian aircraft carriers, I believe that such tasks simply do not exist in our military doctrine for the next decade. And in the future it will not appear - all this is a whim of narrow-minded people in politics and military affairs, who simply cannot foresee the future development of military affairs.
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin April 13 2021 13: 12
      -2
      evaluates the situation more carefully

      I wouldn't say ... There are so many emotions in his position that it is difficult to talk about any real assessment of the situation.
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 17 2021 11: 46
        -1
        You just don't see the forest behind the trees.
    2. Anzhey V.
      Anzhey V. April 13 2021 14: 01
      0
      Are you out of your mind when you talk about 40-50 year defense planning? Yes, during this time, such weapons may appear, in comparison with which the aircraft carriers will look like the mounted armies of the Civil War in comparison with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki from strategic bombers


      Although we did not find a common language before, I completely and absolutely agree with this statement.

      The same battleships became obsolete in less than half a century - and during this period Russia twice tried to start a large-scale program of their construction.
    3. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 April 13 2021 15: 24
      -1
      Quote: ccsr
      As for the combat use of Russian aircraft carriers, I believe that such tasks simply do not exist in our military doctrine for the next decade.

      And who could have assumed in 2006 that in the next decade we would trample on to Syria, bombing some organization on distant lines?

      Quote: ccsr
      And in the future it will not appear - all this is a whim of narrow-minded people in politics and military affairs.

      Are you talking about our supreme so? Tomorrow he will order to bomb the Somali pirates, and what shall we do?
      1. ccsr
        ccsr April 13 2021 18: 51
        +2
        Quote: Mordvin 3
        And who could have assumed in 2006 that in the next decade we would trample on to Syria, bombing some organization on distant lines?

        And what did the aircraft carrier bring us in Syria besides a headache? Yes, some launches from our submarines are an order of magnitude higher in importance for the security of the country than everything that we received from our aircraft carrier. Nafig was he needed there, if the Aerospace Forces already worked from different airfields?
        Quote: Mordvin 3
        Are you talking about our supreme so? Tomorrow he will order to bomb the Somali pirates, and what shall we do?

        He does not order - he was already burned in Syria, and does not know how to get out of there. And he learns his lessons well when he makes mistakes, which is why they put an end to the aircraft carriers.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 18 June 2021 19: 30
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          He does not order - he was already burned in Syria, and does not know how to get out of there. And he learns his lessons well when he makes mistakes, which is why they put an end to the aircraft carriers.

          I don’t see Putin’s mistakes here. The goal was “to prevent the emergence of a radical mono-religious theocratic state near the Russian Federation”, which was created by ISIS (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation), the task is completed, the base is used for training the Aerospace Forces, I don’t care about Assad, Turkey and Erdogan, the main thing so as not to interfere ...
    4. t-12
      t-12 April 14 2021 13: 42
      0
      Are you out of your mind when you talk about 40-50 year defense planning?
      Americans are quietly planning for decades. Take the UDC "America" ​​- construction there is planned until 2054, and operation - until 2099.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr April 14 2021 17: 54
        0
        Quote: t-12
        Americans are quietly planning for decades. Take the UDC "America" ​​- construction there is planned until 2054, and operation - until 2099.

        Why not plan for those who will not live up to this time? I can also "guarantee" you that by 2054 the United States will not exist at all, and several states will emerge on its fragments. So we don't need aircraft carriers at all. Why is my forecast worse than American forecasts?
        1. t-12
          t-12 April 14 2021 19: 37
          0
          Who is this "not going to live"? The dynasties of any Rockefellers and Rothschilds are hundreds of years old, they pass the loot and power from generation to generation and think in very long terms.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr April 14 2021 21: 31
            -1
            Quote: t-12
            Who is this "not going to live"?

            I am exactly. I can't say anything about the other authors of the VO forum, but many of them will not live up to this date either.
            Quote: t-12
            The dynasties of any Rockefellers and Rothschilds are hundreds of years old, they pass the loot and power from generation to generation and think in very long terms.

            Are you part of their circle, or have they shared their plans with you?
  • Niko
    Niko April 13 2021 10: 50
    +2
    The only part to become worth thinking about is a call to try to listen to Andrei from the glorious city of Chelyabinsk, and attempts to count money and not shout at once that there is none (again, a reference to Andrei)
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 13 2021 10: 53
    +3
    Got it, not! (I would not understand ...) In general, RuF is not a very cool man at all ... which means: 1. stretch your legs on clothes; 2. do not sit in someone else's sleigh; 3. take seats according to the purchased tickets; 4. our calves and the wolf would be lifted up!; 5. do not teach your father e..ge to take; 6. every cricket know your six; 7. I just get caught ... drunk and tied up !; 8. Russia is not a superpower! Power? Perhaps ... it may well be ... a regional power! But both Iran and Turkey are now actively fighting for the title of "regional power"! Although, perhaps, not quite so! And this is “not entirely true” “thanks to the possession of nuclear weapons and the“ old connections ”of the USSR! Russia occupies an intermediate position between a superpower and a regional power in several "parameters"; but not all! In a number of, for example, economic aspects, the Russian Federation, perhaps, is inferior even to some candidates for regional powers ... In general, the recommendations of the "leading experts": to behave "more modestly" and not promise to "stuff everyone in the face"! Do you agree or how?
    1. Couchexpert
      Couchexpert April 13 2021 16: 27
      +2
      Agree. And also "did the job - a woman with a cart", "did not boast about the army going, but boast about going s_rati", "whoever comes to us with what for, that from this and that" and in general "you know less - you sleep better.
  • clerk
    clerk April 13 2021 10: 55
    -1
    .Whose interests will the valiant aircraft carrier fleet protect? Russia? Sorry, private companies that do business in Africa are not Russia. Lukoil, Gazprom and Rosneft, for whose interests the show began and continues in Syria, are also not entirely Russia.
    Gazprom and Rosneft are state-owned companies and donors to the Russian budget.
    1. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. April 13 2021 14: 29
      0
      [quote = clerk] Gazprom and Rosneft are state-owned companies and donors to the Russian budget. [/ quote]

      Or black holes for your budget?
      Payments to top managers are comparable to the budgets of small towns of the district scale.
      [quote] Alexey Borisovich, as the chief manager of Russia's largest state-owned enterprise of resources, receives the maximum salary at the enterprise - 58,1 million rubles or a little more than $ 836 thousand per month. [/ Quote]
      Information taken from: https://ostrovrusa.ru/zarplata-millera Figures provided by the financial publication Forbes.
      [quote] [quote]according to the Rosneft report, in 2018, eleven members of the board, including the chairman, were paid 3 rubles (THREE BILLION eight hundred twenty-nine million ....) The amounts that Sechin earns were calculated by the media on the basis of submitted declarations, annual and quarterly reports of Rosneft.
      Igor Sechin's annual earnings as head of Rosneft, excluding additional payments, can range from 180 to 240 million rubles,
      one-time bonus at the end of the year - 150% of the amount of the annual monetary remuneration (ie, from 270 to 360 million rubles); [/ quote]
      Information taken from: https://ostrovrusa.ru/zarplata-sechina
      1. clerk
        clerk April 13 2021 14: 58
        0
        Rosneft ”is a state-owned company and donors to the Russian budget.


        ... Or black holes for your budget?
        Payments to top managers are comparable to the budgets of small towns on a regional scale.
        .
        ... according to the Rosneft report, in 2018, eleven board members, including the chairman, were paid 3 rubles (THREE BILLION eight hundred twenty-nine million ...
        ... Turnover
        ▼ RUB 5,76 trillion (2020)
        Operating profit
        ▼ 378 billion ₽ (2020)
        Net profit
        ▼ 181 billion ₽ (2020)
        list of Assets
        ▲ 15,4 trillion ₽ (2020)
        Capitalization
        4,33 trillion rubles.
        $ 67,9 billion (26.03.2019/XNUMX/XNUMX). For what remuneration would you personally and your friends or relatives agree to manage Rosneft?
  • Jcvai
    Jcvai April 13 2021 10: 58
    +1
    Russia does not and will not have money

    Too categorical. Do not take into account the revolutionary-nationalization options, which in the conditions of recent crises is not so utopian.

    Those. Without significant changes in the economy and domestic politics, there is no sense in an aircraft carrier fleet, because there is nothing to build and maintain. Now, at the moment and taking into account the current attendant factors. Strategic troops for containment, FSB / border guards for territorial and customs control, and VVs / Rosgvardia for internal use - everything that can be effectively invested in the budget, IMHO. The rest is just to reduce the backlog and maintain the scientific and technological component.
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 April 13 2021 12: 01
      +5
      Rosgvardiya

      Always amazed by this nickname .. Until now I believed that in Russia the Guards are units that showed special stamina and courage in battles for the Motherland .. Not - I certainly understand that to beat people who are deprived of even the right to answer you - you need some special qualities, but this is definitely not stamina or courage ..
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 13 2021 12: 19
        +2
        Quote: paul3390
        Until now, I believed that in Russia the Guards are units that have shown special stamina and courage in the battles for the Motherland ..

        In Russia there were all kinds of things. In the Empire, the Guard at one time was almost a janissary corps: Something we do not want to go to war with the Swedes ... Oh! Let’s put the new empress on the throne - and we will stay in St. Petersburg!... In general, the guard, in fact, was supposed to be the support of the Surname against the external and internal enemy (guardia - protection, protection).
        In the current Russian Federation, the honorary title of "Guards" was devalued long before the RG - when, as a result of disbandments, reductions and mergers, the majority of units and formations became guards. And not for merit, but by inheritance: someone got it from the abbreviated unit, which the surviving part was part of, someone from the guards unit that became part of it, etc. There are rumors about the guards units of the rear and the guards BHVT. smile
        The case of total "guardization" of the Armed Forces took on such a scale that the Ministry of Defense had to invent a new honorary term to denote distinguished units and formations - "shock".
  • Phoenix
    Phoenix April 13 2021 11: 19
    +2
    Somehow you have a lot of emotions, you express yourself no better than your opponent. It became unpleasant for both of you to read.
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 13 2021 11: 32
    -1
    He would also suggest aircraft-carrying airships. Joker.
  • Andshhuk
    Andshhuk April 13 2021 11: 41
    +3
    Emotions again. Some emotions and attempts to pretend to be white and fluffy. There is no specifics.
  • Walking
    Walking April 13 2021 11: 45
    +3
    Timokhin raises evil topics on the shortcomings of the Russian fleet, about torpedoes, missiles, air defense and anti-aircraft missiles of ships that are inferior to potential opponents and judging by how some "iksperdy" who are trying to lower him below the plinth have become active here, writes the truth. Mmdaa something Military Review turns into a yellow edition.
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad April 13 2021 11: 55
    +1
    First the author of the article

    I would say it is the weakest of all, because it relies on numerous “ifs”. Which is generally unacceptable for a person who considers himself an expert.


    and then he gives out

    If the Kuznetsov's planes had ventured to operate in the same mode as the Su-34 land bombers from the same 47th mixed air regiment were plowing, then in a week the cruiser deck would be empty.


    and then "Ostap suffered" and built all his argumentation in the answer on this very "if only".

    Everything is much simpler.

    Does Russia need aircraft carriers? - Yes, we do.

    Should the number of aircraft carrier groups in Russia be the same as that of the United States? - No, two AUGs, led by modern aircraft carriers, are quite enough. These are modern projects, not the Kuzi project more than forty years ago, which are being made in the PRC.

    Does Russia's lack of AUG at the moment have a significant impact on its defense capability? - No, it does not, and with the development of hypersonic weapons, the value of AUG will only decrease, but this does not mean that they need to be completely abandoned, since in terms of demonstrating the AUG flag, it will still be of great importance.
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 13 2021 20: 01
      -1
      = No, it does not, and with the development of hypersonic weapons, the AUG value will only decrease. =
      Does your logic bother you at all?
      You forgot that the GZ weapon can stand in service with the AUG / fleet. Moreover, with the appearance of hypersonic RSDs, the entire current airfield fortification will become obsolete at once and the future will become more expensive. But nobody canceled the advantage of AUG in nonstationarity / secrecy. That is, this is the problem of the opponents of the AUG - coastal aviation primarily.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 April 13 2021 11: 59
    +4
    It's time to take administrative measures and stop this "carrier bacchanalia"!
  • savage1976
    savage1976 April 13 2021 11: 59
    0
    Pretty boy.
  • Nyrobsky
    Nyrobsky April 13 2021 12: 05
    +2
    It is bad when the authors transfer their views "on a topic" from the category of discussed, to the category of public showdowns, because the topic ceases to be discussed in principle, and the discussion degenerates into a dispute.
    What should be in the final? Public refusal of one of the parties from their view of the problem? But what about those who share the point of view of one of the authors and do not share the point of view of the other? To create two fan clubs and - "place your bets gentlemen"? There is doubt about reaching an acceptable consensus, since the presence of an administrative resource at one of the parties, that is another argument in the dispute. Starting with neutral-conciliatory -
    Perhaps I'll start by expressing my surprise with this phrase:
    “The reason for this lies in the fact that the consciousness of a significant part of our citizens still bears clear signs of such a pre-industrial era, and such complex issues as the Navy, they just don't fit in their heads».
    Well, seriously, why such aggression?
    The author nevertheless also surprises with the phrase addressed to the author to the opponent

    And you do not want to tear yourself away from the sofa and take part in such an "operation" yourself? On the sofa, it is, of course, more comfortable. "Di erst to the marshirt column ...".
    I believe that the format of communication without the transition to personalities is more in demand, even in the comments, even in the articles. Both authors are right about something, wrong about something, each has its own arguments and counter-arguments, but somehow the duel must be avoided.
    PS- The correctness of one or the other should be assessed not by those who smear whom more beautifully, but by how readers vote under the content of the article.
    PPS- The need for the presence of an aircraft carrier fleet, or its absence, does not come from the principle "I think so, or so it seems to me", but from the Military Doctrine of Russia and the list of tasks that are laid down in it. Our Doctrine is of a defensive nature and does not provide for the conduct of offensive, aggressive wars. This is where we come from.
    1. NAVY
      NAVY April 13 2021 13: 07
      -1
      The aircraft carrier group will be very useful to us when protecting our foreign policy interests off the coast of the allied states, in the same Syria, for example. So everything fits into the Doctrine.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 19: 16
        +3
        Quote: NAVY
        very useful

        What for?
  • Roman070280
    Roman070280 April 13 2021 12: 12
    -4
    Above there was a dispute - is this our country, or not ours ..
    And the author already had an answer in the article ..
    Lukoil, Gazprom and Rosneft, for whose interests the show began and continues in Syria, are also not entirely Russia.


    Well, about the fact that, in particular, Gazprom is "our" national property - we have already heard anecdotes ..))
    1. clerk
      clerk April 13 2021 13: 09
      0
      ... Lukoil "," Gazprom "and" Rosneft ", for whose interests the show began and continues in Syria - this is also not exactly Russia.


      Well, about the fact that, in particular, Gazprom is "our" national property - we have already heard anecdotes ..))
      Anecdotes are a good thing. In the smoking room or at a party. But you are pretending to discuss serious issues. Therefore, the question to you is - have you tried to work with more serious sources?
      1. Roman070280
        Roman070280 April 13 2021 13: 14
        -3
        In the smoking room or at a party.

        On all the channels on TV they played ... much more serious ..

        PS .. although, as I understand it, you are just one of those who took these jokes for the truth, and believes that Gazprom is his ..))
        1. clerk
          clerk April 13 2021 13: 51
          -1
          ... PS .. although, as I understand it, you are just one of those who took these jokes for the truth, and believes that Gazprom is his ..))
          Unlike the illiterate clickers and ideological windbaggers, I have a habit of double-checking information.
          1. Roman070280
            Roman070280 April 13 2021 14: 45
            -1
            I have a habit of double-checking information.

            I hope we have already checked whose Gazprom is ..))
            Just don't make a mistake with the source ..))
            1. clerk
              clerk April 14 2021 08: 52
              +1
              ... I have a habit of double-checking information.

              I hope we have already checked whose Gazprom is ..))
              Just don't make a mistake with the source ..))
              Sources are open, anyone can check. Serious journalists do just that. Illiterate clickers prefer to tell nonsense without checking.
              1. Roman070280
                Roman070280 April 14 2021 09: 28
                -3
                Do you have to be a journalist to understand whose Gazprom is ??)
                For example, a certain "serious" ideological windbag Solovyov, even if he checks it, will still sresh that it all belongs to the people ..
                And yet another illiterate clicker decides that this is a reliable source ..))
  • Niko
    Niko April 13 2021 12: 20
    +1
    Roman, please do not exaggerate (or do not flatter yourself). Neither for A. Timokhin, nor even more so for Andrey from Chelyabinsk, you are not an opponent, the weight category is not the same. You are good at articles from the series about cruisers and airplanes, this is a good niche for you
    1. Walking
      Walking April 13 2021 12: 45
      +1
      Quote: Niko
      articles from the series about cruisers and planes are a good niche for you

      There are reprints from other sites, compilations without specifying sources, but even so, it is full of errors.
      1. Niko
        Niko April 13 2021 12: 46
        +1
        Quote: Hiking
        Quote: Niko
        articles from the series about cruisers and planes are a good niche for you

        There are reprints from other sites, compilations without specifying sources, but even so, it is full of errors.

        I'm in the know. Just his level
  • huntsman650
    huntsman650 April 13 2021 12: 29
    +2
    Without the wind samoli from Kuzi, only empty ones can take off! And there is no money for repairs and it is a pity to saw.
  • TerraSandera
    TerraSandera April 13 2021 12: 50
    +1
    On the topic - I'm more inclined, if not to the uselessness of aircraft carriers, rather to the fact that it is now impossible to build them with the current competencies and of course the level of corruption. one ? Not enough, you need 1. And this is on the verge of fantasy. Both on budget and on time. It has been missed. By the time they hypothetically can be built if you start now, they may cease to be relevant.
    But if you take the article itself, then this is a completely useless set of hysterical phrases in some kind of gop style, without a shadow of respect for the opponent. And, of course, I was surprised that Andrei from Chelyabinsk was chosen as an opponent, and in the article, stones and "anchors" flew mainly at Alexander.
    Ps, I do not defend, because the opinion does not coincide with them, but you must have at least some respect. Especially if at first glance, and maybe on the second and third, they are more versed in the topic.
    Much more reasoned, Voznesensky opposed them, if I am not mistaken. In a recent article.
    And yes. Whatever this government and others like them, using so many sarcastic and disrespectful epithets and praising the enemy, albeit very strong, is well unpleasant.
    1. clerk
      clerk April 13 2021 14: 23
      -2
      On the topic - I'm more inclined, if not to the uselessness of aircraft carriers, rather to the fact that it is now impossible to build them with the current competencies and of course the level of corruption. one ? Not enough, you need 1. And this is on the verge of fantasy. Both on budget and on time. It has been missed. By the time they hypothetically can be built if you start now, they may cease to be relevant.
      EXACTLY. In all three topics (Timokhin, AiCh, Skomorokhov) Initially incorrect key question. The bass question should be: WHAT aircraft carrier ships do we need? Maybe not "mini-Fords" after all, but something like a UDC with the ability to carry 15-20 fighters - bombers?
      1. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 13 2021 20: 26
        0
        It has simply been answered a hundred times already. The idea of ​​a "pocket aircraft carrier" drowned somewhere in the Falkland region.

