Military Review

On the way to Tsushima: our fleet without aircraft carriers

486

Recently, on the pages of "Military Review" a heated discussion has developed on the topic of the Navy and especially aircraft carriers. Although a discussion is it? For this word predetermines both a worthy level of discussions and disputes, and their culture ... Alas, but the phrase "Burn with a verb" will be more accurate and appropriate:


A. Timokhin very often appeals to the combat value of aircraft carriers, constantly trying to sum up the need for their construction within the framework of tasks that have no real justification. Avoiding serious questions concerning the real state of affairs in Russian politics, he charms the gullible public ...

The supporters of the aircraft carrier lobby, unfortunately, still do not understand ... They continue to use this class of warships as a subject of technological fetish, adjusting it to their own inappropriate fantasies. One of the striking examples of this are many articles of Timokhin, who regularly tries to promote the interests of fleet (or, perhaps, persons interested in increasing its funding) in accordance with their fantastic scenarios ...

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

Well, what can I say to that?

It is written with a "twinkle" (Mr. Voskresensky), but there is simply no reasoning for this point of view (as will be shown below). There is only misunderstanding, just lies and crafty manipulation of facts.

Let me emphasize that the effectiveness of an aircraft carrier cannot be a subject of discussion (in the sense of this word). "Argumentation" (in quotation marks) of the level "our stones (anti-ship missiles) will kill all their aircraft carriers in half an hour" - direct evidence of the complete amateurism of those who claim this. Only his appearance (and air groups) and models for solving problems can be the subject of dispute.

In connection with the repeated accusations of the aircraft carrier's supporters of "sofa argumentation", I will say about myself: I have, among other things, the experience of military command and control bodies (anti-aircraft division and strike force groupings), including the development of new tactics (and for interspecific groups of anti-aircraft forces). Despite the fact that "by education and upbringing" the author is an anti-submarine and a submariner, aviation the questions were carefully studied and monitored. The author's views and works are reflected in a number of articles. For example:

The ability to fight at sea is a necessity for Russia!
About the naval Su-34.

Long-range anti-ship missiles on submarines are good, but even better (and many times) they are on airplanes. Incl. because submarines do not fly from navy to navy by air, but we, alas, have 4 separate theaters ...

It is worth noting the very first article by the author (2007) on the problems of naval aviation:
Aviation of the Navy. Was. There is? Will be?

Note that the article was written during the period of service, it was read by his superiors. And, despite the harsh criticism of the realities of the Navy, there was no pressure on the author (however, all this was in the 2000s, and already at the turn of the 2010s, the situation in the Ministry of Defense changed a lot, and in a bad way).

Speaking about the "aircraft carrier discussions", it should be specially noted that The so-called “aircraft carrier lobby” in our country, in fact, is not simply not, in fact, opposing real combat-ready aircraft carriers as part of the Russian Navy. The point is that “lobbying” implies the presence of a personal “interest” (usually financial), in the interests of certain financial and industrial groups and individuals. And they in our conditions from the combat-ready operational formations (with an aircraft carrier) of the Navy "one concern": in this case, they will be asked for the result and the funds spent, moreover, with combat-ready ships (and not slipways and long-term repairs).

There are still more than enough opportunities for "tasty use of budget funds", and without any real responsibility for the real combat effectiveness of the manufactured military products. And first of all it concerns our submarine. Examples, moreover, documented, the author cited a lot in the articles.

What interests our "aircraft carrier lobby"? Beautiful different models, research projects without any responsibility and a real, practically usable result.

In short, a "process" with no result. And the longer, the better. The number of "pictures and models" of various aircraft carriers that have appeared "for the delight of the public eye" over the past ten years exceeds all foreign aircraft carrier PR combined. Russia has become the leading aircraft carrier power (in terms of the number of new projectors and their models). Especially funny (or rather sad) are projections and models, which obviously cannot be built. And not only for financial reasons, but also simply because of the lack of a slipway of the appropriate size and bearing capacity (for example, project 23000).

On the way to Tsushima: our fleet without aircraft carriers

At the same time, the only aircraft carrier in the Navy was in a chronically "half-choked" and absolutely incapacitated state. And this was quite suitable for the command of the Navy. After the successful implementation of the project with the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy, there was every opportunity to bring the Kuznetsov back to normal relatively quickly and for reasonable funds. And the money was then ...

Instead of repairing the "Kuznetsov" in the early 2010s, the fleet enthusiastically got involved in a scam with the "Admiral Nakhimov".

According to the situation for today I will give just one quote about the PD-50 floating dock (let everyone draw conclusions from it):

At 22:30, the dock crew, located in various areas of the dock, felt a shock in the dock hull, after which the power supply to the equipment and lighting was cut off. The emergency lighting was automatically turned on and the emergency diesel generator was started. The dock lurched to starboard.