        Shelezyak - no AWACS, no normal carrier-based aircraft (and not quantitatively or qualitatively), not too resistant to weather conditions, inhabited by the British.
        It makes sense to build this either from extreme poverty, or as an auxiliary ship in conjunction with normal aircraft carriers.
        1. clerk
          clerk April 13 2021 20: 46
          -1
          Shelezyak - no AWACS, no normal carrier-based aircraft (and not quantitatively or qualitatively), not too resistant to weather conditions, inhabited by the British.
          It makes sense to build this either from extreme poverty, or as an auxiliary ship in conjunction with normal aircraft carriers.
          In 20 kt - it makes no sense But in 40-45 kt (analogue of the UDC of the "America" ​​type) with a slightly greater bias towards striking qualities (say, for 15 strike aircraft) and less in the landing force - for Russia it is quite a suitable type for possible operations such as the Syrian one. We must abandon our dreams of fighting 1: 1 with the American AUG and cost aircraft carrier ships for realistically possible missions.
          1. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 13 2021 21: 23
            -1
            = for Russia it is quite a suitable type for possible operations like the Syrian. =
            Those. for a hefty price, you want a dedicated expedition ship. Cannot be used for anything else, see below.

            = We must abandon our dreams of a 1: 1 battle with the American AUG and cost aircraft carrier ships for realistically possible missions. =

            The battles with the American AUG were planned not because we did not like them so much, but because they were more than a real threat to the "coast" and nuclear forces. Nuclear deterrence is not a feasible task? The fact is that 1. "Tridents" really sawed for a counterforce strike. 2. They intend to supplement them with hypersonic RSDs. The prototype has already been tested. 3. Strategic submarines (SLBM / SSBN) do not "hang on the phone" all the time. After a disarming blow, the foe will have time to sink them. If no one interferes.
            And this is a miserable beginning, the levels of confrontation can be different.
            Avik is needed primarily for getting underfoot at Yu.S. Navy, then all the other nice options.

            = But in 40-45 kt =
            1. This is for FAST slaughter. America is so slow - 22 knots. That is, you are already in the minority, so also nothing prevents you from piling up in a heap, fully realizing the advantage.
            2. This is for the near field. America is so because it is non-nuclear. The Americans have bases everywhere, but what about us?
            3. If you think that you will save proportionally simply on displacement, then in vain. The larger the ship, the cheaper, all other things being equal, the cost of displacement for purely geometric reasons.
            4. If you think that the effectiveness of the air group will fall in proportion to the size, then too in vain. The principle of the overwhelming mass works here, hitting three at once is more effective than approaching one at a time. Well, etc.
            1. clerk
              clerk April 13 2021 22: 26
              +1
              ... Those. for a hefty price, you want a dedicated expedition ship. Cannot be used for anything else, see below.
              You can, as you say, "get underfoot", as well as an anti-aircraft defense and a little air defense.
              ... = But in 40-45 kt =
              1. This is for FAST slaughter. America is so slow - 22 knots. That is, you are already in the minority, so also nothing prevents you from piling up in a heap, fully realizing the advantage.
              All this will be true in relation to any AB that Russia can build. I’m saying - leave the dreams of AUG battles.
              ... ... This is for the near field. America is so because it is non-nuclear. The Americans have bases everywhere, but what about us?
              This is a technical and solvable question.
              3. If you think that you will save proportionally simply on displacement, then in vain. The larger the ship, the cheaper, all other things being equal, the cost of displacement for purely geometric reasons.
              Yes, Cap. But we are talking about what can be embodied in metal, and not only in fruitless wishes.
              ... 4. If you think that the effectiveness of the air group will fall in proportion to the size, then too in vain. The principle of the overwhelming mass works here, hitting three at once is more effective than approaching one at a time. Well, etc.
              See answer to item 3.
              1. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 13 2021 23: 02
                0
                = You can, as you say, "get underfoot", as well as an ASW and a little air defense =
                Of course not. When eight-node lagging behind the "standard" that something American will seriously interact with it only if it wants to, and it wants only with such an advantage that this thing will be enough for a couple of minutes.
                Well little things
                With the ratio of air groups, the apparatus of 1/3 to the normal AB, it cannot attack even a single AUG (they will be crushed almost without losses), defend the vehicle, and escape from the enemy too. The only benefit is the missile enemy will spend.

                = All this will be true in relation to any AB that Russia can build.
                =
                Of course not. If the speed is the same, then it will be very difficult to pile up in a heap, if more - it is almost impossible at all. Worse, the superior in speed can create a local advantage with fewer numbers.

                = This is a technical and resolvable issue. =
                Do you really think that it will be very cheap to build and maintain 100500 bases? And very reliable? At the same time, with the costs of the bases, we also get a "dove of peace", capable of hunting only other UDCs in theory. But that's in theory.

                = But we are talking about what can be embodied in metal, and not only in fruitless wishes. =
                There are practically no technical restrictions on the construction of a normal-sized aircraft carrier. All that is needed is some refinement with the infrastructure file.
                1. clerk
                  clerk April 13 2021 23: 20
                  +1
                  . Could, as you say "get underfoot", as well as ASW and a little air defense =
                  Of course not. With an eight-node lag behind the "standard", something American will seriously interact with it only if it wants to itself, and it wants it only with such an advantage that this thing will last for a couple of minutes.
                  you can put a more powerful nuclear power plant.
                  ... All this will be true in relation to any AB that Russia can build.
                  =
                  Of course not. If the speed is the same, then it will be very difficult to pile up in a heap, if more - it is almost impossible at all. Worse, the superior in speed can create a local advantage with fewer numbers.
                  You stopped in your views somewhere in the 30s. 20th century.
                  ... = This is a technical issue and can be solved. =
                  Do you really think that it will be very cheap to build and maintain 100500 bases? And very reliable? At the same time, with the costs of the bases, we also get a "dove of peace", capable of hunting only other UDCs in theory. But that's in theory.
                  Multipurpose ship with nuclear power.
                  ... = But we are talking about what can be embodied in metal, and not only in fruitless wishes. =
                  There are practically no technical restrictions on the construction of a normal-sized aircraft carrier. All that is needed is some refinement with the infrastructure file.
                  Have you even finished high school?
                  1. Alarmist79
                    Alarmist79 April 14 2021 00: 06
                    0
                    Quote: clerk
                    you can put a more powerful nuclear power plant.

                    You might think that you are the first with such a priceless idea. Then you get "Charles de Gaulle", which cost the French 5 billion at current prices, but more expensive, since SDG is 27 knots. And at the same time the curve / oblique is strange.
                    Moreover, the "Queen" is even cheaper by 70 thousand.
                    Holy confidence that it will be possible to save a lot just on tonnage, it is so yes.

                    Quote: clerk
                    You stopped in your views somewhere in the 30s. 20th century

                    As I understand it, you are in greasy mriyas, that your wunderwafele has 4 Hawks on board and awareness like the Nimitz? And Hawkeye himself - stealth invisible to the world?

                    = Multipurpose ship with nuclear power. =
                    Well, already something, yes.

                    = Have you at least finished high school? =
                    Do you all stay in kindergarten? What is not clear to you in two elementary sentences?
                    1. clerk
                      clerk April 14 2021 06: 03
                      0
                      ... you can put a more powerful nuclear power plant.

                      You might think that you are the first with such a priceless idea. Then you get "Charles de Gaulle", which cost the French 5 billion at current prices, but more expensive, since SDG is 27 knots. And at the same time the curve / oblique is strange.
                      Moreover, the "Queen" is even cheaper by 70 thousand.
                      Holy confidence that it will be possible to save a lot just on tonnage, it is so yes.
                      That is, you are seriously sure that if you build 40 kt, then the price will be like de Gaulle, and if you build 100 kt, then the price will be like Nimtz? Holy naivete.
                      ... You stopped in your views somewhere in the 30s. 20th century

                      As I understand it, you are in greasy mriyas, that your wunderwafele has 4 Hawks on board and awareness like the Nimitz? And Hawkeye himself - stealth invisible to the world?
                      Let people who are more knowledgeable in the work of the human brain comment on your inventions. First, you will decide what tasks do you want to set for the new Russian AV? Because "getting underfoot" and "measuring with pipis" is a kindergarten.
                      ... Did you at least graduate from high school? =
                      Do you all stay in kindergarten? What is not clear to you in two elementary sentences?
                      I do not understand - is this your manilovism from a lack of life experience and knowledge, or what is a character trait?
                      1. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 10: 06
                        0
                        Quote: clerk
                        That is, you are seriously sure that if you build 40 kt, then the price will be like de Gaulle, and if you build 100 kt, then the price will be like Nimtz? Holy naivete.

                        I am firmly convinced that hopes to build an aircraft carrier for 40 thousand at least proportionally cheaper than an aircraft carrier for 100 thousand are real, as the European future of Gabon (in the sense of both)

                        = First, you will decide what tasks do you want to set for the new Russian AV? Because "getting underfoot" and "measuring with pipis" is a kindergarten. =
                        Those. Do you childishly dig into the form in which they explained this to you? Not an office clerk - does it mean that you are in the house and does not count? "Pipiski" have already gone into business, there is no poop yet, but I think soon.

                        = I don't understand - is this your manilovism from a lack of life experience and knowledge, or what is a character trait? =
                        You haven't read Andrey's article from Chelyabinsk and his comments, and that's why you decided to boast of sacred knowledge and rich life experience (tm)?
                        And who is the source of the sacred - the cleaning lady Maryvanna or just a taxi driver?
                      2. clerk
                        clerk April 14 2021 11: 23
                        0
                        I am firmly convinced that hopes to build an aircraft carrier for 40 thousand at least proportionally cheaper than an aircraft carrier for 100 thousand are real, as the European future of Gabon (in the sense of both)
                        I assumed that for you, faith replaces all other arguments. But with questions of faith - this is for the priests.
                        ... = First, you will decide what tasks do you want to set for the new Russian AV? Because "getting underfoot" and "measuring with pipis" is a kindergarten. =
                        //////:::Those. you childishly get to the bottom of the form. Not an office clerk - does it mean that you are in the house and does not count?
                        Not. I have asked a question in essence in a form that is understandable for you. You are reducing the answer to bickering over form. Which means that essentially you have no answer.
                        ... manilovism from a lack of life experience and knowledge, or how is there a character trait? =
                        You haven't read Andrey's article from Chelyabinsk and his comments, and that's why you decided to boast of sacred knowledge and rich life experience (tm)?
                        I read his article. A good start and a completely crumpled ending. There is also a lot of manilovism. He did not clarify the most important thing. I asked him my questions and am waiting for an answer.
                      3. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 11: 42
                        +1
                        Quote: clerk
                        I assumed that for you, faith replaces all other arguments. But with questions of faith - this is for the priests.


                        Mirror recklessly. I gave specific projects and their cost, you are a deep inner conviction. But you decided to finally fall into childhood, having crookedly interpreted "I believe."

                        Quote: clerk
                        Not. I have asked a question in essence in a form that is understandable for you.

                        You answered it in a form that is understandable to you. Moreover, it is quite deployed in terms of the threats posed by the American fleet frolicking off our coast. Do you understand "getting in the way" as it literally, or?

                        Quote: clerk
                        A good start and a completely crumpled ending. There is also a lot of manilovism

                        Did you come to this conclusion based on your rich life experience (tm)? How deep you are in the topic of shipbuilding can be clearly seen.
                      4. clerk
                        clerk April 14 2021 12: 21
                        0
                        ... approximately so I assumed that for faith replaces all other arguments for you. But with questions of faith - this is for the priests.


                        Mirror recklessly. I gave specific projects and their cost, you are a deep inner conviction. But you decided to finally fall into childhood, having crookedly interpreted "I believe."
                        ... You have compared the cost of a single ship in one country to the cost of twice the production ship in another. And they extrapolated three times the option to Russia. That there is the height of economic illiteracy and manilovism.
                        .Not. I have asked a question in essence in a form that is understandable for you.

                        You answered it in a form that is understandable to you. Moreover, it is quite deployed in terms of the threats posed by the American fleet frolicking off our coast. Do you understand "getting in the way" as it literally, or?
                        I realized that you have a porridge in your mind from the description of the practice of the Soviet Navy's combat service in tracking the AUG and the local story about the bloody AUG raid on Kamchatka in 1982. Moreover, this porridge is terribly divorced from the current reality simply due to a different level of technology development.
                        ... A good start and a completely crumpled ending. There is also a lot of manilovism

                        Did you come to this conclusion based on your rich life experience (tm)? How deep you are in the topic of shipbuilding can be clearly seen.
                        Excuse me, besides high school, what kind of education do you have - shipbuilding or what?
                      5. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 13: 35
                        +1
                        Quote: clerk
                        You compared the cost of a single ship in one country to the cost of twice the production ship in another
                        .

                        There is no bottom. ShdG was planned as the lead in a series of two. Queen Elizabeth is also the head and also of the two. Worth 4,1 billion in dollars.
                        At the same time, the average salary in Britain and France is almost exactly the same. So, what do you have there is radically different on different sides of the strait 20 km? Or did it not come to geography in your vocational school?
                        The really key difference between SdG and Queens is in the power plant. But you didn't know about it.
                        By the way, you don't even look at Wiki on principle before expressing your invaluable expert opinion, or what?

                        Quote: clerk
                        extrapolated three times the option to Russia.
                        =
                        And in your delusional, let's be honest, reality, in the Russian Federation, "golden" steel for cases and at the same time penny cars / electronics? It's spring now, yes ...

                        Quote: clerk
                        That there is the height of economic illiteracy and manilovism.

                        You will talk about illiteracy when you have mastered geography in the sixth grade. Of course, to fifth graders.

                        Quote: clerk
                        I realized that you have a mess in your mind from the description of the practice of the combat service of the Soviet Navy in tracking the AUG and the local story about the bloody AUG raid on Kamchatka in 1982.


                        That is, for you, VO is the only source of knowledge? Well, who would have doubted.
                        Especially for characters with rich life experience (tm). - there is a huge pile of articles and literature on this topic, both in the West and in our country. Why did you pester the taxi drivers, it's a simple mystery.

                        Quote: clerk
                        Moreover, this mess is terribly divorced from the current reality simply due to a different level of technology development.

                        Attempts to portray a connoisseur with which from your side look especially ridiculous. So, enlighten what has changed in the best sinceThoron? Or now again there will be references to secret knowledge and taxi driver Maryvanna? What did the plumber Vasily say?

                        = Excuse me, besides high school, what kind of education do you have - shipbuilding or some other? =
                        No no no. Now I ask. So, the Prosezabornoguzaderischensky Research Institute of Zaborostroenya is incredibly cool for you. Did you fail to study accounting clerks in vocational schools?
                      6. clerk
                        clerk April 14 2021 16: 02
                        0
                        ... You compared the cost of a single ship in one country to the cost of twice the production ship in another
                        .

                        There is no bottom. ShdG was planned as the lead in a series of two. Queen Elizabeth is also the head and also of the two. Worth 4,1 billion in dollars.
                        At the same time, the average salary in Britain and France is almost exactly the same. So, what do you have there is radically different on different sides of the strait 20 km? Or did it not come to geography in your vocational school?
                        The really key difference between SdG and Queens is in the power plant. But you didn't know about it.
                        By the way, you don't even look at Wiki on principle before expressing your invaluable expert opinion, or what?
                        SdG was compared to the serial Nimitz (twice as large). Therefore, your antics with the EC (which cannot withstand Nimitz) is not counted.
                        ... You will talk about illiteracy when you have mastered geography in the sixth grade. Of course, to fifth graders. That is, for you, VO is the only source of knowledge? Well, who would have doubted.
                        Especially for characters with rich life experience (tm). - there is a huge pile of articles and literature on this topic, both in the West and in our country. Why did you pester the taxi drivers, it's a mystery. Attempts to portray a connoisseur with which from your side look especially ridiculous. So, enlighten, what has changed for the better? Or now again there will be references to secret knowledge and taxi driver Maryvanna? What did the plumber Vasily say? Now I ask. So, the Prosezabornoguzaderischensky Research Institute of Zaborostroenya is incredibly cool for you. Did you fail to study at the vocational school as an accountant?
                        I have an economic education. What is yours?
                      7. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 18: 08
                        +1
                        Quote: clerk
                        SdG was compared to the serial Nimitz (twice as large). Therefore, your antics with the EC (which cannot withstand Nimitz) is not counted.


                        And you seem to be a masochist. Contemporary ShdG "Reagan"
                        "The budget of the ship had to be increased several times. $ 4,5 billion. "

                        Quote: clerk
                        I have an economic education. What is your

                        I won't even ask about the level, it's too cruel. And I am a biology-geography, plus a lawyer, at one time I successfully entered the Polytechnic University. But by 16, due to specific relatives, the technique managed to annoy me, hmm.
                      8. clerk
                        clerk April 14 2021 18: 36
                        0
                        .And you seem to be a masochist. Contemporary ShdG "Reagan"
                        "The budget of the ship had to be increased several times. As a result, 4,5 billion dollars were spent on its construction."
                        Wonderful. Now a very simple question - how much is a single (in fact) ship more expensive for a ton of standard displacement than a serial one ?!
                        ... I have an economic education. What is your

                        I won't even ask about the level, it's too cruel. And I am a biology-geography, plus a lawyer, at one time I successfully entered the Polytechnic University. But by 16, due to specific relatives, the technique managed to annoy me, hmm.
                        I do not quite understand - in what areas do you have diplomas of higher or secondary specialized education?
                      9. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 19: 26
                        0
                        = Great. Now a very simple question - how much per ton of standard displacement a single (in fact) ship is more expensive than a serial one?! =

                        I told you that you are a masochist. The first Nimitz was worth $ 5 billion at current prices.