It is also worth noting here the discussion, administratively “strangled” at the turn of 2010, on the appearance and options for the development of aircraft carrier topics in the professional community (with harsh “gagging” even for participants with “big stars”).

In a real public discussion on aircraft carrier topics, in fact, there are three groups: lobbyists (to whom the aircraft carrier itself has "one concern", but if they are always happy to "master budgets" on this topic, they are always happy), supporters (who understand the significance, need and capabilities of an aircraft carrier ) and opponents. Moreover, for the latter, there is an irrational-ideological, so-called, "argumentation" that boils down to "three nots": "not necessary", "we cannot (technically and organizationally)", "we cannot financially."


Irrationality in the direction of such a "curve of logic" applies precisely and only to the aircraft carrier. When ignoring the indicated "three no" (factors: tasks, capabilities and effectiveness) for any other combat assets (and even more so - to compare them according to the criterion "effectiveness-cost"):

Indeed, I have never concealed that I am opposed to the theoretical construction of these dull and expensive troughs.

"Logic" just "shines" (in quotes)! But the "ideological signboard" is already ready ...
And "no need" is also "already ready" - Far Ocean Black Hole.

For 30 years of Russia's existence, there was one operation off the "distant shores", which, it should be admitted, the Russian fleet failed. This, of course, is about supplying the group in Syria.

Excuse me, but what is more, the period of "Serdyukov reforming" was taken away from the fleet and has long been referred to as "here" the fleet ?! For what is at stake (auxiliary fleet), the Department of Transport Support (ATO) of the RF Ministry of Defense - Logistics of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (which, among other things, took away from the fleet and the General Staff building in Moscow)? That is, this is a real logistical failure in Syria (including the knocked-out resource of our VTA) - this is not Chirkov's or Korolev's fault, but Mr. Bulgakov's.

I. Orlov's meeting with A. Yaroshevich, head of the Russian Defense Ministry's anti-terrorist operation (photo: press service of the Governor of the Arkhangelsk Region) and General of the Army Bulgakov.

And the fault of the same Mr. Chirkov is only that, when in 2012 there was a real possibility of restoring and building a normal structure of the Navy's command (and revising a number of erroneous decisions), which was promoted by Admiral Suchkov, Adviser to the Minister of Defense, he did not show strong-willed qualities to go "Across Bulgakov".

We continue:

More than once, communicating 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 the MiG-29K was hung with everything that the Duckling was carrying on itself, the wings of the MiGar would break off and the landing gear would bend. Because 2–2,5 tons versus 8 is ridiculous.

Yes, it's funny. In the sense: such "arguments" (in quotes). For earlier, our opponents said that "democracy in Russia will be saved" by the Tu-160, with the bomb load of which, in turn, the "duck" will "break off the wings and the landing gear will buckle."

Only bad luck, the overwhelming majority of sorties in Syria were carried out with a bomb load of less than 2 tons (with its high-precision application).

Typical "Syrian" combat load of the Su-34.

At the same time, the combat load of the MiG-29KUB can exceed 5 tons, and this is a real value (checked by a foreign customer on the Vikramaditya), with the provision of takeoff from a springboard.

More than 5 tons on external hangers MiG-29KUB

What will happen to the pilots "with a good dose of humor from Buturlinovka" when they try to somehow provide assistance to the Kaliningrad enclave (in the conditions and opposition of the Polish F-16C with AIM-120C with AWACS) without an aircraft carrier, look clearly:


Allegedly "not necessary"


However, even this is not the main thing, but the fact that if the "Sultan" struck, then our Su24M / 34 / 30SM in Khmeimim would immediately become "burning bonfires" (under the blows of long-range rocket artillery), after which the significance for the Syrian and Russian troops would have a combat load of air-to-air aircraft.

Moreover, at the initial moment of the Syrian operation, everything really hung on "one airfield" (located in the affected area of ​​long-range jet artillery from the territory of Turkey). It is better for our public not to know what at that moment were the "alternate airfields" (for it would take a lot of validol).

And here again one cannot but recall Mr. Voskresensky with his "Naval dramas: on politics, war and expediency".

The initial burden of hostilities fell on our strike aircraft, stationed at the Iranian Hamadan airfield, where the Tu-22M3 and Su-34 were based. Where, dear readers, do you see a place for an aircraft carrier in these events? Does A. Timokhin deliberately distort the facts and mislead?

Good question, huh? Especially considering that in fact there is no any long-term basing of our aviation on Hamadan did not have, and the first strikes from this air base were delivered only in August 2016. Despite the fact that the operation in Syria has been going on for ten months! Accordingly, the question is: Is A. Voskresensky himself deliberately ("Fleet dramas: about politics, war and expediency") distorts the facts and misleads (here already without quotation marks)?

By the way, the statements of Mr. Voskresensky about the alleged "inability" of the serial production of aerofinishers is also a banal and rather stupid lie. For their serial (!) Production is carried out, both by order of India (including for a new aircraft carrier), and for the repair of our "Kuznetsov".

Actually, what he wrote in "questions to the supporters of the aircraft carrier" (for example, in paragraph 3, about the alleged "Avoidance of the R&D problem"), speaks only of his complete incompetence in this topic. In one of the upcoming articles, the author will return to these issues, especially with regard to the actual topic of differences between works on ROC and serial GOST.

Is Voskresensky ready to confirm his statement about allegedly "7 years of training specialists for the operation of nuclear power plants?" Or, in his opinion, have the terms of training in the engineering schools of the Navy changed from the actual 5 years? The example seems to be "small", but it shows the level of "argumentation" (in quotes) of the opponents.

Returning to Syria, I will emphasize that the situation at the beginning of the operation was extremely acute (a very nervous reaction in the Ministry of Defense was caused by the photographs of our aircraft in Khmeimim, handed over by the author to officials, taken from the bushes near the airfield by foreign journalists). Even without Turkey, with the timely reaction of the owners of the "bearded pets" (Nebenz) at the initial moment of the operation, the very possibility of basing and using aircraft from Khmeimim could literally be under attack.

And it was at this moment that V.V. Putin's phrase sounded:

Where is our aircraft carrier ?!

Next specialist quote The OPK directly involved in the subsequent "emergency action":

Last fall, the Dark One told the admirals to deploy aircraft from Kuznetsov across Syria this fall. He was told that it would not work - no accuracy. He asked: are not admirals shaking their shoulder straps? So that everything will be in the fall.

Well, the admirals found an office that finished 2 links for them by the required date, they flew to an aircraft carrier and arrived at the shores of Syria. Now they fly from Khmeimim, and sometimes from Kuznetsov.

And the phrase of Mr. Voskresensky:

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

What's this? "Argument" (in quotes) or is it still a very dubious bogey?

Actually, it will be possible to lead to this once again here is this example:

No. 312/4/4421 of 15.05.2019, the handling of information on the state of the submarine forces of the Navy and the Northern Fleet received by the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, by the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation has been reviewed. This situation is not true.
I. Dylevsky, Deputy Head of the General Staff School.

To put it mildly, this answer from the General Staff is not true.

And, by the way, the fact that until very recently at the Pacific Fleet we did not have a single modern minesweeper (and even an anti-mine NPA) - this is what it was “news"For the corresponding" officers of the General Staff "? And there are many such examples. So there are serious questions about the "officers of the General Staff". And, all the more, it is not a worthy method of dispute to openly avoid real issues behind the “fig leaf” of officials and statements.

Allegedly "we can not"


R. Skomorokhov's opinion:

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 carrier group, consisting of separately taken troughs of forty years ago, 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. 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.

The question involuntarily arises - maybe then “it's time to go to the shroud and crawl to the cemetery”? However, we will not be in a hurry with this. Moreover, the reality is somewhat different.

First. Yes, Timokhin's "African example" is extremely unfortunate. And there really is no need for us to get the Armed Forces into various adventures of new "obrazovskoy gangs".

Only now there is another format of the conflict, which we are simply obliged to enter, and acting quickly and toughly - ensuring the rescue of civilians in actions such as the "landing in Mogadishu" in 1978. The status is binding. And this is not something "virtual", but a very specific pillar of the state (and not abstract, but with very specific political and economic consequences). The Power must be able to effectively respond to such challenges.

As for the thesis of Mr. Voskresensky:

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

Then the best answer to these crafty words would be the example of Somalia in 1993, the massacre of the Hutu and Tutsis, northeastern Syria (where the United States was forced to transfer large army units, and their PMCs and special forces there survived only thanks to their support and aviation). As for the "size of participation", the optimization for the "minimum costs" occurred for purely "economic reasons" - the financing of the corresponding PMCs by corporations. Only in the absence of real strength against any serious opponent, such an economy ends up very badly.

Second. When the United States “appears on the horizon,” we have not only nuclear weapon and effective tactics of conventional actions to contain a multiply superior enemy (an illustrative example of 1973 in the Mediterranean).

The third. We need, first of all, a "coastal defense aircraft carrier", but with the possibility of using it in the ocean and distant sea zone as part of an expeditionary force against a "weak enemy".

A. Voskresensky writes:

A. Timokhin deliberately misleads the readers of Voenniy Obozreniye, trying to set the Navy with such tasks as a hypothetical prevention of a nuclear strike ... Our strategic nuclear forces are provided, and by no means hypothetical aircraft carriers. The Russian nuclear arsenal has full numerical parity with the American one, but has more advanced types of delivery vehicles. There is no real guarantee that the first disarming strike can work. By the way, now we don't have them (and even if we start building them tomorrow, there won't be at least 15–20 years) - why are American nuclear warheads still not falling on our heads?