                        = I don't quite understand - in what areas do you have diplomas of higher or secondary special education? =

                        Read carefully. Mnu preferred biology to glands. Then.
                      10. clerk
                        clerk April 14 2021 20: 07
                        +1
                        ... Now a very simple question - how much per ton of standard displacement a single (in fact) ship is more expensive than a serial one?! =

                        I told you that you are a masochist. The first Nimitz was worth $ 5 billion at current prices.
                        You could not answer an elementary question - to compare prices per ton of standard displacement of ShdG and Reagan. Why - do you have difficulty understanding or problems with arithmetic?
                        ... Mnu preferred biology to glands. Then.
                        Well thank you. But again you did not answer the question - did you manage to get a diploma in biology or not?
                      11. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 20: 26
                        0
                        Quote: clerk
                        You could not answer an elementary question - to compare prices per ton of standard displacement of ShdG and Reagan. Why - do you have difficulty understanding or problems with arithmetic?


                        Those. you haven't even mastered the calculator? So in which scientific research institute of brush breeding you did not finish your studies, "economist"? This is not to mention the fact that not being able to count in the mind when linked to mathematics - this is a special talent needed. Almost a GIFT.

                        = Ok, thanks. But you again did not answer the question - did you manage to get a diploma in biology or not? =
                        Got it, of course. When will there be a question about card number and pincode?
                      12. clerk
                        clerk April 14 2021 22: 14
                        +1
                        ... You could not answer an elementary question - to compare prices per ton of standard displacement of ShdG and Reagan. Why - do you have difficulty understanding or problems with arithmetic?

                        Those. you haven't even mastered the calculator? So in which scientific research institute of brush breeding you did not finish your studies, "economist"? This is not to mention the fact that not being able to count in the mind when linked to mathematics - this is a special talent needed. Almost a GIFT.
                        That is, you have difficulty understanding the issue. This explains a lot.
                        . You again did not answer the question - did you manage to get a diploma in biology or not? =
                        Got it, of course. When will there be a question about the card number and pincode
                        ... How deep you are in the topic of shipbuilding can be clearly seen.
                        Now even without a pin-col you can see what all your "argumentation" is worth, dear you are our "expert in shipbuilding." laughing
                      13. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 22: 59
                        +1
                        = That is, you have difficulty understanding the question. This explains a lot. =
                        No, you have difficulties with arithmetic for the fifth grade.

                        = Now, even without a pin-call, you can see what all your "argumentation" is worth, =
                        Okay. Let's go the hard way. How many times is 5/42 more than 4,5 / 101? Or do you want to throw off a skin shot of the screen with a calculator? And then suddenly ...
                      14. clerk
                        clerk April 15 2021 05: 09
                        0
                        .Let's go the hard way. How many times is 5/42 more than 4,5 / 101? Or do you want to throw off a skin shot of the screen with a calculator? And then suddenly ...
                        I can see that you are eager to demonstrate your calculator skills, but you are in a hurry. First you need to find out your understanding of the essence of the issue. Formulate the name of the indicator that you want to compare using the calculation of these fractions. Whatever you say later, they say that was not what was meant. Go ahead, don't hesitate.
                      15. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 15 2021 08: 44
                        0
                        Let us state.
                        1 You no longer remember what you asked
                        2. Not able to lift eyes higher on the branch
                        3. Didn't find calculator
                        I can help with the latter right away
                      16. clerk
                        clerk April 15 2021 11: 24
                        0
                        .Constituting.
                        1 You no longer remember what you asked
                        2. Not able to lift eyes higher on the branch
                        3. Didn't find calculator
                        I can help with the latter right away
                        .
                        ... You could not answer an elementary question - to compare prices per ton of standard displacement of ShdG and Reagan. Why - do you have difficulty understanding or problems with arithmetic?
                        So what's your problem?
                      17. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 15 2021 11: 52
                        -1
                        Makarenko's laurels haunt me. He coped with the crowd of street children, and I can't teach you how to use a calculator. How to live?
                      18. clerk
                        clerk April 15 2021 14: 37
                        +1
                        Makarenko's laurels haunt me. He coped with the crowd of street children, and I can't teach you how to use a calculator. How to live ?.
                        Have you tried to work?
                      19. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 15 2021 15: 12
                        -1
                        What for? If you are b / m typical, I will get rich on one calculation training. What can we say about the column count.
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 14 2021 10: 50
    0
    By the way, what kind of life experience do you have? Did they build aircraft carriers and were wounded on the Kolchak fronts?
  • clerk
    clerk April 14 2021 11: 25
    0
    ... By the way, what kind of life experience do you have? Did they build aircraft carriers and were wounded on the Kolchak fronts?
    You first answer the question about your graduation from high school, and then ask your personal ones. laughing
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 14 2021 11: 51
    +1
    I do that. So what is there for the source of "knowledge and life experience" (tm)? Production of combs for the left heel or a megaproject for the development of a summer cottage on 6 acres? Or sit-down strength tests with breakthrough results?
  • clerk
    clerk April 14 2021 12: 27
    0
    ... By the way, what kind of life experience do you have? Did they build aircraft carriers and were wounded on the Kolchak fronts?
    Experience in bringing cunning people to clean water.
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 14 2021 14: 25
    0
    Quote: clerk
    Experience in bringing cunning people to clean water.

    In the sense of MMM, they gave one apartment, not two?
  • clerk
    clerk April 14 2021 15: 30
    +1
    ... Experience in bringing cunning people to clean water.

    In the sense of MMM, they gave one apartment, not two?
    I didn’t give anything to MMM. Although the barkers there were an order of magnitude steeper than your campaigning for AB. At approximately the same level of argumentation. laughing
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 14 2021 18: 16
    0
    = With approximately the same level of argumentation. =
    And this is not my reasoning. MO, by the way, is also going to abuse your concept. I guarantee it.
  • clerk
    clerk April 14 2021 18: 39
    0
    ... = With approximately the same level of argumentation. =
    And this is not my reasoning. MO, by the way, is also going to abuse your concept. I guarantee it.
    Are you all so versatile and have a relation to the Ministry of Defense? Wonderful. Did you serve as an urgent or a career officer?
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 14 2021 19: 53
    +1
    I just imagine the level of toughness required to do this. In this case, the substances will not help, in the MO tests.
  • clerk
    clerk April 14 2021 20: 10
    0
    ... Are you all so diverse and have a relation to the MO? Wonderful. Did you serve as an urgent or a career officer?
    .
    I just imagine the level of toughness required to do this. In this case, the substances will not help, in the MO tests ..
    Are you a "jacket" or were you simply not taken into the army?
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 14 2021 20: 36
    0
    I am a partisan. And in general on a mission. Undermining of tracks, abutments, bridges and overpasses. Have you seen holes in the asphalt? It's all me.
  • clerk
    clerk April 14 2021 22: 07
    0
    ... Are you a "jacket" or were you simply not taken into the army? ///// I am a partisan. And in general on a mission. Undermining of tracks, abutments, bridges and overpasses. Have you seen holes in the asphalt? It's all me.
    Gnawed out of anger?
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 14 2021 23: 07
    +1
    What a difficult relationship you have with asphalt. Is it because you are a skating rink? Let's talk about this.
  • clerk
    clerk April 15 2021 05: 17
    0
    ... I am a partisan. And in general on a mission. Undermining of tracks, abutments, bridges and overpasses. Have you seen holes in the asphalt? It's all me.
    ... . What a difficult relationship you have with the asphalt. Is it because you are a skating rink? Let's talk about this.
    That is, you gnaw asphalt on the roads and assure me that this is my difficult relationship with the asphalt? Logic is not your strong point.
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 15 2021 09: 00
    0
    The idea of ​​gnawing the asphalt came to you, dear patient. Now the stage of denial has gone - you love it. Then there will be anger, bargaining and depression. Patient A. A. Shilkgruber gnawed rugs. Do you already want Eva Braun and shoot yourself?
  • NAVY
    NAVY April 13 2021 13: 04
    -5
    Roman, Andrey has convincingly spread your untenable point of view on all fronts, just admit defeat. There is no need to engage in "populism". Just put yourself in a stupid position. :))
    1. Roman070280
      Roman070280 April 13 2021 13: 17
      -3
      What is his insolvency, then ??
      If without a bunch of letters - aircraft carriers to us:
      a) not needed
      b) not affordable

      That's the whole story ..

      the Americans invented them for themselves for completely different purposes, but they do not give rest to someone ..
      Well, it's better not to remember Kuzya without tears .. as soon as possible, this project was cut for cutting ..
      1. clerk
        clerk April 14 2021 09: 14
        -1
        ... what is his insolvency ??
        If without a bunch of letters - aircraft carriers to us:
        a) not needed
        b) not affordable

        That's the whole story ..
        If without a bunch of letters, then first you need to decide, “which ABs we (do not) need”, and only then to prove something. If the author believes that the Russian Navy does not need naval aviation in principle, then let him write it so clearly. So far, the article is an empty call on emotions.
        1. Roman070280
          Roman070280 April 14 2021 09: 24
          -2
          “What ABs we (do not) need”, and only then to prove something.

          Yes, no, what is there to prove ...
          Are we going to sail to the shores of America ??

          the Americans invented them for themselves for completely different purposes, but they do not give rest to someone ..


          the author believes that the Russian Navy does not need naval aviation in principle, so let him write it so clearly. So far, the article is an empty phone call on emotions.

          Now, if he just writes, it will be idle talk .. And he has everything disassembled and explained in some detail ..
          1. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 14 2021 10: 19
            +1
            That great changes need to be achieved by powerful special forces and persuasion?
            In folklore, it is much shorter, although not so funny.
            "Once upon a time there were mice and all of them offended. Once they went to a wise owl and said:

            - Wise owl, help with advice. Everyone offends us, cats are different, owls. What should we do?

            Eagle Owl thought and said:

            - And you become a hedgehog. Hedgehogs have needles; nobody offends them.

            The mice were delighted and ran home. But on the way, one mouse said:

            - How do we become hedgehogs? - and everyone ran back to ask this question to the wise owl.

            Having run up, they asked:

            - A wise owl, but how do we become hedgehogs?

            And the owl answered:

            - Guys, you don't load me with nonsense. I am engaged in strategy ".
            1. Roman070280
              Roman070280 April 14 2021 10: 30
              0
              Right .. born to crawl ..
              In general, we do not need aircraft carriers .. there are enough of our shores ..
              1. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 14 2021 10: 43
                +1
                Those. Don't you even know that expeditionary operations are the fourth most important task for aircraft carriers and a nice bonus? However, there is no time to write sheets in the comments now.
                1. Roman070280
                  Roman070280 April 14 2021 10: 47
                  -2
                  Of course I don’t know .. We can do just fine without it:

                  The tasks of aircraft carriers often include: anti-aircraft and anti-submarine protection of naval formations on the march and in the theater of operations; ... destruction of enemy air defenses and the conquest of local air superiority, the destruction of enemy ships.


                  I already wrote above - there is no need for us to march to America, destroy their air defenses, and gain superiority in their skies ..

                  Are we going to sail to the shores of America ??

                  Americans invented them for completely different purposes
                  1. Alarmist79
                    Alarmist79 April 14 2021 11: 06
                    -2
                    Quote: Roman070280
                    I already wrote above - there is no need for us to march to America, destroy their air defenses, and gain superiority in their skies ..

                    belay
                    In reality, AB are needed to
                    1.At least some time to fight the American AUG at своих shores.
                    Where their strategic submarines float and are intended to concentrate the enemy for a disarming strike. And now there is a naval missile defense in the same place.
                    At the same time, "cheap asymmetric answers" (tm) were used, as it always turned out, "very expensive and do not work."
                    2 suddenly AUG is more than a serious threat our shore.
                    1. Roman070280
                      Roman070280 April 14 2021 11: 13
                      -1
                      fight American AUG off their shores.


                      It turns out that the Americans created their own AUG in order to fight other people's AUG on their shores. belay (here we also need a region right near the Crimea ... there are not many shores ... laughing )
                      But, for some reason, they are sent to the shores of the DPRK or PRC .. (it seems they forgot why aircraft carriers are needed)
                      1. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 11: 24
                        0
                        Quote: Roman070280
                        It turns out that the Americans created their own AUG in order to fight other people's AUG on their shores.

                        The Americans created the AUG, including in order to fight the alien fleet from the aliens. If he does not have his own AUG, the Pentagon does not care about the problems of the Indians.

                        Quote: Roman070280
                        But, for some reason, they are sent to the shores of the DPRK or PRC .. (it seems they forgot why aircraft carriers are needed)


                        Your aircraft only flies in the direction of land, right? And why?
                        And they wrote to you in Russian. "All of a sudden, AUG is more than a serious threat to our shore." Korean suddenly too. Even more suddenly, birches and samovars on the shore are not a necessary condition for the operation of the AUG. The reactor simply does not work on birch wood, one should know already at your age.
                      2. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 April 14 2021 12: 04
                        0
                        Americans created AUG, including to fight the alien fleet of the aliens.

                        And if without embellishment, then not "including", but solely for this .. For near your own shores you can shoot / fly from the shore too ..

                        If he does not have his own AUG - The Pentagon does not care about the problems of the Indians.
                        Here the "Indians" do not have them because they are not needed near their own shore, and only amers practice sailing with war to foreign shores.

                        Your aircraft only flies in the direction of land, right? And why?
                        I do not know why..
                        "with me" it can quite possibly fly over the black sea, for example .. Or, let's say, around Japan ..
                        Without risking that the entire land will be destroyed ..
                        But someone really wants to stick an aircraft carrier near their shores for this .. just so that several billions have where to drain ..))


                        And they wrote to you in Russian. "Suddenly AUG is more than a serious threat our shore ".


                        Aliluya ..))
                        I'm glad you suddenly realized this - AUG is needed to send them to the enemy shore ..
                        Yes, that's right - American AUGs seriously threaten our shores .. (and do not walk near their shores, as someone above invented)

                        Well, in fact, we come to where we started:
                        Are we going to sail to the shores of America ??


                        Even more suddenly, birches and samovars on the shore are not a necessary condition for the operation of the AUG. The reactor simply does not work on birch wood, one should know already at your age.

                        I knew this at an earlier age ... that's why I say - we don't need AUG to spend money on their reactors, when it is cheaper and more convenient to protect OUR shores from these shores ..
                      3. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 14: 04
                        -1
                        Quote: Roman070280

                        And if without embellishment, then not "including", but exclusively for this ..

                        And just now there were statements "Only Kim, only hardcore". You will come to an agreement within yourself, at last.

                        Quote: Roman070280
                        Because you can shoot / fly from the shore near your own shores.

                        You seem to think that America was discovered. Argentines in 1982 also thought so, for example. One more time, slowly. All the brilliant ideas that come to your mind, the thoughts of the same titans have already come and they have been tested with a predictable result.
                        As for the difference in the firing range at moving and stationary targets, you are clearly not in the know, for example.
                        The idea of ​​"cheap and from the shore" was worn for a long time in the USSR, it turned out to be expensive and without grace. Further see Kuznetsov, Ulyanovsk, etc.


                        Quote: Roman070280
                        I'm glad you suddenly realized this - AUG is needed to send them to the enemy shore ..

                        And they wither and die from their own? In fact, they are even more effective there.
                      4. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 April 14 2021 14: 26
                        +1
                        there have just been statements "Only Kim, only hardcore". You will come to an agreement within yourself, at last.

                        Yeah .. right ..
                        send them to the shores of the DPRK or PRC ..

                        SEND TO ANOTHER COAST .. I hope that at least it will be clear in caps that I’m just writing the same thing ..))


                        You seem to think that America was discovered.

                        I think that for some who have just stated, they say we need AB in order to "fight the American AUG at своих shores. ", I discovered America itself, explaining that AVs are not needed near their shores ..))


                        As for the difference in the firing range at moving and stationary targets, you are clearly not in the know, for example.
                        Do you know what ??)
                        Do you want to say that it will be easier to get across the Crimea, for example, than through our mobile AB off the coast of Crimea ?? laughing

                        And they wither and die from their own?
                        Those who contain them there wither and die ..))
                        For building a floating airfield with a reactor (not on birches, as we remember), serving near its own shore, under fifty aircraft, with a reactor (not on birch trees) ... you have to hit your head hard on a birch tree ..


                        In fact, they are even more effective there.

                        What can be more effective than a ship with planes on board near its coast, the construction and maintenance of which costs tens of billions, over more protected and unsinkable airfields on land ??
                        The fact that the reactor is not needed on land ??)


                        Shl .. in the abbreviation AUG there is a word - "shock"
                        Not for defense .. but for attack ..
                        That is why the Americans send them to Kim ... to where their planes from THEIR COAST cannot reach ..

                        And you propose "to fight the American AUG off their shores. "And for this to build your own AUG .. near your shore ..))
                        Well, if they need to swim to us, you can understand them .. they cannot attack our shore without their AUG ..
                        But for us it is "what for a goat button accordion", to build our own AUG so that we can launch planes from our shore for protection .. laughing

                        We need AUG only to control the airspace in Mexico or South Africa ..))
                      5. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 15: 29
                        -2
                        Quote: Roman070280
                        SEND TO ANOTHER COAST ..

                        Those. religion prohibits aircraft carriers off their shores as an adversary? Did I get it right?

                        Quote: Roman070280
                        I discovered America itself, explaining that AB are not needed near their shores ..))


                        Once again for especially brilliant thinkers. This ingenious thought is a hundred years old at lunchtime. And she's proven to be wacky. Experience has proven.

                        Quote: Roman070280
                        Those who contain them there wither and die ..))
                        For building a floating airfield with a reactor (not on birches, as we remember), serving near its own shore, under fifty aircraft, with a reactor (not on birch trees) ... you have to hit your head hard on a birch tree ..


                        Teach the young man to match in a real way - at least at the level of the highly scientific journal "Murzilka". Reading then you at least mastered, I hope?

                        No, it must be elementary to have it. Then it turns out that 1. AUG, which launches cruise missiles at airfields, is UNEXPECTEDLY at the limit of the range of coastal fighters. Those attack aircraft trying to get it with virtually no cover and at the same time being overloaded with fuel for the return trip.
                        At the same time, AUG, SUDDENLY, unlike, are mobile and can be piled several times on a couple of airfields, overloading the air defense to amazement. Well, etc.
                        2.And that a dense network of dimensionless airfields and a horde of planes for slaughter flies into insane money, but the sense is not very visible. Further, bitter sobs over ruined finances and aircraft carriers.