Such words speak of the complete dilettantism of those who state this. For, just in order to ensure the combat stability of our ground group of strategic nuclear forces, there is a complex system: from the early warning system, the "black suitcase" and "Perimeter", and ending with strategic submarines on duty. At the same time, the fact that the mine launchers and mobile ground launchers themselves are vulnerable to a "disarming" nuclear strike was not only not denied by experts, but this was directly stated many times!

And in this situation, the role of NSNF is very important. And, accordingly, the possibility of providing them with general-purpose forces and an aircraft carrier (as a factor ensuring combat stability).

As for the thesis "they did not strike at us," the enemy did not set such a task at that time, simply because of the corresponding military-political conditions. However, they change. Moreover, the delivery of such a blow is practiced by the "so-called partners."

A. Voskresensky's statement:

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

This speaks of a complete misunderstanding of both the issues of nuclear strategy and military policy. Moreover, not only the United States, but all the leading countries of the world (the latest example is the recent "nuclear guarantees" of the United States to Japan, the subject of which is worthy of a separate article).

As for A. Voskresensky's article "The Rotten US Nuclear Shield" and his assessments of the new US nuclear warheads, this is purely his private opinion, with which the author does not agree on a number of fundamental points, however, from a public analysis of this issue in an open publication on will refrain from the public resource. I will only note that with pleasure, having trampled on the old "Minutemans", he "preferred not to notice" the relatively modern "Tridents" SSBNs (technologies for which are preserved).

And here is the opinion of R. Skomorokhov:

Epic trip "Kuznetsov" to Syria. Having made all of Europe laugh and outraged environmentalists, the ship was dragged to the shores of this country, so what? And nothing. 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."

"Kuznetsov" was poisoned to Syria by order of the Supreme. As part of a virtually large-scale verification of the maximum range of weapons of the RF Armed Forces. And extremely serious problems with real combat effectiveness were revealed in very many samples of our weapons. Yes, the "TV" preferred not to talk about these problems, but many of them were known among specialists and experts, and this topic was discussed, including on specialized public resources.

And all that happened, of course, shows that there was a point in sending the ship. Precisely "look and check". And draw conclusions. Moreover, at the level of the Supreme, the task of forming an effective operational unit (at least one) has been set. But in terms of its actual implementation, the situation does not even seem to be window dressing and deception, but simply direct sabotage (of course, “under plausible pretexts”).

Briefly on the AWACS factor and carrier-based fighters


R. Skomorokhov:

We, unlike potential adversaries, do not have such a necessary component as a deck-based AWACS aircraft. And even in the future it is not planned, since we cannot figure out the A-100 yet. And without such an aircraft, the aviation group will be doomed to protect itself in the air above the aircraft carrier. Civilized countries have AWACS aircraft. Which are equipped with the appropriate equipment and crew members working on it. In our country, out of poverty, the pilot of a one-seat fighter will deal with this. 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.

First. Today there are good reasons to question the existing concept of the AWACS aircraft (at least for the weaker side). The effectiveness and combat stability of "classic" AWACS aircraft in the past was largely determined by the low efficiency of air-to-air missiles with radar seeker (especially in conditions of powerful interference).

Second. The A-100 problems are the A-100 problems, and there were no technical problems to receive in a short time (for example, on the basis of the Tu-214 in storage) there were no "tactical" AWACS aircraft - only "organizational" ones.

The third. Taking into account the new conditions, the question arises of a new appearance of the AWACS aircraft, with the provision of a significantly higher speed and maneuverability. And we had such a platform - a very promising Su-33UB aircraft.


Let me stress that according to the situation at the beginning of the 2010s. Su-33UB was absolutely real ... Today? I will not quote the heavy words of the Chief Designer K. Kh. Marbashev, spoken not so long ago ...

As for the thesis about the "outdated MiG", for example, A. Voskresensky:

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

It should be noted that it is precisely the opponents who avoid the "questions of the cost and timing of the development of advanced weapons", replacing this with a meaningless stream of letters. Yes, if we talk about an aircraft carrier in the 2030s, it will be a new aircraft. Which will still be done (including taking into account the obsolescence of the Su-57).

But now there is a plane for the aircraft carrier - the MiG-29KUB. Yes, not perfect. However, those who criticize it forget that its development (this word would be more correct, as opposed to revision) in the late 2000s - early 2010s. she just went for scanty money for work of such complexity. And against this background, the result turned out to be more than worthy. Moreover, the modernization potential of the MiG is far from exhausted (like other aircraft of the 4+ generation, an example of which is the recent order of the US Air Force for new F-15s).

Even the problem of "F-35B as an adversary" has effective solutions for the MiG (if the problem is solved with an integrated system, of which the MiG is an element).

Allegedly "we cannot financially"


But with the thesis “we cannot financially”, the opponents somehow immediately “made a mistake”.

It is worth starting with the plans for the current GPV:


As they say, "facts on the face."

Yes, the numbers were then corrected (including due to a large-scale disruption in the construction of new ships). However, the fact is that at the turn of the 2010s, there were both the means and the possibilities for a full-fledged repair of the Kuznetsov or the construction of a new aircraft carrier (taking into account the experience of the Vikra).

Today everything is "much more interesting." R. Skomorokhov writes:

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

The amounts have already been allocated. Moreover, the "boxes" are already being built. I'm talking about the Kerch UDC (the displacement of which has already taken off beyond the completely aircraft carrier 40000 tons). Here you can add the attempts of certain individuals and groups to "dig up a stewardess" with a VTOL aircraft.

Only now, all this is, in fact, an “aircraft carrier lobby” just in the sense said at the beginning of the article: the topic is to open, the means to “master”, and nothing comes out.

The scale of the UDC's tasks requires two tough conditions: reliable air support (and we have a “little housekeeper Kuzya” with this) and a powerful floating rear (with which we have an “ambassador” called ATT under the leadership of the genius General Bulgakov). But there is a theme. And funding is underway (of course, the sums there are not at all miserable, publicly announced 100 billion rubles, but much, much more).

ABOUT TARKR "Nakhimov" and "Lazarev"


R. Skomorokhov wrote (Which is more useful, "Admiral Nakhimov" or ten "Buyans"?):

In general, I hope that instead of the "Admiral Lazarev", with whom we said goodbye, our fleet will receive more useful and, most importantly, new ships. Although the huge sums that will be spent on putting in order "Admiral Nakhimov", too, frankly, it is a pity. It would be better if ten Buyans were built. Delight is delight, but protection is still protection. There is a difference, as it were.

And if it is really possible and necessary to agree with the dubious expediency of modernizing Nakhimov as a “battle missile cruiser”, then “what is the right way to spend money on” is not.

"Buyan-M" is a very low-seaworthy (primarily in terms of the use of weapons) and low-speed platform. And its feasibility for the Navy was in doubt from the beginning. Another thing is "Karakurt" ...


But…

Remember how you changed a Chinese diesel engine that "suddenly" went out of order at one of the "Karakurt"? I had to cut the side to remove the engine.

Given that the facts are as follows: Chinese diesel engines (just on the "buoys" ("Buyan-M") on the "Karakurt" there are domestic "stars" (which actually "threw" through specially provided removable sheets in a day).


The following thesis is even difficult to comment on:

Can fight off submarines? Theoretically, yes, but the bulk of the ship does not differ in controllability, and inertia is the same in general, 25 tons is not a little. So a torpedo is the worst thing you can think of for a cruiser, and the best thing that the enemy can use.

Forgive me, but it's not the middle of the twentieth century "outside", now anti-torpedo protection is provided by means of counteraction, not to mention the fact that the project 1144's maneuverability is quite worthy. Note that the horizontal maneuverability of the Project 949A APRK, which is close in displacement, is close to that of the Project 971 multipurpose nuclear submarine.

However, everything changes completely regarding the repair and modernization of the Admiral Nakhimov, if a decision was made to rebuild it into a light aircraft carrier. It would be much simpler, cheaper (current real modernization). And in this case, the aircraft carrier "Nakhimov" would have had time to take part in the Syrian operation.

TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov" and close in displacement light aircraft carrier "Hermes" with "Phantoms" and "Buccaneers", which were tested on it.

To the question - what do the opponents of aircraft carriers propose to spend money on?


As for the aircraft carrier, it is already "clear": it is only to blame for the fact that it is an aircraft carrier (despite the fact that there has never been a question of "increasing funding" for it for the Navy - only the redistribution of funds within the usual funding of the Navy, primarily at the expense of submarines). However, let us return to the question - what the opponents propose to spend money on.

Build new boats. Urgently, at Stakhanov's pace. And here again, not everything is smooth. Russia today has one nuclear submarine, thank God, a universal one that can be built. Project 855M Yasen-M submarine missile cruiser. Plus the project 955 strategic submarine Borey.

At the same time, the author, in a series of articles, citing a large number of documents, showed and proved the presence of extremely serious shortcomings in our submarines (with which they are, at best, "of limited combat capability"). However, according to the "opponents" of aircraft carriers, huge funds should not only be spent on them, but at "Stakhanov's pace" (as well as on the stupid "buoys" of Project 21631).

The statement of Mr. Voskresensky that the work on the Vikramaditya allegedly caused the deadlines for three of our 4th generation nuclear submarines to be missed is simply a lie. And the lie is very stupid. For the fact that the aircraft carrier left Sevmash 8 years ago is well known, as well as the massive disruption of the deadlines for the nuclear submarines of the current GPV up to the present time. Apparently, because "someone must be to blame," and "the aircraft carrier is to blame already because it is an aircraft carrier."