                        Quote: Roman070280
                        Do you know what ??)

                        Except for you, everyone seems to be in the know.

                        Quote: Roman070280
                        Do you want to say that it will be easier to get across the Crimea, for example, than through our mobile AB off the coast of Crimea ??

                        I’ll say worse - it’s even easier to get into the Crimean airfield. Anything, including a ballistic missile, for example
                        Although AB in the Black Sea is an idea for the exclusively gifted. Have you thought of it yourself?

                        Quote: Roman070280
                        over more protected and non-sinking airfields on land ??

                        Fantastic in another department.

                        Shl .. in the abbreviation AUG there is a word - "shock"
                        Not for defense .. but for attack ..

                        Are you also fond of numerology?
                        In general, learn materiel and you will be happy.
                      6. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 April 14 2021 16: 05
                        -1
                        Those. religion prohibits aircraft carriers off their shores as an adversary? Did I get it right?

                        No, I misunderstood again ..
                        I just wrote above why AB is not needed near their shores .. But you probably never mastered reading ..

                        Once again for especially brilliant thinkers. This ingenious thought is a hundred years old at lunchtime. And she's proven to be wacky. Experience has proven.
                        There is no experience of AUG near their shores, because AUG has never existed except amers, and they do not keep them near their shores .. Stop writing nonsense ..))

                        launching cruise missiles at airfields AUG UNEXPECTED is at the limit of the range of coastal fighters. Those attack aircraft trying to get it with virtually no cover and at the same time being overloaded with fuel for the return trip.
                        At the same time, AUG, SUDDENLY, unlike, are mobile and can be piled several times on a couple of airfields, overloading the air defense to amazement. Well, etc.

                        Tales from the Vienna Woods, by God ..))
                        There are thousands of such stupid "ifs" you can think of .. let's put our AUG every 1000 km for protection ..)) You still use computer toys or something, where does such a "strategy" come from that several American AUGs will come to shoot at our airfield ??)
                        What amazement is the air defense? This is actually already described by TMV .. There nuclear weapons will fly, and not "overloaded with fuel aircraft" Do not confuse organ with a finger .. AUG can be sent to the Papuans in Africa .. and there to seize airspace from aircraft .. And not to send bomb the airfields of Russia ..)) Some kind of kindergarten ..
                        And yes ... naval aviation will have no more fuel reserves than land aviation ...

                        So what a dense network of dimensionless airfields and a horde of planes for slaughter flies into crazy money, but the sense is not very visible.

                        And which horse offers a dense network of airfields ??))))
                        Where have you seen this ??
                        But here someone suggests, it seems, a dense network of aircraft carriers ..)))
                        Or will he alone quickly and quickly swim around our shores ??)

                        Further, bitter sobs over ruined finances and aircraft carriers.

                        Ruined finances are to transfer a land airfield to a floating one .. with the installation of a reactor, and its vulnerability .. Only a fool cannot understand that Crimea is an unsinkable aircraft carrier .. And no dense network of airfields is needed there .. and no expenses are needed .. C the coast is controlled by both salvo guns and aviation .. Putting the AUG there is really sobbing ..))

                        I’ll say worse - it’s even easier to get into the Crimean airfield. Anything, including a ballistic missile, for example
                        It is easier only because it is less protected than AUG.
                        Otherwise, everything is simpler .. because you can build everything on land, and not on water .. There are hundreds of airfields with air defense cover .. and even the Americans allow themselves to maintain a few AUG ..

                        Although AB in the Black Sea is an idea for the exclusively gifted. Have you thought of it yourself?
                        No .. one comrade suggested .. He says that coastal aviation is not enough, it is better when aircraft take off from AB to protect their shores ..))

                        Fantastic in another department.
                        Yeah .. here it is ..))

                        1.The AUG that launches cruise missiles at airfields is UNEXPECTED at the range of coastal fighters. Those attack aircraft trying to get it with virtually no cover and at the same time being overloaded with fuel for the return trip.
                        At the same time, AUG, SUDDENLY, unlike, are mobile and can be piled several times on a couple of airfields, overloading the air defense to amazement. Well, etc.



                        Are you also fond of numerology?
                        In general, learn materiel and you will be happy.

                        Young man, I am not engaged in numerology, but I advise you not to disgrace yourself .. Words about materiel are very popular here, and every ignoramus likes to use them, having no idea what he is writing ..

                        I have already repeatedly chewed on points what is understandable for a child .. no AUGs are needed near their shores from their seas .. This is a means of delivering and basing aircraft to enemy territory .. They protect their territory by completely different means, and not creating dozens of AUG around the shores ..
                      7. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 14 2021 16: 54
                        -2
                        = There is no AUG experience on their shores. =
                        What does the AUG have to do with its shores? Experience has proven the idiocy of the idea of ​​drowning the AUG exclusively from the shore.

                        = because AUG has never existed except amers,. =

                        That is, the British / French / Chinese / Admiral of blacksmiths were seen by everyone, yes.

                        = Tales from the Vienna Woods, by God ..)) =

                        Those. this is the first time you hear about it, yes.

                        = There are thousands of such stupid "ifs" .. =

                        There is no if. AUG stupidly bombards airfields with missiles from a distance inaccessible to fighters. And she's not alone.

                        = let's put our AUG every 1000 km for protection ..)) =

                        Those. you do not understand that, unlike airfields, they are not put? An analogy with positional defense and moving parts "plugging holes" will naturally be inaccessible.

                        =, where does such a "strategy" come from that several amerskih AUGs will come to shoot at our airfield ??) =

                        No, of course, they will arrange knightly duels with air defense men.

                        = This is actually already described by TMV .. =

                        And in your alternative reality, ships of 13 billion are to drive the Papuans? Well, yes, how did I forget.

                        = Nuclear weapons will fly there, not "fuel-laden aircraft" =

                        Does nuclear weapons fly by themselves? I advised "Murzilka".

                        = AUG can be sent to the Papuans in Africa .. and there they can seize airspace from planes .. And not send it to bomb Russian airfields ..)) Some kind of kindergarten .. =

                        Are you saying that in childhood you ate porridge well? Therefore, the Americans have a tear roll down their unshaven cheeks and they will swim closer to the shore? Unlike Africa, one must think.

                        = And yes .. naval aviation will have no more fuel reserves than land aviation ... =

                        Clever thought. Indeed, much less. Because they needlessly fly 1000+ km. And this means high maneuverability and massive cutting of attackers.

                        = And what horse offers a dense network of airfields ??))))
                        Where have you seen this ?? =

                        IN USSR. In the Crimea, for example.

                        = But someone is suggesting, it seems, a dense network of aircraft carriers ..))) =

                        Wrong.

                        = Or will he alone quickly and quickly swim around our shores ??) =

                        Now it's right. Even at 20+ knots, Avik runs more than 1000 km / day.

                        = Ruined finances are transferring a land airfield to a floating one .. with the installation of a reactor, and its vulnerability .. Only a fool cannot understand that Crimea is an unsinkable aircraft carrier .. And no dense network of airfields is needed there .. and no expenses are needed .. =

                        That is, planes in Crimea do not fly from airfields? Everywhere with them, but not there?

                        = From the shore, everything is controlled by salvo guns, =

                        This is especially good. How far is the Grad?

                        = and aviation .. =
                        Sitting on the branches of cypress trees and rummaging in the garbage dumps of Yalta, I already understood.

                        = Putting AUG there is really sobbing ..)) =
                        Because the World Cup is a puddle. Barents, etc. you too?

                        = Easier only because it is less protected than AUG .. =
                        From what, from ballistic missiles?

                        = Otherwise, everything is simpler .. because you can build everything on land, not on water .. =
                        But there will be no little use against AUG. But cheap, yes.

                        = Young man, I am not engaged in numerology, =

                        And where did you learn to draw conclusions on a cosmic scale by the abbreviation?

                        = Words about materiel are very popular here, and every ignoramus likes to use them, having no idea what he is writing .. =

                        But you have that, of course.

                        = I have already chewed you point by point =

                        About Africa, porridge and aviation on the branches? You haven't convinced me.

                        = something that is understandable for a child .. no AUGs are needed near their shores from their seas .. This is a means of delivering and basing aircraft to enemy territory .. They protect their territory by completely different means, =

                        So which ones?
                      8. Roman070280
                        Roman070280 April 15 2021 08: 58
                        -1
                        Those. Do you not understand that, unlike airfields, they are not installed?

                        I just understand that they are not put ..))
                        Because AUG is an IMPACT force ..
                        And AVIA-NOSETS is a means of carrying (placing and delivering) an aviation wing - its main striking force .. and it was created primarily in order to be able to use aviation .. Well, essno - where there is no possibility from its shore fly ..

                        And no one in their right mind would ever think to build an AUG (and this is not only AB, but also a dozen more support ships, which in itself already hints at a lot), place them near their shores for PROTECTION ... not in the Black Sea, neither near Murmansk, nor in Vladivostok ..

                        They protect their territory by completely different means, =

                        So which ones?
                        You are a lover of materiel - so take an interest in what we are protecting our shores with right now ..
                        And at the same time - how do the Americans protect their shores ... (certainly not with aircraft carriers)

                        How far is the Grad?

                        = and aviation .. =
                        Sitting on the branches of cypress trees and rummaging in the garbage dumps of Yalta, I already understood.
                        No .. you are very far from understanding ..))
                        For you have a picture in your head - that now we from Yalta are protected only by Grads .. well, and cypresses ..
                        Whereas in reality Crimea is our most protected territory .. And this is - that's the same oddity - in the absence of any aircraft carriers ..))

                        You did not convince me.

                        Well, God bless you ..
                        Stay with your opinion ..))
                      9. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 15 2021 10: 15
                        -1
                        = For AUG is an IMPACT force .. =
                        That is, she "hits" only on birches and Kim Jong-un, and on other aircraft carriers / ships her "patriotic" blogger forbids her ?. Okay, you haven't mastered Murzilka, try moving pictures. Pearl Harbor, Midway and that's it.

                        = Well, essno - where there is no way to fly from your shore .. =
                        Those. Do the Americans have strategic bombers? "Murzilka" is still not open, I can feel it.

                        = You are a lover of materiel - so ask what we are currently protecting our shores with .. =
                        Those. there will be no intelligible answer. Yes, and who told you that we protect them normally?

                        = For you have a picture in your head - that now we from Yalta are protected only by Grads .. well, and cypresses .. =
                        Those. talked about "salvo guns" and the lack of need for airfields in the fabulous Crimea, you, and the picture in my head? It's not even a DSLR, it's a spotlight reflector.

                        = Whereas in reality Crimea is our most protected territory .. =
                        Well that's it. Nobody promised anything even there. If the missiles fly from Mediterranean through Turkey and Co., the shooters will be especially difficult.
                      10. ccsr
                        ccsr April 15 2021 11: 55
                        0
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        If the missiles were to fly from Mediterranean via Turkey and Co., it would be especially difficult to get the shooters.

                        This is why, then, we will not be able to destroy the United States completely? Religion does not allow you to do this?
                      11. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 15 2021 12: 05
                        -2
                        You forgot that in return they will destroy us. "What about us?" Do you have any relatives in Ukraine?
                      12. ccsr
                        ccsr April 15 2021 13: 18
                        0
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        You forgot that in return they will destroy us.

                        So we knew about it from Soviet times and didn’t bother about it - you probably didn’t live then.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        "What about us?" Do you have any relatives in Ukraine?

                        And here are your arguments about Ukraine
                        If rockets fly from Mediterranean via Turkey and Co.
                        ?
                        By the way, I have no relatives there, but there are friends, if you are so interested. I don’t believe that the Ukrainians dug the Mediterranean Sea, but that they dug the Black Sea, they have already proved this fact. Why then did you drag the Mediterranean Sea to Ukraine if they didn’t dig it?
                      13. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 15 2021 13: 40
                        -2
                        = So we knew about this from Soviet times and did not soar about it - you probably did not live then. =

                        And you lived at a conscious age and do not remember what the USSR declared non-use of nuclear weapons first?
                        Two more questions.
                        1. When and who in the USSR promised you almost universal suicide in response to any local US aggression?
                        2. Why would the USSR, which was planning to commit nuclear suicide in response to any NATO sneeze, an army of 5 million?
                        Nothing bothers you at all in this picture, right?

                        By the way, about "not steaming" Were they really ready to gnaw a neighbor in a ravine six months after the valiant attack on the United States about any village of Gadyukino? Or suffer simultaneously from hunger, cold, burns, fractures and radiation sickness? Or haven't you even thought about it?

                        = Why did you drag the Mediterranean Sea to Ukraine =
                        I "dragged it" into the famous Ukrainian logic "and then we are for sho".
                      14. ccsr
                        ccsr April 15 2021 13: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        And you lived at a conscious age and do not remember that the USSR was the first to declare the non-use of weapons?

                        Declarations were made for people like you, and the military lived by their orders and directives, where there was no companionship.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        1. When and who in the USSR promised you almost universal suicide in response to any local US aggression?

                        Why promise what we could have done without any permission from the United States as a response to their attack?
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        2. Why would the USSR, which was planning to commit nuclear suicide in response to any NATO sneeze, an army of 5 million?

                        It was a big foolishness to maintain such an army - unfortunately it was a tragic mistake, and was the result of defeats in the initial period of the Great Patriotic War.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Nothing bothers you at all in this picture, right?

                        Only your naivety.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        By the way, about "not steaming" Were they really ready to gnaw a neighbor in a ravine six months after the valiant attack on the United States about any village of Gadyukino?

                        I am well aware of the consequences of a global nuclear war in order to hope to survive at least in a few days. Your "six months" say that you have no idea what we and our opponents would turn into.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Or haven't you even thought about it?

                        I wonder how you live, and do not shake with the thought that you will die in time?
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        = Why did you drag the Mediterranean Sea to Ukraine =
                        I "dragged it" into the famous Ukrainian logic "and we are for sho".

                        "Elderberry in the garden ..." - I understood everything.
                      15. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 15 2021 14: 14
                        -2
                        = Declarations were made for people like you, and the military lived according to their orders and directives, where there was no companionship. =
                        Did the voices in your head tell you? It is well known what the Soviet General Staff thought there. The main dream is not to immediately grab onto tactical nuclear weapons adversary. We smoke Ogarkov, etc.

                        = Only your naivety. =
                        So why did the USSR have an army of 5 million, preparing to advance to the English Channel? Maybe using tactical YAO. For the naive?
                        And the warrant officers in the warehouse were told the terrible truth?

                        = I am well aware of the consequences of a global nuclear war in order to hope to survive at least in a few days. =

                        In short, you have seen enough films of category B, and at least you haven't even opened the CWP textbook.

                        = Your "six months" means that you have no idea what we and our opponents would turn into. =

                        With numbers, not fantasies from comics, cartoons, "Murzilki" or whatever you used there.
                        In reality, even 10 thousand warheads were not turned into a continuous zone of destruction of the USSR / USA. Accordingly, the bulk of the wounded, often with combined lesions, which will die out for months, as luck would have it. The rest await smoothness, coldness and pestilence. Nothing too.

                        = I wonder how you live and don't shake with the thought that you will die in time? =
                        And you, of course, are ready to douse yourself with gasoline and strike a match if they looked askance at you in the tram. Why are you still here?
                      16. ccsr
                        ccsr April 15 2021 17: 54
                        0
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        What the Soviet General Staff thought there is well known. The main dream is that the adversary does not immediately grab onto tactical nuclear weapons. We smoke Ogarkov, etc.

                        You can smoke anything, but tactical nuclear weapons were not on alert in the USSR. It is useless to explain the rest to you, you have only CWP.

                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        So why did the USSR have an army of 5 million, preparing to advance to the English Channel? Maybe using tactical nuclear weapons. For the naive?

                        It was for the naive that they wrote this, because there was no point in advancing in Europe after the use of our nuclear weapons, if only because the area would be contaminated, and the fires would not leave anything in the place of cities. By the way, where did you get the idea that the GSVG was practicing the march to the English Channel - what were you at the exercises there? Or just lying, whichever comes to mind?
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        In short, you have seen enough films of category B, and at least you haven't even opened the CWP textbook.

                        This is the limit of your knowledge - I already understood.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        In reality, even 10 thousand warheads were not turned into a continuous zone of destruction of the USSR / USA.

                        In California, two weeks could not put out a simple fire in peacetime, villages, houses burned down, people died - do not fantasize young man before talking about 10 thousand warheads. Nobody planned to launch nuclear strikes on sparsely populated areas - you dreamed about it.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        And you, of course, are ready to douse yourself with gasoline and strike a match if they looked askance at you in the tram. Why are you still here?

                        I am not ready, as it is not in my competence. But those who are supposed to do this, I think, will fulfill their duty to the end, as our people have done at all times.
                      17. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 15 2021 20: 17
                        -2
                        = You can smoke anything, but tactical nuclear weapons were not on alert in the USSR. =

                        Did you live in the USSR for sure, or are you writing from the office of the IPSO from Bahrain? It was from the 50s that OTRK and Co. were driving along Red Square, only the deaf did not hear about nuclear anti-ship missiles, missiles, torpedoes, shells mines to the "Tulip". And there was this good ...
                        I repeat my question - who and when at least subtly hinted to you that in response to the capture of der. Gadyukino, are we going to kill ourselves? You yourself decided so during the night vigils on a great faience friend.

                        = It was for the naive that they wrote it, =
                        And 5 million and 80 thousand tanks (including storage), a horde of amphibious armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles were also kept for the naive? Were the plans of the General Staff also for them?
                        And only you personally comrade. Did the Brezhnevs know the SCARY MILITARY SECRET of the USSR?

                        = there was no point in attacking in Europe after the use of our nuclear weapons, =
                        And for some reason they planned to demolish it to zero? Again a faience friend?

                        = if only because the area would be contaminated, =
                        1. Have you outplayed in Fallout? Infection from nuclear weapons is short-term.
                        2. And why then on the Soviet armored vehicles "anti-nuclear protection" was and is?

                        = and the fires would not have left anything in the place of cities. =
                        1. That is, the SA was commanded by stubborn drug addicts who were eager to get back in their cities?
                        2. Murder of the population as an end in itself is somewhere in Rwanda.
                        3. Cities of wood and oiled paper and all flat, one must think? Even in Nagasaki, the "firestorm" did not come out.