R. Skomorokhov's thesis (hence):

We have coastline guard fleets. This is a fact, dear readers. In addition to strategic missile carriers, all other ships are simply not able to move away from the coastline without damage to themselves.

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For without support, the submarines indicated by him (including the NSNF) will simply be shot at sea. There were enough facts of this in my articles.

With and without an aircraft carrier - tasks and conditions for their solution by the armed forces


I will repeat what was said in the article again. "The ability to fight at sea is a necessity for Russia!":

An opponent who surpasses us and has the initiative will not bluntly knock his forehead against a solid wall where we are strong, he will strike where we are weak.

The presence of even a light aircraft carrier "coastal defense" provides a qualitative increase in the combat stability of the forces of the fleet, and a sharp increase in the effectiveness of its strike potential (figuratively speaking - "efficiency of missile use"). Let me emphasize that within the framework of the same funding, the difference in efficiency may differ (without and with an aircraft carrier) by an order of magnitude. This question was modeled in detail and qualitatively studied, and described in a number of works (for example, in the works of the GosNII AS and VMA Rear Admiral Matveychuk). However, they are still closed (although today they no longer carry real classified information).

The same aircraft carrier can be the basis of an effective operational formation when operating against a "weak enemy" in the far and oceanic zone.

Figuratively speaking, the question is not in the "hack" with the "United States in a certain Bandustan" - in this situation, the SNF (the factor of nuclear deterrence) rules. The question is “Bandustan instead of the United States,” but in military-political and geographic conditions that are extremely inconvenient for us. A vivid example of this is the Russo-Japanese War. Where England, at that moment our enemy number 1, "technically stepped aside", replacing itself with "weak Japan."


I repeat:

And, by the way, who should we rent the Kaliningrad region to? Germany, EU or Poland? And “if something happens”, only the sea will remain for us, because the “Suvalka corridor” will be tightly “sealed” by an American division, and a non-combatant one (!).

However, R. Skomorokhov already answered:

What can you say based on these numbers? Well, just that the only function that our "modern" Baltic Fleet can perform is to die heroically. Moreover, this does not even require the British and French, who play not the last violins in the NATO forces. Small-town regionals will cope.

In short, again - to the "shroud and to the cemetery." Only now, an open "drain" of the military conflict with Poland for Russia will have extremely bad political (and other) consequences ...
Supplements Mr. Voskresensky:

A. Timokhin does not at all understand the realities of relations within the NATO bloc - for some reason he seriously believes that in the event of a direct military threat, the countries of the alliance will be divided by contradictions.

The topic of relations within NATO (and especially the United States) is worth a series of good articles. However, now it will be sufficient to remind Mr. Voskresensky of the scandalous details of not confirming by the United States of Article 5 of the NATO Charter - just like that. For the way it was subsequently "confirmed" further underscores the critical attitude of the United States towards this "pillar" of NATO. Moreover, this is in no way a "sign of weakness", it is nothing more than "expanding the range of possible options for action."

It is also worth noting here that 70 JASSM-ER missiles (with which Poland can shoot through everything, up to Moscow and St. Petersburg) are, in fact, "the decision of the Washington regional committee." Yes, now Poland has a lot of problems with the armed forces. In fact, they are not ready. But that's a matter of a couple of years. But after that, the problem of how to lead the convoy to the enclave rises before us at full height!

Here it is worth noting the "great idea" "to fill the enclave with tanks" (well, and similar "green toys"). The problem is that the stronger our land grouping is there, the more acute the issue of logistics will be. And the logistics, there is only one - the sea (including for aviation).

Once again, I will repeat this in Japan:

After the amendments to the Constitution, Japan was left with the only option for the development of events in the Kuril Islands - force. Moreover, the main factor in this is not even we, but China, to counter which in Japan there is an extremely acute issue of complete "zeroing" of all military-political restrictions after the Second World War (flesh before obtaining nuclear status). All technical preparatory work for this has been carried out a long time ago. The question is a political decision, or rather, its passing through parliament. And the "little war" (preferably victorious) is very appropriate here.

View R. Skomorokhova:

The Kuril problem “if something happens” is perfectly solved from the ground airfields of Kamchatka and South Sakhalin. 300-400 km from Sakhalin to the southern islands and the same amount from Kamchatka to the northern part. Yes, and there are airfields on the Kuril Islands ...
Deliver reinforcements? Yes, this is the right thing to do. But for this, simply landing ships are more suitable, which both take more and carry on.
Cover? Yes, from the same airfields and the same frigates / corvettes.

We count the flight time. Let's say the ideal version of the MiG-31BM (Sushki will be completely sour). The problem is that the planes, if they arrive (when the ships are called), are already at the rafts. Inflatable.

Missed Opportunities


I repeat:

The experience of the Indian aircraft carrier contract has shown that we have no technical problems in order to have our aircraft carrier in good working order and combat readiness. Technical ... For there are others. Namely, the fact that an aircraft carrier is, first of all, the highest organization, it is a symphony orchestra, and we are used to it on three thieves chords ...

And in the situation of 2011–2013. we had a full opportunity for the normal repair and modernization of "Kuznetsov" or the construction of a new aircraft carrier. And for quite reasonable money and within the specified funding of the Navy. Yes, at the expense of the submarine. And this is what largely "feeds" the "intensity of the verb" of the opponents of aircraft carriers in our country.

As for the disruptions to our shipbuilding, the reasons for it were not at all technical ... Starting with the former head of the surface shipbuilding department of DOGOZ (in fact, "the project manager of our entire surface shipbuilding", including ROC for component complexes and systems and funding), which at the beginning of 2014 years quickly changed the "blazing place" (leaving behind the "ruins") for the "carefully prepared place" of the boss in one of the PKB, and ending with the actions of the "underwater lobby".

R. Skomorokhov writes:

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

Three examples against.

First. AICR "Omsk", released in 2008, after a complex emergency repair from the DVZ "Zvezda" a year earlier than the time planned by the fleet - this was done personally by the ex-general director of "Zvezda" Yu.P. Shulgan and the chief builder Smirnov. And for "Zvezda" it was, in general, the first order of the 3rd generation that came out of repair!


Second. The creation of the Karakurt MRK was completed in less time than in the USSR it took the creation of the Project 1234 MRK. And this, too, did not fall from the sky, but was done personally by the chief designer of the project, the general director and owner of the Pella plant.


Third. Chinese Navy with Project 054 frigates. Diesel, not heavily armed, but massive, reliable and efficient enough (isn't this what Timokhin shouted about in his articles?), With which the PLA Navy began the massive exploration of the ocean zone.


Accordingly, all statements of the type:

Opponents stubbornly avoid the question of the duration of all work ... "Magic realism" is turned on - here the FSB forced them to work in an emergency ... We got an incredible backlog from somewhere ... Here are the engineering personnel (by the way, the training of engineers serving ship reactors takes 7 years) ... The reality is that our defense industry has been repairing Admiral Nakhimov since 1999, and on April 6, 2021 it was announced that the commissioning of the TARK was postponed again ...

These are, in fact, “two hundred thousand reasons” that you can find not to do (and “excuse yourself” for it).

Statements like:

Appeal to the example of the restructuring of the Vikramaditya. In this case, we are dealing with a partial restructuring of a Soviet aircraft-carrying cruiser, which disrupted the construction timeframe for three nuclear submarines for our fleet.

This is simply a lie. And taking into account the volume and complexity of the repair work, the cost was really close to the cost of building a new ship.

At the same "Sevmash" at least a deepening of the pool and expansion of the bathoport are required. Remind me how many years we have been tormenting the dry dock for Kuznetsov?

In short, what is happening to the docks for Kuznetsov has too many signs of overt and deliberate sabotage.

Basing issues. This factor is ignored entirely.

No, Mr. Voskresensky. That you have no idea about the subject of the conversation. The Kuznetsov base was found (at least at the plant), and there are no problems with the basing of light aircraft carriers "dimension 1144".

Conclusion


First. Yes, we do not have a combat-ready aircraft carrier. Moreover, "Kuznetsov" not only has never been to him, but efforts are being made by certain persons so that he either simply does not leave the repair, or even after it remains in a virtually incapacitated state. This means not only that in the course of hostilities our fleet will incur heavy unjustified losses, not only that our Onyxes and Zircons will fly into milk. Without an operational connection with an aircraft carrier, it will be impossible to ensure the logistics of the Kaliningrad enclave (and our grouping there), to hold the Kuril Islands. The fact that "so far everything is quiet" (relatively quiet) is only because our "so-called partners" (and the "corresponding regional committee") did not make a decision to transfer the course of events to the "hot stage".

And our weakness here is, in fact, a provoking factor. A military defeat of the country from an admittedly weak adversary (even Japan is formally weaker, not to mention Poland) will become a military-political catastrophe. A catastrophe that certain groups and individuals wish and prepare (and in this regard, a series of “sudden problems” of “Kuznetsov” happens somehow very synchronously with the aggravation of the military-political situation).

Second. The essence and, most importantly, what is needed to create an effective fleet (armed forces and an aircraft carrier). I’ll just give you an example, without “decoding” (because for those who understand, it is already clear, and those who do not want to understand, again “avoid the question of the duration of all works, we have got an incredible start from somewhere”, etc.) ...

On November 25, 2012, at the age of 51, Luo Yang, general designer and general director of Shengyang Aircraft Industry Corporation, died on board the Liaoning aircraft carrier after the successful landing of the Chinese carrier-based fighter J-15 on the aircraft carrier.