                        = By the way, where did you get the idea that the GSVG was practicing a march to the English Channel - what were you at the exercises there? =
                        You are definitely from Bahrain. Even the Soviet ensign would not blurt out this. Under Soviet secrecy, did the rank-and-file participants in the exercises officially know about the "long-range" objectives of the offensive?

                        = Or just lying, whichever comes to mind? =
                        Directly Commander of the GSVG
                        “In the USSR, there was a concept of a preemptive strike. Were we ready to start first when tensions increased?
                        - Sure. What, wait for them to hit us?
                        - Did it come to this?
                        - The peak of the Cold War was in the early 1980s. It remained to give a signal - and everything rushed. Everything is ready, the shells are in the tanks, it remains to shove in the barrel - and forward. They would have burned everything, they would have destroyed everything there. Military facilities I mean are not cities".

                        = In California, two weeks could not put out a simple fire in peacetime, =
                        All of California burned down, am I getting it right?

                        = No one planned to launch nuclear strikes on sparsely populated areas - you dreamed about it. =
                        Once again, slowly and spelled. To turn the same Kirov (400 km2) into a zone with 98% of the dead, you need 10 megaton warheads. Further explain?

                        = I am not ready because it is not in my competence. =
                        What is not in your competence? Throw at least a brick at an American diplomat under a terrible threat for 15 days?

                        = But those who are supposed to do this, I think they will fulfill their duty to the end, =
                        1. What is the duty - to kill your own population? Do you really think we went there like a cuckoo?
                        2. Who do they owe? Personally for you?

                      18. ccsr
                        ccsr April 15 2021 20: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Did you live in the USSR for sure, or are you writing from the office of the IPSO from Bahrain?

                        I live in the same place where I lived during the Soviet era. Did you find that time?
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Stood from the 50s OTRK and Co. drove along Red Square,

                        So you do not understand how the OTRK differ from mobile strategic missile systems - congratulations, you have shown that you are a complete amateur even in the classification of missile systems.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        And 5 million and 80 thousand tanks (including storage), a horde of amphibious armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles were also kept for the naive? Were the plans of the General Staff also for them?

                        Your denseness does not allow you to understand that at that time there was a theory of two wars, which in fact was destructive for both the army and the country. Unfortunately, one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR was the stupidity of the top military leaders of that time, who could not radically reduce the army in order to remove the burden of military spending from our citizens and improve their lives.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        ... Military facilities, I mean, are not cities. "

                        He said this in an interview, and even then he kept silent about West Berlin, where a large NATO grouping was concentrated. In the cities of Europe, where the control centers are concentrated, our Strategic Missile Forces worked, and not our OTR from the group of forces - we just had other tasks.

                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        All of California burned down, am I getting it right?

                        No, not all, but New Orleans has not yet been fully rebuilt after the flood, although 16 years have passed, and there are a lot of dams on American rivers. By the way, why didn't the Americans extinguish the fires in at least a couple of days with such advanced fire fighting equipment?
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Once again, slowly and spelled. To transform the same Kirov (400 km2) into a zone with 98% of the dead, 10 megaton warheads are needed. Explain further?

                        Complete nonsense - for Kirov and two or three warheads are enough to destroy the entire city, which will simply burn down completely within a few days. Why destroy 98% of the population at once, when it is enough to destroy at least 40%, so that later man-made disasters and epidemics would destroy those who survived.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Throw at least a brick at an American diplomat under a terrible threat for 15 days?

                        They don't go under my house. But this is not the point, but what it will give - for example, to you personally.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        1. What is the duty - to kill your own population?

                        You're lying - they have a duty to destroy our enemy, and they will.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        2. Who do they owe? Personally for you?

                        To my people - they swore an oath to him.
                      19. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 15 2021 22: 24
                        -3
                        = I live in the same place where I lived during the USSR. =
                        Personally, I have the impression that you did not live at all then. How old are you really?

                        = So you do not understand how the OTRK differ from mobile strategic missile systems - congratulations, you have shown that you are a complete amateur even in the classification of missile systems. =

                        There is no bottom. Is this the same "Luna" strategic missile system?

                        = Your denseness does not allow you to understand that at that time there was a theory of two wars =
                        As always, you and your faience friend?

                        = Unfortunately, one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR was the stupidity of the top military leaders of that time, =
                        What nonsense? You broadcast that in the event of an attack on Gadyukino, they would "destroy the United States", and 5 million and plans to the English Channel kept an innocent rally for the naive. What, no longer?

                        = He said this in an interview, and even then he kept silent about West Berlin, where a large NATO grouping was concentrated. =
                        Where did you keep silent? Or is Berlin not in Europe?

                        = In the cities of Europe, where control centers are concentrated, our Strategic Missile Forces worked, and not our OTR from the group of forces - we just had other tasks. =

                        Who you? Did you serve in the GSVG and the Strategic Missile Forces at the same time? Or are you now broadcasting as the secret head of the General Staff of the USSR?

                        = Complete nonsense - for Kirov and two or three warheads are enough to destroy the entire city, which will simply burn down completely within a few days =

                        I can see how the fire is being thrown from one thatched roof of a nine-story building to another. I'll tell you a terrible secret now, some mushrooms are eaten raw especially it is impossible.
                        The almost complete burnout of Hiroshima (12 km) turned out to be exclusive even for Japanese cities made of wood and oiled paper (they burned massively for everyday reasons). There is equal to massively lit hearths, etc. (people were going to work)
                        Everything is pale in Nagasaki, only local fires.

                        = but New Orleans has not yet been fully rebuilt after the flood, although 16 years have passed, and there are a lot of dams on American rivers. =

                        Now explain how flooding American buildings to the massive burnout of ours. Concrete buildings and.

                        = By the way, why didn't the Americans extinguish the fires in at least a couple of days with such advanced fire fighting equipment? =

                        What does forest fires have to do with cities AT ALL ?. When was the last time San Francisco burned out there? During the seven-point earthquake in 1906?

                        = Why destroy 98% of the population at once, when it is enough to destroy at least 40%, so that later man-made disasters and epidemics would destroy those who survived. =

                        And what am I trying to hammer into you. Only your man-made disasters have a trifle, mostly problems uninjured hunger, winter and cannibals with axes. A la 1918-20, but much worse, although for the same reasons. Where is our bread and fuel, and where are the main cities? To start.
                        You will die for a long time, with taste and disposition with some (un) luck.

                        = They don't go under my house. =
                        Have you saved up the money to get there?

                        = But this is not the point, but what it will give - for example, to you personally. =
                        As what, you ruin the life of the enemy. And there are almost no consequences, in contrast to. In the event of a nuclear strike for any sneeze, you have an end in itself. Go ahead, I'm waiting for the photos.

                        = You're lying - they have a duty to destroy our enemy, and they will. =
                        Are you and your faience friend adequate at all? Although who am I asking Where did they have a duty to destroy the enemy at the cost of destroying your own population?.

                        = To my people - they swore an oath to him. =
                        They are lying. They did not give the oath to the population of Bahrain (? - rather Zhmerinka). And even more so, they did not give my people an oath to kill him against the wall at the first opportunity.
                      20. ccsr
                        ccsr April 16 2021 11: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Personally, I have the impression that you did not live at all then. How old are you really?

                        Certainly more than you. If this does not allow you to sleep, then work yourself and find what you need.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        There is no bottom. Is this the same "Luna" strategic missile system?

                        Don't fantasize -
                        The Luna-M complex, like the Luna, belonged to the second generation tactical missile systems of the Ground Forces. According to military installations, the Luna-M missile system is designed to engage the 9M21F (K, B, B1) missiles and other modifications of manpower, military equipment, fire weapons and nuclear weapons of the enemy.

                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        You said that in the event of an attack on Gadyukino, they would "destroy the United States"

                        That is exactly what it would be.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        while 5 million and plans to the English Channel kept the innocent rally naive for.

                        They foolishly counted and kept them - I asserted that.

                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Where did you keep silent? Or is Berlin not in Europe?

                        West Berlin then existed, you are clearly not in the subject of who was there from the NATO troops.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Who do you have? Did you serve in the GSVG and the Strategic Missile Forces at the same time? Or are you now broadcasting as the secret head of the General Staff of the USSR?

                        There were no parts of the Strategic Missile Forces in the GSVG, and I never served in this type of armed forces - you seem to be inattentively following the course of the discussion. I am broadcasting on my own behalf that in my experience it allows you to simply laugh at your denseness in military affairs.

                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        I can see how the fire is being thrown from one thatched roof of a nine-story building to another.

                        Houses in the Voronezh region are now on fire, and no one can save them - and this is without any war. Now imagine such fires throughout the European part of Russia or in the United States - I think very few people will be able to survive after that.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Concrete buildings and.

                        But what about the concrete twins collapsed and buried thousands of Americans, after all, they seem to be concrete and there is nothing to burn.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        What does forest fires have to do with cities AT ALL ?.

                        Because the smoke from them and carbon monoxide will make life in cities unbearable - for example, in Moscow they are constantly tormented by burning peat in the far suburbs, and smog lasts for weeks.

                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        And what am I trying to hammer into you. Only your man-made disasters have a trifle, mainly the problems of uninjured hunger, winter and cannibals with axes. A la 1918-20, but much worse, although for the same reasons.

                        Before you talk nonsense, study the consequences of the earthquake in Spitak and the behavior of people after the disaster in order to predict how people will behave.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        How can you ruin your life against the enemy?

                        This is for your perverted taste, but for me it is easier to destroy all of America at once, since they do not allow us to live in peace.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Where did they have a duty to destroy the enemy at the cost of destroying their own population?

                        You are so naive that you still do not understand that peace is preserved only because the Americans know that we have people on duty who will do their duty if someone dares to attack us.
                      21. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 16 2021 15: 21
                        -2
                        = Certainly more than you. =
                        Truth? Why then do I remember Soviet parades, but you do not?
                        The first one came across 1980.
                        "Moon" at 35. 25 then "Scud" eyes long calloused.
                        https://ok.ru/video/1396221348592

                        = Don't fantasize =

                        You haven't mastered the question mark? I asked you with what joy your Moon and faience turned into a "strategist" in response to this.
                        "So you do not understand how OTRKs differ from mobile strategic missile systems - congratulations, you have shown that you are a complete amateur even in the classification of missile systems."
                        This is how you admit that you are an illiterate dilettante.who I was called, or not?

                        = That's exactly what it would be. =

                        Okay, let's go for the second round. Who and when at least subtly hinted to you that in response to the capture of der. Gadyukino, are we going to kill ourselves?
                        Specifically plz. Grandma at the bazaar, friends at a booze, voices in my head. Name. Only one name of this bad man.

                        = Foolishly they counted and contained - I asserted it. =

                        Better. Those. were going to instantly strike the United States, and the troops were kept out of stupidity? That is, they simply did not realize that if the masirov hit nuclear weapons, 5 million would be needed?
                        And the naive (generals, not the population), meanwhile, were told that it was for an offensive in Europe? And the generals naively prepared plans?
                        So that again there is no "I did not speak"
                        Me: “So why did the USSR have an army of 5 million, preparing to advance to the English Channel? Maybe using tactical nuclear weapons. For the naive "?
                        You: "It was for the naive that they wrote it",

                        = West Berlin then existed =

                        He existed in Europe, about which GSVGshnik spoke. You will persistently prove that no.

                        = There were no units of the Strategic Missile Forces in the GSVG, and I never served in this type of armed forces =

                        But you broadcast very bravely about their tasks. So they were supposed to destroy Europe to zero?

                        = - you seem to be inattentively following the discussion. I am broadcasting on my own behalf that, in my experience, it allows you to simply laugh at your denseness in military affairs. =======================================================

                        Ie, the source about the total destruction of Europe by the Strategic Missile Forces is faience again?

                        = Houses in the Voronezh region are now on fire, and no one can save them - and this is without any war. Now imagine such fires throughout the European part of Russia or in the United States - I think very few people will be able to survive after that. =

                        8 wooden houses in a large village burned down because of a scorched field, the ensign (?) Made global conclusions. Where is the connection?

                        = But what about the concrete twins collapsed and buried thousands of Americans, after all, they seem to be concrete and there is nothing to burn. =

                        And how did the fire spread from one tower to another?

                        = Because the smoke from them and carbon monoxide will make life in cities unbearable - for example, in Moscow they are constantly tormented by the burning of peat in the far suburbs, and smog lasts for weeks. =

                        In the event of a nuclear war, you will remember this unbearable life as a paradise. So how old are you, huh? Feels like you or cosplay comrade. Biden, or you are actually 15 years old.

                        = Before you talk nonsense, study the consequences of the earthquake in Spitak and the behavior of people after the disaster in order to predict how people will behave. =
                        And what relation does a local disaster with a horde of rescuers and water / food / medicine / police have to Spitak throughout the country with hunger / cold, etc.? The Volga region of 1921 is much more relevant.

                        = This is for your perverted taste, but for me it is easier to destroy all of America at once, since they do not allow us to live in peace. =

                        Those. Are you ready to destroy America at the cost of your life, but not to throw a brick at the diplomat? Hmm. This is how the heroes are scorching, ready to “burn in an atomic flame” - sitting for 15 days is not about being ready to chat.

                        = You are so naive that you still do not understand that peace is preserved only because the Americans know that we have people on duty who will do their duty if someone dares to attack us. =
                        Those. Do the duty officers of the Strategic Missile Forces take a decision on a nuclear strike?
                      22. ccsr
                        ccsr April 16 2021 18: 04
                        -1
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Truth? Why then do I remember Soviet parades, but you do not?

                        Unlike you, I participated in them.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        So do you admit that you are the illiterate dilettante that they called me, or not?

                        What mobile strategic complexes in the USSR, besides the railway ones, were on round-the-clock alert duty - can you name?

                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        ? That is, they simply did not realize that if the masirov hit nuclear weapons, 5 million would be needed?

                        They might have thought, but they held on to their seats too tightly, because the larger the army, the more positions for growth. At the same time, they somehow did not want to think about the effectiveness of such an army. However, you still will not understand this, you only watched parades on TV.

                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        And how did the fire spread from one tower to another?

                        Do not wag the sirloin - you said that the concrete does not burn, and there was a fire, you probably did not notice it.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        So how old are you, huh?

                        They started repeating themselves - this means that you cannot say anything sane.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Those. Are you ready to destroy America at the cost of your life, but not to throw a brick at the diplomat? Hmm.

                        I leave it to you to throw bricks - this is the behavior of small grasses. My interests were in the destruction of all our opponents.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Those. Do the duty officers of the Strategic Missile Forces take a decision on a nuclear strike?

                        They are only executors - you seem to be just illiterate in this matter, and have no idea how things are in the military.
                      23. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 17 2021 01: 50
                        -1
                        = I, unlike you, participated in them. =
                        From infancy to 91, without breaks and weekends? Without looking around? Very convincing, yes. So how did you manage to see not a single Soviet parade in your entire "Soviet life"?

                        = What mobile strategic complexes in the USSR, besides the railway ones, were on round-the-clock alert duty - can you name them? =

                        That is, the rest were from 9 to 6? Or what are you trying to rub in here?
                        So you admit that you are an illiterate amateur, or not?

                        = They might have been thinking, but they were holding onto their chairs too tightly, because the larger the army, the more positions for growth. =
                        That is, it is your immodest IMHO with your faience friend, as in the case of Gadyukino?
                        And what did they explain to dear Ilyich? "You press the button at the first skirmish, but for now keep an army of 5 million so that we grow up in ranks"? Or do you have a more ridiculous option?
                        At the same time, it was increased by the 80s with the growth of international tension.

                        = Do not wag the sirloin - you said that concrete does not burn, =
                        And with you it burns belay ?

                        = and there was a fire, you probably didn't notice. =
                        Was the concrete burning? Or are you, as always, not aware that there is fuel in the planes? Nuitd.

                        = I leave you to throw bricks - this is the behavior of small grasses. My interests were related to the destruction of all our opponents. =
                        And how are you going to destroy them at the cost of your life, if you are afraid of a brick for 15 days, a sirloin "samurai"?

                        = They are only performers =
                        So why did you drag them into the mythical global nuclear strike after the first skirmish? That's right, you are illiterate in this matter, and have no idea how things are in the military.
                      24. ccsr
                        ccsr April 17 2021 15: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        So why did you drag them into the mythical global nuclear strike after the first skirmish?

                        How could you determine from the start of the European Pershing in which direction it will fly and what warhead it is carrying? Learn materiel, verbiage, before posing as an expert.
                      25. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 17 2021 18: 26
                        -1
                        = How could you determine from the start of the European Pershing in which direction it will fly =
                        (wildly, inhumanly laughs and slides under the table) Is this an attempt to make a "smart face at last"? A very funny attempt, yes.
                        1. What does the officers of the Strategic Missile Forces have to do with it? Did they decide to strike in unclear situations?

                        2. You haven't finished school yet, right? Early warning radars quickly determine where the rocket is flying. The same Doppler effect is mentioned in the 8th grade. It is not clear where she flew away - this is the problem of early warning from satellites by launch torches outside the radar coverage area.

                        3. Didn't you open the school atlas for the 6th grade either? Where could the Pershing fly from Bavaria, except the USSR? The Chinese at the other end of Eurasia.
                        This problem existed for completely different missiles.

                        4. The Pershing had no conventional warheads.

                        To pile up so much stubborn nonsense in two sentences is an alternative to being brilliant.
                      26. ccsr
                        ccsr April 17 2021 19: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        1. What does the officers of the Strategic Missile Forces have to do with it? Did they decide to strike in unclear situations?

                        I will explain for the illiterate - they are only performers. In the Ministry of Defense, the situation is monitored by the GRU and it determines the likelihood of the outbreak of war. These data are transmitted to the command post of the Ministry of Defense, which informs the commander-in-chief of the situation, and, by his decision, gives the command to our Strategic Missile Forces. This is, in general terms, how our armed forces work in peacetime. But situations are possible when, for some reason, the enemy's preparation for a strike is not revealed, and then the decision is made after the early warning systems report. What else is not clear to you "expert"?
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Early warning radars quickly determine where the rocket is flying.

                        In fact, the early warning system fixes the launch and approximately the coordinates of the launch, but they will fly to Russia or China, this system cannot determine - learn materiel, verbiage.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        Where could the Pershing fly from Bavaria, except the USSR?

                        To any CMEA country or Africa.
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        4. The Pershing had no conventional warheads.

                        In Europe, it was not, but you are just an amateur in this matter, which is why you do not know that TWO warheads were developed for the missile:
                        A nuclear warhead is located in the middle compartment of the warhead. When developing the Pershing-2 rocket, two variants of nuclear warheads were studied: with a conventional nuclear warhead of variable power (the maximum TNT equivalent is up to 50 kt) and with an elongated, high-strength steel penetrating warhead. Before the explosion, a warhead weighing about 1800 kg, carrying a charge with a capacity of no more than 1 kt, is buried 30-45 m into the ground. When it explodes, a funnel is formed, characterized by its large size and a high level of radioactive contamination.
                        Source: http://www.dogswar.ru/artilleriia/raketnoe-oryjie/677-ballisticheskaia-raketa-pershi.html © dogswar.ru
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        To pile up so much stubborn nonsense in two sentences is an alternative to being brilliant.

                        I also wonder what militant amateurism can be among an illiterate public.
                      27. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 17 2021 20: 02
                        -1
                        = I will explain for the illiterate - they are only performers =
                        Together with a faience friend you will "explain" something when you answer the question
                        So why did you drag them into the mythical global nuclear strike after the first skirmish?

                        = In fact, the early warning system records the launch and approximately the coordinates of the launch, but they will fly to Russia or China, this system cannot determine - learn materiel, verbiage. =

                        Oak, it applied to satellites SPRN. Space warning system aka KSP. Which exactly "fix the launch and approximately the coordinates of the launch." Now in the past tense, because the "Eye" has already determined the direction.
                        The SPRN radar, which does not determine the direction / speed, is for completely faience. This, in my opinion, had never occurred to anyone before.

                        = To any CMEA country =
                        1. What's the difference? Could he fly there on a mission of Soviet-American friendship?
                        2. WHY shoot "Pershing-2" at the CMEA? Romanians to attack?

                        = or to Africa. =
                        And what did he forget there?

                        = In Europe, it was not, but you are just an amateur in this matter, which is why you do not know that TWO warheads were developed for the missile: =

                        1. What has it "developed" to do with it?
                        2. "A warhead weighing about 1800 kg, carrying a charge with a power no more than 1 kt," - this non-nuclear warhead am ? What is 1 kt at school you have not yet passed? This is equivalent to 1 thousand tons TNT. wow "Pershing" went.
                        Where are you writing from, really? Even in Zhmerinka and the 3rd grade, such personnel are not found. How's your favorite camel mutating into a horse and whinnying?
                      28. ccsr
                        ccsr April 17 2021 22: 07
                        0
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        The SPRN radar, which does not determine the direction / speed, is for completely faience. This, in my opinion, had never occurred to anyone before.

                        You are definitely a layman, because ground-based radars operate in different frequency ranges, and those that work in the HF range detect a launch when warheads have not yet appeared over the horizon. But the Don radar works at completely different distances:
                        Also in the early warning system is the Don-2N radar, the only one of its kind, created in the interests of the anti-missile defense (ABM) of Moscow. The capabilities of the Don-2N radar make it possible to detect small objects at a distance of 3700 km and at an altitude of up to 40000 meters.

                        So if an American rocket launches from a distance of 6-10 thousand km, then we will not determine any coordinates until it appears at the horizon, which means we are wasting time. That is why, in this case, the fact of the start itself is important, and this can be determined by completely different over-the-horizon radars in the HF range.
                        Learn materiel, verbiage.

                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        = To any CMEA country =
                        1. What's the difference? Could he fly there on a mission of Soviet-American friendship?
                        2. WHY shoot "Pershing-2" at the CMEA? Romanians to attack?

                        Have they wiped themselves off when they just talked about the USSR?
                        Quote: Alarmist79
                        1. What has it "developed" to do with it?

                        Because it was standard for this rocket, and you didn't even know that, so you got yourself into a mess again. And the experts knew very well that two warheads were made for Pershing.
                      29. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 17 2021 23: 26
                        -1
                        = You are definitely a layman, because ground-based radars operate in different frequency ranges, and those that work in the HF range detect a launch when warheads still do not appear over the horizon But the Don radar operates at completely different distances =

                        1. And it prevents her from determining the direction, as you stated on the blue eye two comments in a row?
                        2. There was no ZGRLS in the USSR?

                        = So if an American rocket launches from a distance of 6-10 thousand km, then we will not determine any coordinates, =
                        1. Do not twist, oak. You wrote.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        How could you determine at the start of the European Pershing in which direction it will fly

                        What is the "European Pershing" in 6-10 thousand? You carried the heresy that the direction cannot be determined by ground-based early warning radars at a distance of about 2000 km.

                        = then we will not define any coordinates, =
                        Coordinate of what? Start? This was determined by the very first satellites, sample 1972. And we will determine the direction, the current satellites know how.

                        = That is why, in this case, the fact of the start itself is important, and this can be determined by completely different over-the-horizon radars in the HF range. =

                        1. You broadcast about the direction.
                        2. SPRN satellites since 72, what do you think they are doing?

                        = Learn materiel, verbiage =
                        Is this the nonsense generator saying?

                        = Did you wipe it off when they just talked about the USSR? =
                        1. I repeat the question about Romania and Co. What kind of non-strategic goals were there? On closer (except for the stub of Poland), the Americans had other missiles.
                        2. Is a nuclear attack on the allies of the USSR / its facilities not a war with the USSR?
                        3. You spun about any CMEA country. Despite the fact that Pershing-2 technically could not get into the GDR.

                        = Because it was standard for this rocket, =
                        So was it in-house or was it being developed?

                        = and you didn't even know that, so you got yourself into a mess once again. =
                        Oak, I said that
                        "4. The Pershing had no conventional warheads."
                        Even if you count yours - 1 kt is non-nuclear BCH, as you stated?
                  2. Alarmist79
                    Alarmist79 April 17 2021 20: 32
                    -1
                    Camel breeder, I just have one more question. How does the same S-300/400 shoot down ballistic targets if the radar does not see where they are going?
  • clerk
    clerk April 14 2021 12: 44
    +2
    reality AB is needed to
    1.Fight American AUGs off their shores for at least some time.
    Is some time an hour or two?
    . Where their strategic submarines float and are intended to concentrate the enemy for a disarming strike.
    Are you all swimming? laughing Yes, covering the deployment areas of their SSBNs and tracking enemy ones is an indisputably important task, but why do you need an 80 kt strike AB for this?
    At the same time, "cheap asymmetric answers" (tm) were used, as it always turned out, "very expensive and do not work." ...
    In the 70s, it was relatively inexpensive and worked fine. You need to have a head, not blindly copy.
    .2 Suddenly AUG is more than a serious threat to our shore.
    It's time to get out of 1982 - almost 40 years have passed, many new types of weapons have appeared.
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 14 2021 14: 19
      -1
      = Is some time an hour or two? =
      Your wunderwafele won't be enough for a minute, yes. A normal aircraft carrier will pose a threat for a long time.

      = Are you all swimming? laughing Yes, covering the deployment areas of their SSBNs and tracking enemy ones is an undeniably important task, but why do you need an 80 kt strike AB for this? =

      I have already explained why your 22-knot forty-ton is truncated without the slightest sense. In general, the idea to supplement the quantitative lag with a qualitative one and reduce mobility (so that with a guarantee and for sure), it is very, very alternatively ingenious.

      = In the 70s it was relatively inexpensive and worked fine. =
      The fiction department elsewhere. It was very expensive and disgusting.

      = You need to have a head, not blindly copy it. =
      Yours? God forbid. Where does such conceit come from at all - with zero knowledge to accuse our / Chinese / American / Indian / Japanese specialists of incompetence on the most basic issue?

      Quote: clerk
      It's time to get out of 1982 - almost 40 years have passed, many new types of weapons have appeared.

      And, as I understand it, they are all limited by the coast? More specifically?
    2. clerk
      clerk April 14 2021 15: 42
      +1
      ... Is some time an hour or two? =
      //// Your wunderwafele won't be enough for a minute, yes. A normal aircraft carrier will pose a threat for a long time.
      Yeah. In the port for your own crew. When it will be destroyed before going to sea.
      . = Do you all swim? laughing Yes, covering the deployment areas of their SSBNs and tracking enemy ones is an undeniably important task, but why do you need an 80 kt strike AB for this? =

      I have already explained why your 22-knot forty-ton is truncated without the slightest sense.
      Explained. But they themselves understood nothing. No one will wage a naval war on the principle of Peresvet with Chelubey.
      ... = You need to have a head, not blindly copy it. =
      Yours? God forbid. Where does such conceit come from at all - with zero knowledge to accuse our / Chinese / American / Indian / Japanese specialists of incompetence on the most basic issue?
      "The haberdasher and the cardinal are strength!" (from). Which of the following countries has full ABs comparable to the American ones? Or do they have AB for their narrow tasks? You don't understand basic things. If the enemy has a numerical superiority, all other things being equal, you are doomed to defeat, because you can never create an advantage in forces. Therefore, there is no point in wasting money on meaningless imitation.
      ... = In the 70s it was relatively inexpensive and worked fine. = /////
      The fiction department elsewhere. It was very expensive and disgusting.
      Only in your imagination. Read Timokhin's article about Gorshkov - broaden your horizons.
      ... It's time to get out of 1982 - almost 40 years have passed, many new types of weapons have appeared.

      And, as I understand it, they are all limited by the coast? More specifically?
      Well, you are trying to pretend to be a tough connoisseur. Here is a question for you to fill in - what type of weapon, which appeared just in the area of ​​the aforementioned 1982, significantly reduced the significance of the AUG when striking the shore? PS You did not answer the question about your basic education.
    3. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 14 2021 17: 45
      -1
      Quote: clerk
      Yeah. In the port for your own crew. When it will be destroyed before going to sea.


      And your device, of course, is in the port no, no. The truth is, in reality, the opposite is true - large ships have more autonomy on average.

      Quote: clerk
      But they themselves understood nothing. No one will wage a naval war on the principle of Peresvet with Chelubey.


      So it should be run like a lame goblin versus an MMA champion, yes. I understood the concept.


      Quote: clerk
      Or do they have AB for their narrow tasks?

      What are the "narrow tasks"? Examples of pzhalst.

      Quote: clerk
      You don't understand basic things. If the enemy has a numerical superiority, all other things being equal, you are doomed to defeat, because you can never create an advantage in forces. Therefore, there is no point in wasting money on meaningless imitation.


      Those. we should write off the aviation, and the Americans have tanks? Poor Yankees in the 80s. You would explain everything to everyone at once. No Abrams / Bradleys. Only clubs and cavalry, only hardcore. But there is no competition.
      Those. do you really think that if you do not compete with the Americans in aircraft carriers, the superiority of the Americans at sea will less?

      = Only in your imagination. Read Timokhin's article about Gorshkov - broaden your horizons. =

      Ie, you 1. took an article on the topic "did not want aircraft carriers and had to get out with a very bad result" 2. decided that you were doing everything right?
      Why am I not surprised?

      Quote: clerk
      Well, you are trying to pretend to be a tough connoisseur.

      Those. I have to come up with answers to my own question for you? You probably seem very cunning to yourself.

      Quote: clerk
      Here is a question for you to fill in - what type of weapon, which appeared just in the area of ​​the aforementioned 1982, significantly reduced the significance of the AUG when striking the shore?


      None. As for your IMHO ... Given your expected dating ability, you can suspect anything. State your version of the course of technical progress. I have suspicions, but they are too vile and I will give you the opportunity to sit ... on the throne on your own

      Quote: clerk
      PS You did not answer the question about your basic education.

      You first answer mine.
    4. clerk
      clerk April 14 2021 18: 22
      +1
      ... own crew. When it will be destroyed before going to sea.


      And your device, of course, is in the port no, no. The truth is, in reality, the opposite is true - large ships have more autonomy on average.
      It's not about autonomy. We are talking about the time in repairs, docking, etc.
      ... But they themselves understood nothing. No one will wage a naval war on the principle of Peresvet with Chelubey.


      So it should be run like a lame goblin versus an MMA champion, yes. I understood the concept.
      It is highly doubtful. Not your case. The point is that it is pointless to put one against three MMA champions at the same time, you need to look for other options.
      ... If the enemy has a numerical superiority, all other things being equal, you are doomed to defeat, because you can never create an advantage in forces. Therefore, there is no point in wasting money on meaningless imitation.


      Those. we should write off the aviation, and the Americans have tanks?
      You have a strange habit of attributing your nonsense to your opponent, and then refuting it with antics. Unlike aviation, Russia, in principle, has no opportunity to create local superiority over the US fleet, including in AB.
      ... Only in your imagination. Read Timokhin's article about Gorshkov - broaden your horizons. =

      Ie, you 1. took an article on the topic "did not want aircraft carriers and had to get out with a very bad result" 2. decided that you were doing everything right?
      Why am I not surprised?
      Perhaps due to a lack of knowledge, education, or a specific way of thinking.
      Well, you are trying to pretend to be a tough connoisseur.

      Those. I have to come up with answers to my own question for you? You probably seem very cunning to yourself.
      Not at all. Everything is banal and simple - windbag calls on specific issues.
      What type of weapon, which appeared just in the area of ​​the aforementioned 1982, significantly reduced the significance of the AUG when striking the shore?


      None. As for your IMHO ... Given your expected dating ability, you can suspect anything. State your version of the course of technical progress. I have suspicions, but they are too vile and I will give you the opportunity to sit ... on the throne on your own
      Well, voice your "vile suspicion." In return, I promise to honestly name what I meant.
      ... You did not answer the question about your basic education.

      You first answer mine.
      I have answered all your more or less adequate questions regarding my knowledge and education.
    5. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 14 2021 19: 09
      -1
      Quote: clerk
      It's not about autonomy. It's about time in repairs, docking, etc.

      Those. do you think that the repair time is linearly proportional to the displacement? Do boats spend 0,1% of their time being repaired? Or, again, you could not draw the simplest conclusion and I will now hear “I’m not new, you’re completely new”?

      Quote: clerk
      The point is that it is pointless to put one against three MMA champions at the same time, you need to look for other options.

      Those. or a lame goblin or no champion, cover yourself with a sheet and crawl into the graveyard?
      I don’t hear any other constructive other than greasy mriyas about "a cheap and effective solution. Or do you think that your Wishlist is some kind of news?"

      = You have a strange habit of attributing your nonsense to your opponent, and then refuting it with antics. =
      And yours is not at all strange to yell "I did not say that, you are all lying" after another crazy somersault of thinking.

      = Unlike aviation, Russia, in principle, has no opportunity to create local superiority over the US fleet, including in AB. =
      1. That is, without local superiority, aviation is useless, do we put it on airfields and wait for the weather by the sea? Will there be again the main song about the old "I didn’t speak" now?
      2. What does this local superiority have to do with the problem being solved to prevent them from safely catching boats?
      3. What makes you think that it is fundamentally unattainable? With the 5th grade arithmetic textbook, everything is bad, right?

      = Perhaps due to a lack of knowledge, education or a specific way of thinking. =

      Those. another ridiculous "conclusion" you made, but you need to blame everyone around?

      = Not at all. Everything is banal and simple - windbag calls on specific issues. =
      Those. everyone should guess that you fantasized from great intelligence, right? Powerful. Very powerful.

      = Well, voice your "vile suspicion". In response, I promise to honestly name what I meant. =
      Do I have to believe you? So, name, sister, name (damn, I shouldn't have warned you).

      = I have answered all your more or less adequate questions regarding my knowledge and education. =
      I also,
    6. clerk
      clerk April 14 2021 21: 56
      +2
      It's not about autonomy. It's about time in repairs, docking, etc.

      Those. do you think that the repair time is linearly proportional to the displacement? Do boats spend 0,1% of their time being repaired? Or, again, you could not draw the simplest conclusion and I will now hear “I’m not new, you’re completely new”?
      You will again hear a standard question for a conversation with you: - where did you get such nonsense and why are you trying to attribute it to me?
      ... And yours is not at all strange to yell "I did not say that, you are all lying" after another crazy somersault of thinking.
      I realized that after the failed antics about locksmiths and cleaners, attributing this nonsense to your opponent is your next line of "defense" in a discussion that has failed for you.
      . = Perhaps due to a lack of knowledge, education or a specific way of thinking. =

      Those. another ridiculous "conclusion" you made, but you need to blame everyone around?
      So you consider yourself "everyone around"? Well, something like this I assumed when I wrote about your specific way of thinking.
      ... = Well, voice your "vile suspicion". In response, I promise to honestly name what I meant. =
      Do I have to believe you? So, name, sister, name (damn, I shouldn't have warned you).
      It seems hard for you to live, if even in such a trifle you cannot take their word. Okay, I'll take pity on you: after the appearance in Tomahawkovi in ​​the early 80s and their widespread distribution, the need for stealthy AUG raids to the enemy coast with the aim of surprise strikes has significantly decreased. Therefore, the cited example of 1982 has greatly lost its relevance. Together with your empty argument "protecting your shores from enemy AUG."
    7. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 14 2021 22: 21
      0
      = You will again hear a standard question for a conversation with you: - where did you get such nonsense and why are you trying to attribute it to me? =

      Those. you didn’t tell me this?
      "Yeah. In the port for its own crew. When it will be destroyed before going to sea."
      And in response to the fact that 40k is even worse with this.
      "It's not about autonomy. It's about time for repairs, docking, etc."
      If you did not mean that your forty-ton is radically different from 100k in terms of repair time, then that you meant? Just inarticulate indignation at the imperfection of life?

      = I realized that after the failed antics =
      In reality, after my antics, you did exactly what I said - yelled "I didn’t speak," right? And I like to sneer, yes - that's such a bad person I am.

      = So you consider yourself "everyone around"? =
      That is, for the bottomless wisdom of life (tm) and the enchanting logic, shown right here, the environment does not spite you? Well, I don’t believe it.

      = Okay, I'll take pity on you: after the appearance in Tomahawkovi in ​​the early 80s and their widespread distribution, the need for stealthy AUG raids to the enemy coast with the aim of surprise strikes has significantly decreased. Therefore, the cited example of 1982 has lost its relevance. Together with your empty argument "protecting your shores from enemy AUG." =

      1. Ie. the introduction of the US Navy / AUG into service with a horde of missiles with a range of 1500+ in conventional equipment lowered the relevance of coastal protection from AUG?
      Nezamunenko yes. This is the power of the intellect. This is no longer even alien logic.

      2. What makes you think that "Tomahawks" were not going to be used secretly? The fact that he was on the submarines does not bother you at all, does it?
    8. clerk
      clerk April 15 2021 05: 36
      +2
      .e. you didn’t tell me that?
      "Yeah. In the port for its own crew. When it will be destroyed before going to sea."
      And in response to the fact that 40k is even worse with this.
      "It's not about autonomy. It's about time for repairs, docking, etc."
      If you didn't mean that your forty-ton is radically different from 100k in terms of repair time, then what did you mean?
      Yes, with the logic you have difficulties, it meant that single 40 kt and 100 kt are equally vulnerable at the pier and during repairs, so there is no point in paying more.,
      ... = I realized that after the failed antics = ////
      In reality, after my antics, you did exactly what I said - yelled "I didn’t speak," right?
      Wrong. This is just your wild imagination. More precisely, a typical defense mechanism that you use when you fail a discussion in essence.
      ... = So you consider yourself "everyone around"? =
      That is, for the bottomless wisdom of life (tm) and the enchanting logic, shown right here, the environment does not spite you? Well, I don’t believe it.
      Try changing your social circle to a more adequate one.
      ... I like to sneer, yes - that's such a bad person I am.
      It's not about good or bad. The fact is that your malice does not accompany the answers in essence, but replaces them with yourself.
      ... Those. the appearance of the US Navy / AUG in service with a horde of missiles with a range of 1500+ in conventional equipment has reduced the relevance of protecting the coast from AUG?
      Nezamunenko yes. This is the power of the intellect. This is no longer even alien logic.
      Yes, quite human. Surprise strike is more effective to inflict covert CR than to rush AUG.
      ... What makes you think that the "Tomahawks" were not going to be used secretly? The fact that he was on the submarines does not bother you at all, does it?
      Again you are trying to ascribe to me some kind of nonsense. What for?
    9. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 15 2021 09: 51
      -1
      = Yes, with the logic you have difficulties, it meant that single 40 kt and 100 kt are equally vulnerable at the pier and at the repair, so there is no point in paying more., =

      That is, they are equally or almost equally vulnerable at the pier (in fact, not, because they are autonomous), but it makes no sense to pay more for multiple opportunities? What's in your head at all.

      = Wrong. This is just your wild fantasy =
      "I didn’t speak" # 1001.

      = Try changing your social circle to a more adequate one. =
      Are you suggesting to end the dialogue?

      = Surprise strike is more effective to inflict covert CR than to urge AUG. =
      1. To begin with, you were broadcasting not about secrecy, but generally about the absence of the need to defend against AUG with "Tomahawks". Opponent's capabilities have expanded = no defense is needed. Even for a couch strategist, this is too powerful.
      The idea that the Americans, after hitting the Tomahawks, planned to sail away into the sunset out of abstract humanism, and for religious reasons not to use carrier-based aircraft, is generally some kind of apofigue of unmovedness.
      "Tomahawks" are weapons of the very first strike or strike against difficult targets.
      2. Ie Do the hordes of ships (and smaller ones cannot deliver a massive blow) will sharply increase stealth from the lack of normal reconnaissance? Your logic is Martian, yes. How do you react to American music of the 50s?

      = Again you are trying to ascribe to me some kind of nonsense. Why? =
      I didn’t say # 1002.

      "After the appearance in Tomahawkovi in ​​the early 80s and their widespread distribution, the need for covert AUG raids to the enemy coast with the aim of surprise strikes has significantly decreased." Therefore, the example given in 1982 has greatly lost its relevance. Together with your empty argument "protecting your shores from enemy AUG."

      That is, a simple thought that the absence of the need to hide right off the coast means simply that the secrecy has grown, has not visited you at all?
  • ccsr
    ccsr April 14 2021 18: 17
    +1
    Quote: Alarmist79
    In reality, AB are needed to
    1. to fight the American AUG off their shores for at least some time.

    Enchanting statements, I can't even imagine where such views come from. If we have to fight a country with aircraft carriers like the United States or China, then the war will end in the first few tens of minutes, and not a single aircraft carrier group that really threatens our territory will no longer exist by the end of the exchange of nuclear strikes. All other tasks for our AUG are simply sucked out of the finger by various home-grown theorists who have no idea what the scenario of a war with our main opponents will be.
    Quote: Alarmist79
    2. Suddenly AUG is more than a serious threat to our shore.

    How can AUG "suddenly" appear off our shores? What will Copperfield help them to hide from the means of intelligence?
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 15 2021 10: 19
      -1
      I will be brief - you nothing don't know about the question. Although this statement can be used as a standard of clarity.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr April 15 2021 11: 49
      0
      Quote: Alarmist79
      To be brief - you don't know anything about the question.

      Just as briefly - you are just an illiterate militant dilettante in military affairs.
    3. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 15 2021 12: 00
      -2
      Well, you know better from the warehouse.
  • clerk
    clerk April 14 2021 11: 30
    0
    ... what AV we (do not) need ”, and only then prove something.

    Yes, no, what is there to prove ...
    Are we going to sail to the shores of America ??
    There are no other places on Earth besides America?
    ... the author believes that the Russian Navy does not need naval aviation in principle, so let him write it so clearly. So far, the article is an empty phone call on emotions.

    Now, if he just writes, it will be idle talk .. And he has everything disassembled and explained in some detail ..
    Nothing has been sorted out from him. All the “argumentation” of the Gazprom level is not exactly Russia. (C) Hyde Park Level.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 13 2021 13: 09
    -3
    Russia does not and will not have the money to satisfy all the wishes of our "hawks" who dream of an aircraft carrier fleet. And this is the most important question. And not a single author has really been able to answer so far where this money will come from ...

    Russia is the richest country in the world. Don't believe me? In vain. In Russia, such wealth is concentrated that ..... It can be "googled" ... Russia is the only country in the world, I emphasize, the ONLY one, which is capable of 100% satisfying all its needs, at the expense of its resources and capabilities. There are no more such examples.
    Russia is capable of anything, because in addition to its gigantic territory and resources, it, surprisingly, also got a very intelligent native resident - the Russian people. Populism? Agitation !? But no ... It's all true. Who helped the USSR to become one of the TWO poles of world life? Germans? Poles? British? No, it was done by a Russian peasant ...
    Was Project 1160-Eagle much inferior to the American Enterprise? Not. Who did not allow the Navy to have three powerful aircraft carriers by the end of the 80s? Agents? Why did the USSR need these "aircraft-carrying cruisers" ...?
    All the world's brains have always worked for the USA, only the brains of the citizens of the USSR have worked for the USSR ...
    The fact that the Great Russian State was killed by a handful for "30 pieces of silver" does not mean at all that the Great Russian People disappeared. He has become less (to the delight of enemies), but he is still alive. Do not forget this! We are still ALIVE! I am alive, my children, grandchildren, and, God forbid, great-grandchildren will live ... Klimov, Timokhin, Andrey from Ch. And many thousands of patriots of Russia are alive! We can do everything! But they do not allow us to do a lot, or they suggest (persistently inspire under various pretexts) that we cannot ... BUT WE CAN !!! AND WE HAVE EVERYTHING for IT!
  • yehat2
    yehat2 April 13 2021 13: 12
    +3
    Sorry, private companies that do business in Africa are not Russia. Lukoil, Gazprom and Rosneft, for whose interests the show began and continues in Syria, are also not entirely Russia.

    about covering up interests. unfortunately we live in capitalism and foreign investment often requires naval cover and is closely tied to politics and "interests." This is the main value of the fleet.
    And this is not only Lukoil and Africa, fishermen too, for example, especially not far from Japan and Norway.
    Another question is how it turns out that there are interests, which are not a pity to drive an aircraft carrier, but the ground base does not fit into these interests. Some kind of contradiction, in my opinion.
    About the construction of aircraft carriers. I was in favor of building full-fledged heavy aircraft carriers instead of Kuznetsov and Moscow. But now the situation is different and building aircraft carriers is the same as starting building a house from the roof and finishing, and postponing the walls until later. Finally, at the level of doctrine, our admirals have not been vouchsafed to articulate how they plan to use aircraft carriers so that they are not just white elephants, but effective units.
    This is also an important question that does not have an answer, primarily because it is not clear how it is SAFE to take these ships out into the operational space.
    Today, there is even a banal way to completely block the exits of our fleet to the sea with several mine banks. Has this issue been resolved somehow? not. And planes can place mines in a few hours. This is not counting other threats.
    The second important issue is money for construction and full operation,
    because it is not enough to build - without full and constant support for its operation, the aircraft carrier will turn into a giant monument to saw the dough. (this can be clearly seen on the example of Kuznetsov)
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 13 2021 20: 46
      -3
      = another question - how is it that there are interests, which are not a pity to drive the aircraft carrier, but these interests do not fit the ground base. Some kind of contradiction, in my opinion. =

      Imagine that you have interests in more than one country. Option a)
      You are an economical Skomorokhov. So, you either build in each country on
      a monumental base with a reserve for all occasions. Some are far from being fully utilized, some never, from which you were simply kicked out. Either you build small economical bases not for all occasions, but then somewhere (or everywhere) an expensive epic fail is inevitable. The housekeeper must be economical, yes.
      Option b) you are an aircraft carrier motorcycle. So, build small bases and a couple of healthy aircraft carriers, which you drive where necessary as needed. Well, you do all sorts of other things, the aircraft carrier is not only intended for the projection of force into Africa.
  • Overlock
    Overlock April 13 2021 13: 32
    +20
    And gradually we will stop imitating Dmitry Olegovich Rogozin in telling fairy tales about what might happen tomorrow. And we will evaluate what is happening in the country just like that, from a real point of view, and not in pursuit of cheap momentary authority.

    How people miss this!
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 April 13 2021 13: 48
    +2
    good article. And the numbers are there. What's big +
  • BAI
    BAI April 13 2021 13: 59
    +2
    It is worth asking you, Alexander, do you have any idea how much this sad show cost?

    When we were on the Kuznetsovo (in the early 2000s) one of the sailors said: "When Kuzya goes to sea, the rest of the Northern Fleet is at the berths without fuel."
  • Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan April 13 2021 14: 12
    0
    Having lost two planes out of the blue, having made a number of "combat" sorties with a half combat load (and in terms of fuel too), so that there was no risk, the "aircraft carrier" safely crawled to the base.

    This is called "imitation of ebullient activity" and "demonstration of the flag." No more.


    The author you wrote is nonsense and stupidity.

    I didn’t even bother to read this paragraph, I don’t see the point.

    TAVKR was sent to the shores of Syria in order to check its relevance during combat use and gain experience in its use in a combat situation !!!

    TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" our first aircraft carrier which was used to perform combat missions !!! The first aircraft carrier from which modern full-fledged fighters take off, not VTOL aircraft. Russia has no more experience in the combat use of aircraft carriers. The TAVKR would not have gone to Syria, it would not have been.

    Everyone understood perfectly well that the TAVKR was not in its best shape, the propulsion system was at the limit of wear, while the crew and the ship completed the assigned task !!!

    2 aircraft were lost, but not lost from scratch, but under the conditions of intensive use of the aircraft carrier's wing, the aircraft carrier did not experience such loads during the exercises, and this campaign revealed both the capabilities and disadvantages of the TAVKR, which will be eliminated.

    Look at the experience of other states with aircraft carriers, everyone has non-combat losses !!!

    And now, having experience in using TAVKR, experience in operating it on a long voyage in combat conditions, he went to modernization, where he had to replace the propulsion system, some of the equipment, and subsequently the air wing.

    Russia needs aircraft carriers, without them the fleet is incomplete. The aircraft carrier's wing increases the capabilities of our fleet by orders of magnitude.

    Another question is that this is not task # 1, and before the construction of aircraft carriers, destroyers of project 22350M must be launched into series and carry out a bunch of other tasks in aviation and air defense and in all other troops.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. April 13 2021 14: 15
    +3
    I support the author.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 15: 35
    +2
    I fully support the respected Roman Skomorokhov, an adequate article corresponding to the 21st century, the century of satellite rockets and AWACS aircraft, and not the outdated old troughs constrained by their draft
    1. Shishkov
      Shishkov April 13 2021 17: 17
      -4
      Quote: vladimir1155
      obsolete old troughs constrained by their draft

      And the Chinese are not aware of the Indians, they rivet all the troughs! And the Americans! And the British! And even the French! Well, stupid! And we'll go the other way, right? How is Nikita Sergeevich? Give the age of missiles!
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 13 2021 17: 20
        +1
        Quote: Shishkov
        Give the age of missiles!

        this is already the second century, and you are all in the 19th century ...

        In 2021, the population of China will increase by 7 and will be 450 at the end of the year. Natural population growth will be positive and will amount to 945 people.
        The population of India for 2020 is 1,380,004,385 people, or 17.7% of the population of the entire planet. The country ranks second in the world in terms of this indicator (China is ahead of India, and then the United States is in third place). 2% are urban residents.
        The population of Russia is the aggregate of the inhabitants inhabiting the territory of Russia. As of January 1, 2021, according to Rosstat, there were 146 permanent residents in Russia, according to this indicator, the country ranks ninth in the world in terms of population. The population density is 171 people / km² (015). Well, France and England, you know, have overseas territories ... there is nothing for Russia to do in this club
        1. Shishkov
          Shishkov April 13 2021 22: 27
          0
          So you decide - either the aircraft carriers, according to your apt remark, are "outdated old troughs, constrained by their draft", or they are the privileges of the superclub of selected countries with a high population density ...
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 14 2021 00: 07
            +1
            Quote: Shishkov
            "Obsolete old troughs, constrained by their draft",

            for countries aimed at defending their borders, or are they a means of attacking weak
            1. Shishkov
              Shishkov April 14 2021 08: 10
              -2
              And what exactly are they for India and China, in your opinion?
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich April 13 2021 15: 40
    +1
    The aircraft carrier debate has reached a dead end. This is evidenced by the transition to personalities.
    There are vital issues:
    - there are no near-zone boats, do not offer "Varshavyanka" boats;
    -no mine-anti-mine weapons and corresponding carriers;
    - to provide long-range weapons - there is no communication system, reconnaissance, target designation.
  • Shishkov
    Shishkov April 13 2021 16: 44
    -1
    "Question 3. How are you going to do without aerial reconnaissance?"

    Basically, how do all developed countries get along. Satellite network. Much more efficient than airplanes, does not depend (almost) on the weather, does not make mistakes, unlike the human eye, and so on. But yes, in the case of a really developed country. The underdeveloped, of course, must rely on reconnaissance aircraft.
    - writes Roman.
    To be honest, it is not clear how this can be blurted out and how to comment on it. I understand that Roman does not read books, but you can at least watch TV, there in the news sometimes they talk about the interception of NATO reconnaissance aircraft by our Aerospace Forces, about the use of reconnaissance UAVs by the United States, incl. strategic RQ-4 (a new modification of the RQ-4D Phoenix is ​​made by "underdeveloped" Americans, who do not know that it is easier to watch from space). Actually, the fact that for the author the term "aerial reconnaissance" implies "to look once how it is there", which can really be done from a satellite (and even then not always), and he is not aware of what data modern aerial reconnaissance can provide (as a result of which it is irreplaceable), characterizes this very author very well.
  • mz
    mz April 13 2021 16: 57
    -5
    That Mr. Skomorokhov is bad with logic and ability to think at least about tomorrow, I realized long ago, but with this article he even surprised me. Wherever he wrote about a technique in which I understand something, he has done it. I suspect that in other branches of technology too. But now it is clear that both as a strategist and as an economist, he too it.
    Russia does not and will not have the money to satisfy all the wishes of our "hawks" who dream of an aircraft carrier fleet. And this is the most important question. And not a single author has really been able to answer yet where this money will come from.
    Russia is bursting with money lying dead cargo in various funds under the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank. If this day is spent on the development of the fleet, then about 40% of this amount will be directly returned by the contractors to the budget, there are also jobs, the development of related industries (also taxes!). From the salaries of employees, money will also go to the budget as well. So 2/3 of the money will be returned.
    Well, for the sake of some economic interests there, our fleet will go to war with someone there.
    Someone tell him that ALL wars (without exceptions) in the world were due to economic interests.
    Simply because Russia today does not have a fleet capable of operating on distant frontiers, and even more so in the zone of US interests. And it won't. We have lagged behind the States forever. But more on that below.e.
    It is because of such "not too smart" (there are other words) that we do not have a suitable fleet. If Stalin had thought the same way in the 20s and 30s, the USSR would not have won. We need to build infrastructure, ships, planes, and educate people. These are costs that pay off many times over in the long run. And there is money now.
    Considering that the WHOLE defense budget of Russia for 2020 was 61 billion dollars, where do you plan to take TWO defense budgets just for construction?
    And then he lied (he was quite rightly accused of lying earlier). The expenditure part of the budget of the Moscow region for 2020 is 1.9 trillion. rub. Type in a search engine.
    Personally, I have not read the articles of Mr. Skomorokhov for a long time (the style is recognizable), but the topic of aircraft carriers is still interesting. The arguments of A. Timokhin and Andrey from Chelyabinsk seem convincing to me. And Skomorokhov has no arguments at all, which is confirmed by this article.
  • Newone
    Newone April 13 2021 23: 32
    0
    Another article from the series of Skomorokhs.
    It is difficult to surpass Timokhin in the "author's" approach when writing articles, but the author succeeded, yes.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 14 2021 09: 33
    +1
    Lukoil, Gazprom and Rosneft, for whose interests the show began and continues in Syria, are also not entirely Russia.


    Generally speaking, these are companies with a very large participation of the state, and they earn money for the state.

    We have lagged behind the States forever.


    The states, too, no one bothers to self-destruct, like the USSR. And Rome is an eternal city. And where is that empire. Well, okay, without some geopolitical shifts, there is no way to impose a battle at sea on the United States in the next 50 years, for sure, it's hard to argue with that. Well, no one imposes, you have to get into a fight when you are strong.
  • Xscorpion
    Xscorpion April 14 2021 10: 45
    0
    ... Having lost two aircraft out of the blue, having made a number of "combat" sorties with a half combat load (and in terms of fuel too), so that there was no risk, the "aircraft carrier" safely crawled to the base.

    This is called absolute ignorance of the issue and obvious disrespect for pilots and sailors. More than 500 sorties were made from Admiral Kuznetsov, this is far from a few. And who sank these aircraft? An aircraft carrier? Or
    Still pilots? One could not withstand a safe landing speed, and the second sank the plane a few kilometers from the ship. This is the question for the pilots, perhaps in the second case, the technical condition of the aircraft. Is this a military journalist writing for sure, and not the revelations of a drunken bum in a bar?
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 14 2021 15: 29
      +1
      Quote: Xscorpion
      And who sank these planes, the aircraft carrier, or
      are they pilots?

      Of course, the aircraft carrier is to blame, or do you think the pilot sawed down the air arrestor on purpose? The very concept of the Aircraft Carrier is flawed in engineering terms, not as reliable as a concrete airfield, which does not swing long and wide, does not require aerofinishers experiencing too heavy loads, so that the accident rate at AB, therefore, by definition, will be ten times higher than on a concrete runway, which and proven in Kuzi's campaign in Syria
      1. Xscorpion
        Xscorpion April 18 2021 07: 42
        0
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Quote: Xscorpion
        And who sank these planes, the aircraft carrier, or
        are they pilots?

        Of course, the aircraft carrier is to blame, or do you think the pilot sawed down the air arrestor on purpose? The very concept of the Aircraft Carrier is flawed in engineering terms, not as reliable as a concrete airfield, which does not swing long and wide, does not require aerofinishers experiencing too heavy loads, so that the accident rate at AB, therefore, by definition, will be ten times higher than on a concrete runway, which and proven in Kuzi's campaign in Syria

        In fact, it turns out that the pilot sawed it down, exceeding the prescribed landing speed. The air finishers are designed for standard landing standards. So yes, the pilot is to blame. Before that, there were dozens of cases of air control stops on aircraft carriers because of the abnormal landing speed of the aircraft. But this is not means that the aircraft carriers are bad, it means that the pilot is inadequate.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 18 2021 07: 54
          +2
          Quote: Xscorpion
          pilot exceeding the prescribed landing speed

          Exceeding the landing speed, as well as a too steep glide path, as well as loss of orientation, landing in unsuitable conditions, fog, ice, etc., happen to pilots with a certain degree of probability, these are people, these are situations, but on a concrete airfield this is in most cases nothing bad does not end, because there is a prudent reserve of stripe in length and width, and AB and its aerofinisher did not forgive such a mistake, there was no margin of safety, in this case, therefore, the aircraft carrier and its imperfect in terms of reliability system does not forgive mistakes
          1. Xscorpion
            Xscorpion April 22 2021 12: 45
            0
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Quote: Xscorpion
            pilot exceeding the prescribed landing speed

            Exceeding the landing speed, as well as a too steep glide path, as well as loss of orientation, landing in unsuitable conditions, fog, ice, etc., happen to pilots with a certain degree of probability, these are people, these are situations, but on a concrete airfield this is in most cases nothing bad does not end, because there is a prudent reserve of stripe in length and width, and AB and its aerofinisher did not forgive such a mistake, there was no margin of safety, in this case, therefore, the aircraft carrier and its imperfect in terms of reliability system does not forgive mistakes

            Exceeding the normative landing speed even on concrete roads, at best, will break the landing gear of the aircraft, at worst it will break completely. On an aircraft carrier, the speed limit for landing is simply lower than on land. Any mistakes are fraught, wherever they are. So either the pilot or the technical one is to blame. the condition of the aircraft. The aircraft carrier could only be to blame if it was not for the area where the aircraft would be accepted for landing.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 April 22 2021 13: 23
              +1
              Quote: Xscorpion
              Exceeding the normative landing speed even on concrete roads, at best, will break the landing gear of the aircraft, at worst, completely break it. On an aircraft carrier, the speed limit for landing is simply lower than on land.

              yes, indeed, the standard for speeds on aircraft carriers is tougher, which is very bad, and it logically increases the accident rate, which was required to be proved! ... firstly, a pointless conversation without specific numbers, what is the optimal landing speed and how much it can be exceeded, underestimated ... and without numbers, I know that the spread of permissible speed on a concrete strip is greater than on AB, on AB there will be tougher requirements for weather and landing accuracy, ... in other words, the obvious reality is beyond any doubt proven that the aircraft carrier as a system is less perfect, completely unreliable, and more dangerous than a concrete strip, stable in coordinates, long and wide, having special equipment to facilitate the take-off of the drawdown, and measures to reduce the accident rate.
              1. Xscorpion
                Xscorpion April 22 2021 13: 40
                0
                If you do not understand what planes and pilots do, then you can use the example of a simple road. If you did not fit into the turn due to speeding, then you will also blame the road for the fact that its angle of turn is not the same. Or maybe it was the driver who was to blame, because he did not drop the speed? Of course, you have such iron logic, everyone is to blame, but not me. So the aircraft carrier is the airfield, and it could only be to blame if it was not there. There could be nothing else. Well, except for small nuances in the speed of movement and the direction to the wind. But there was only a break in the air arrestor, which indicates ONLY the fault of the pilot. And he would have just killed himself about a simple airfield, if he could not withstand the required speed, only to death. But on Kuznetsov he survived, since the plane was in the water fell, so he got lucky.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 April 22 2021 13: 58
                  0
                  Quote: Xscorpion
                  If you did not fit into the corner due to speeding, will you also blame the road for the fact that its angle of rotation is not the same, or can it be the driver's fault, because he did not drop the speed? Of course, you have such iron logic, everyone is to blame, but not me

                  firstly, there is the law SP 34.13330.2012 Highways and if the turn does not comply with the law, then the road is to blame and those who made it .... as well as those who did not hang up a dangerous turn sign ... "GOST R 52289-2019. National standard Russian Federation. Technical means of organizing traffic. Rules for the use of road signs, markings, traffic lights, road barriers and guiding devices "(approved by Rosstandart order of 20.12.2019 N 1425-st) ... so those who invented imperfect aircraft carriers are not to blame. corresponding and grossly violated by a number of parameters the law of the Russian Federation SP 121.13330.2019 CODE OF RULES OF AERODROMES, for example, the paragraph on the dimensions of the runway and smoothness around the runway ...
                  5.3 The width of the runway should be constant along its entire length and not less than:

                  60 m - for class A runways;


                  45 m

                  "

                  "

                  "

                  B;

                  42 m

                  "

                  "

                  "

                  IN;

                  35 m

                  "

                  "

                  "

                  G;

                  28 m

                  "

                  "

                  "

                  D;

                  21 m

                  "

                  "

                  "

                  Е.



                  For class A runways designed for the operation of aircraft with a wingspan of up to 75 m and a track on external aircraft tires up to 10,5 m and smaller, the minimum runway width is allowed to be equal to 45 m. In this case, shoulders with artificial turf should be provided. The shoulder width should be such that the distance from the runway axis to the outer edges of each shoulder is at least 30 m.


                  Artificial turf shoulders should be provided for class A runways designed for operation of index 7 aircraft with a wingspan of more than 75 m.In this case, the total width of the runway with shoulders should be at least 75 m, and the distance from the runway axis to the outer edges of each they must be at least 37,5 m.


                  Artificial road shoulders must withstand the load created by the aircraft during accidental roll-out without causing structural damage to it, as well as the load of ground vehicles that can move along the side of the road.


                  5.4 The runway, including both equipped and non-equipped runways, should extend beyond each end of the runway or stopway, if provided, for a distance of at least 150 m for runways of classes A, B, C, D, D and 60 m. for class E runways.


                  Note - If it is impossible to ensure these distances (for example, due to difficult terrain or the presence of obstacles), the available distances must be reduced to meet the specified requirement.


                  5.5 The part of the LP, located in front of the runway threshold, must be reinforced to a width not less than the width of the runway in order to prevent erosion from aircraft gas jets and to protect landing aircraft from hitting the runway end at a distance of at least:

                  75 m - for class A runway;

                  50 m

                  "

                  "

                  "

                  B and C;

                  30 m

                  "

                  "

                  "

                  G and D.



                  These sections must withstand the loads from the aircraft in case of their accidental roll-out during take-off or landing, as well as the loads from the operational equipment.


                  Prior to the reconstruction of existing runways, a reinforcement is allowed, the width of which is reduced to 2/3 of the width of the runway at the end of the reinforcement.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 April 22 2021 14: 01
                    0
                    5.8 The runway, including an unequipped runway, should extend laterally on both sides of the runway centerline (along the entire length of the runway) for a distance not less than:

                    80 m - for runways of classes A and B;

                    70 m

                    "

                    "

                    Class

                    IN;

                    65 m

                    "

                    "

                    "

                    G;

                    55 m

                    "

                    "

                    "

                    D;

                    40 m

                    "

                    "

                    "

                    Е.

                    5.9 The part of the flight deck, which includes an equipped or non-equipped runway, located on both sides of the runway centerline (along the entire length of the flight path), must be planned and prepared in such a way as to minimize the risk of damage to the aircraft when landing with an undershoot or exiting the runway.


                    The planned part of the LP should extend from the runway axis at a distance not less than:

                    80 m - for runways of classes A and B;

                    70 m

                    "

                    "

                    Class

                    IN;

                    65 m

                    "

                    "

                    "

                    G;

                    55 m

                    "

                    "

                    "

                    D;

                    40 m

                    "

                    "

                    "

                    Е.



                    The planned part of the LP for unequipped unpaved airfields must extend from the axis of the main runway at a distance of at least:

                    50 m - for GVPP class G;


                    25 m

                    "

                    "

                    classes

                    D and E.

                    5.10 Within the planned part of the LP there should not be any objects, with the exception of objects with a light and fragile structure, which, according to their functional purpose, should be located on this part of the LP (visual aids, a control antenna of a localizer beacon, corner reflectors of a landing radar (hereinafter - PRL )). On the planned part of the flight line, there should be no mobile objects (aerodrome operational and other equipment) during the use of the runway for takeoff and landing.


                    5.11 There should be no objects within the limits from the border of the planned part to the border of the LP, except for those whose functional purpose requires their placement near the runway and does not allow placement in another place.


                    Within these limits, new objects should not be placed or existing objects increased in size, unless the placement of a new object or an increase in the size of an existing object:


                    - it is necessary to ensure aircraft takeoffs and landings, or


                    - will not adversely affect the aircraft flight safety.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr April 14 2021 18: 32
      +1
      Quote: Xscorpion
      This is called absolute ignorance of the issue and obvious disrespect for pilots and sailors. More than 500 sorties were made from Admiral Kuznetsov, this is far from a few. And who sank these aircraft? An aircraft carrier? Or

      I respect the naval and pilots, but for the sake of objectivity I want to remind you of all combat missions in Syria:
      During the anti-terrorist operation in the SAR (since September 2015), Russian aircraft made more than 30 thousand sorties, said Pavel Kurachenko, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces. “As of December 20, over 30 combat missions were performed by aircraft, during which more than 62 terrorist targets were hit,” Kurachenko said.
      Russian Aerospace Forces: during the anti-terrorist operation in Syria, more than 30 thousand ...

      https://topwar.ru/105969-vks-rf-za-vremya-antiterroristicheskoy-operacii-v-sirii-soversheno-bolee-30-tys-boevyh-vyletov.html
      500 sorties command respect, but against the background of 30 thousand it looks like a little-needed exercise in order to train the crews of an aircraft carrier and aircraft. And for this it was necessary to drive him to Syria?
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 15 2021 09: 36
        -2
        yes, because a weapon that has not passed the test is a bad weapon ... well, except for a nuclear weapon) there you can shoot without a nuclear warhead ... in fact ... Timokhin is right in his article, but Roman is not
      2. Xscorpion
        Xscorpion April 18 2021 07: 47
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        Quote: Xscorpion
        This is called absolute ignorance of the issue and obvious disrespect for pilots and sailors. More than 500 sorties were made from Admiral Kuznetsov, this is far from a few. And who sank these aircraft? An aircraft carrier? Or

        I respect the naval and pilots, but for the sake of objectivity I want to remind you of all combat missions in Syria:
        During the anti-terrorist operation in the SAR (since September 2015), Russian aircraft made more than 30 thousand sorties, said Pavel Kurachenko, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces. “As of December 20, over 30 combat missions were performed by aircraft, during which more than 62 terrorist targets were hit,” Kurachenko said.
        Russian Aerospace Forces: during the anti-terrorist operation in Syria, more than 30 thousand ...

        https://topwar.ru/105969-vks-rf-za-vremya-antiterroristicheskoy-operacii-v-sirii-soversheno-bolee-30-tys-boevyh-vyletov.html
        500 sorties command respect, but against the background of 30 thousand it looks like a little-needed exercise in order to train the crews of an aircraft carrier and aircraft. And for this it was necessary to drive him to Syria?

        Well, of course, it was for training too. And rightly so, military pilots should not eat their bread for nothing in training sessions. So yes, training in combat conditions. It's the same as our submarines from under the water they shoot calibers from the Mediterranean , although RTOs from the Caspian would cope with this, or even cast iron could be thrown from "Carcasses". This is just a run-in of the crews of ships and aircraft in combat conditions for real targets.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 18 2021 13: 30
      0
      Not 500+, but about 100, the rest are from Khmeinim. The pilot is just not necessary, he was ordered to wait until the air arrestor is repaired in order to hide the problem. Well, they hid it, minus the plane 10 minutes from the airfield on the ground.
      1. Xscorpion
        Xscorpion April 22 2021 12: 59
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        Not 500+, but about 100, the rest are from Khmeinim. The pilot is just not necessary, he was ordered to wait until the air arrestor is repaired in order to hide the problem. Well, they hid it, minus the plane 10 minutes from the airfield on the ground.

        Do you believe in your own nonsense? What aerial finish was repaired there if it was cut off only 20 days after this incident? As for the activities of the air group. In 2 months, they flew 420 sorties, including 117 at night, as well as 750 sorties to provide search missions - rescue and aviation transport support. A little bit more than 100? Write 10 at once, why be trifle. Americans have counted about 200, but you do not listen to them and do not believe ours.
  • All the details
    All the details April 15 2021 00: 42
    +2
    I will add. Aircraft carriers need not 1 + 1, but at least 3 + 3. Along the north and Top. One at the base, one went to the Atlantic, one to the Arctic Ocean. And at the Pacific Fleet, one in the base, one in the Indian, one in the Tikhiy near the Kuriles. And off it went: boats, tankers, CO, base in Kamran (but of course), destroyers, etc. And why were the bones on coupons in 1984 in the USSR? In millionaires, such as Samara? And oranges - oo-oo-oo ... Shish? Because. But there were aircraft-carrying cruisers and planes with a small radius and armament with vertical take-off Yak-38 ... Now pensioners with a poor pension, and we GIVE aircraft carriers! Is there money in China? There is. Much more than Russia. But there are not a lot of aircraft carriers. Here. Still, I like the scarecrow torpedo better. One! But WHAT! The idea is immediately clear to the Americans: Russia will not build aircraft carriers, but this one will reach Nuyorku with the golf stream ... the island can rock.
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 15 2021 09: 34
      -1
      laughing so it is not necessary now to build an avik, this is for the future ... when the carve-up of Africa will be the same
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 18 2021 13: 32
      +2
      Duc therefore ships in threes and take, and if we are in 6 pieces. cannot, then there is no point in building one. If the result does not reach some critical mass, then there is no point in starting at all.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 15 2021 09: 33
    -1
    hmm ... the topvar is degrading .. this is not the level of the article, this is the level of comments to the article .. and it all comes down to "so what?" .. The same Kuzya, provided that he was actually non-combatant, made 150+ sorties in 2 months .. subject to full combat effectiveness, you can safely multiply by 3 ..
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 April 15 2021 10: 42
      +3
      Quote: Barberry25
      hmm ... the topvar is degrading .. this is not the level of the article, this is the level of comments to the article .. and it all comes down to "so what?" .. The same Kuzya, provided that he was actually non-combatant, made 150+ sorties in 2 months .. subject to full combat effectiveness, you can safely multiply by 3 ..

      This is 3 sorties a day. For this, 3 planes in his air group are enough. I will keep silent about their combat load. And what did Kuzya do that the planes from Khmeini could not do, except that the pilots did not lose their qualifications.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 15 2021 10: 46
        -2
        have you read Timokhin's article? the point is not that "why an aircraft carrier when there is an airfield" because Avik will always lose in such cases, but what to do if there is no airfield? Practice shows that, taking into account the development of strategic nuclear forces, there will be no nuclear here I disagree with Timokhin, but the number of proxy wars is growing, when we have to deal not directly with the United States, but with their protégés ... in general, everything is the same as it was before, only there were the British ... and here we have a floating airfield is not a weak trump card in its sleeve ... or even a hundred sorties, especially with modern weapons of destruction, will greatly help our allies or our expeditionary forces ..
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 18 2021 08: 01
        +2
        Quote: Pilat2009
        enough 3 aircraft in his air group.

        there are just so many of them left, according to some sources
  • Earthshaker
    Earthshaker April 15 2021 11: 43
    -3
    The point of the article, in short, - Kuznetsov does not drown only because of his own excrement; The MiG-29k is the same ... guano, so we don't need a new aircraft carrier, since it won't be any better than the existing one. And we don't need another president. And the party of edrosov will replace any others for us. And the judiciary must fully obey the executive and protect the legislature. Why change for the better, progress, it is better to leave everything as it is. After all, poplar, mace and iskander will protect us (no).
  • CBR600
    CBR600 April 15 2021 12: 03
    -1
    Thank you! Excellent! And most importantly, the CONCLUSIONS and RESULTS of the situation.
    And we will evaluate what is happening in the country exactly like this, from a real point of view

    good
    There is no fleet, and it will not be built. We will not help any Africa or Vietnam or Korea, and we will not protect ourselves from the sea-ocean. Great naval power with naval doctrine.
  • viktor_47
    viktor_47 April 16 2021 21: 15
    +1
    When the capabilities of the country (state) are limited, the question of optimizing the type and number of defense means is a question of choosing a defense strategy and accurate calculations of the costs of providing this strategy. The argument on the fingers is simply pointless.
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK April 17 2021 16: 11
    -1
    It was not we who lagged behind the Americans, but they were behind us! And mind you, they admit that they are more than thirty years old! Russia just has a different tactics and strategy! Take Aikido too! An aikido fighter will never try to attack first! And for our potential opponents, this will be a mistake! And if at the top they say to build aircraft carriers, then we will build them! It's not up to us to decide whether they are needed or not!
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette April 17 2021 17: 46
    0
    I suppose on this discussion about the need for aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy can be considered closed? Thank you, Roman!