The cause of Luo Yang's sudden death was the overstrain of forces from overlapping events: the beginning of tests of the prototype of the Shenyang fifth generation fighter J-31 and the beginning of tests of the J-15 on an aircraft carrier. The late designer took a personal part in each of the projects, delving into all the details, and during the landing of the J-15 on the aircraft carrier "was 20 meters from the point of contact with the deck." He often worked after midnight, not paying attention to his own condition and refusing to visit a doctor. Judging by the article, a large number of problems were revealed on board the Liaoning that required immediate solutions, which caused a strain on the forces of the designer, who urgently arrived aboard the ship by helicopter on August 18, 10 days after it went out to sea and a week before the officially announced first J-15 flight dates.

I highly recommend re-reading V. Kashin's article about this on the resource "Periscope-2".

And we have such people in the defense industry complex. There are admirals who are really tuned in and aim to "plow" so that the fleet and the country find a really effective aircraft carrier (aircraft carriers). There is a task set personally by the President. There is considerable and quite sufficient funding for the Navy (the lion's share of which today goes to dubious submarines, which the enemy will sink and shoot, starting from the exits from the bases). There is (for the time being, because in a number of positions we are today on the verge of losing our scientific and technical groundwork) experience and groundwork in this area.

And there is a strange "mouse fuss" in the direction, let's call a spade a spade - the preparation of the military defeat of the country.
Author:
486 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. prior
    prior April 28 2021 09: 20
    -3
    Maybe already enough about the fleet and about aircraft carriers.
    The government will change in Russia - then there will be a fleet, there will be aircraft carriers.
    Medvedev said at one time - NO money.
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 09: 28
      +1
      Quote: prior
      Medvedev said at one time - NO money.

      do YOU ​​have a vision like?
      1. prior
        prior April 28 2021 09: 36
        +28
        Both with vision and hearing ...
        As if alive, I see the SU-57 squadrons, the Armada Armada, 25 million high-tech jobs, a salary of $ 2700 and the "success" of the pension reform ... and much, much more.
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 09: 37
          -3
          Quote: prior
          Both with vision and hearing ...

          apparently not very
          because the dough was mastered more than
          (reduction from the guideline figures for the Navy is not more than 30% with all sequestration)
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal April 28 2021 13: 04
            +6
            We know how to master, there is no doubt about that.
            And they also say that in the USA he drank a lot, while we have efficiency squared request
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 April 28 2021 17: 09
              -2
              In this case, the plan for the Navy was simply failed and the money was not used - the 2020 program for the Navy spilled over into the next one until 2027.
          2. NIKN
            NIKN April 28 2021 13: 13
            +5
            Quote: 971
            because the dough was mastered more than

            It’s not even a question, would give more and more “mastered”, but who and where exactly mastered, Our oligarchs so dough for 2 avians at least “master” for a couple of three months and at the same time report that they really mastered, without specifying.
            No, I'm not against the article, there is at least nothing to find fault with, but the reality is much deeper in terms of the reality of the use of funds for their intended purpose. And this is already becoming a national leadership style.
        2. 3danimal
          3danimal April 28 2021 13: 10
          +4
          You don't understand, the main thing is to believe. Evening Soloviev will explain everything intelligibly.
          After all, even from one of our Su-57s, all the heads of the NATO countries are constantly trembling, what will happen when (one day) we build a dozen?
          And someday, tomorrow, in a year, ten, one hundred years, there will be thousands of them and (we will conquer the whole world) everyone will be afraid of us smile
        3. for
          for April 29 2021 17: 43
          0
          25 million high-tech jobs,

          But what about the officials who know how to play with the kerchief.
        4. sleeve
          sleeve April 30 2021 05: 42
          +1
          And don't you see anything else? What for? You were personally "promised". They did not set goals in public for the performers, did not outline plans, but swore and promised. And when the last crumb of bread in hand is crumbling and there is nothing to lose, then in a vacuum space without politics and covid once a promise was made. This is exactly how the Ukrainian development options are won. You only need to listen to what you want to hear and do on the basis of personal grievances. How else? The state is for you personally and only. Moreover, it is characteristic that the economic component of the small-town dispute about the timing of the construction of an aircraft carrier is transferred to politics. Translated and expanded to "antipopular crime" with reference to Tsushima and 1941. In fact, no one here is against the construction. We are talking about the place of this ship in the naval and foreign political doctrine. "Conservatives" are hinting in every possible way that we do not need a strategy and doctrine based on aircraft carriers. For a show-off, a couple is enough. "Marine optimists" are struggling with "proofs" that they need more and thicker ones. For what? It turns out for the corresponding naval doctrine. We have before our eyes the experience of the collision of large aircraft carrier groups. Their effectiveness, methods of winning and losing, results for the general course of hostilities. All this is in the US-Japanese segment of the Second World War. There is also a clash of aircraft-free naval forces with aircraft carriers in the Atlantic and Mediterranean episodes. Well, let's draw conclusions then. "The Past War"? So what will be the global difference? In the range of defeat? But, excuse me, for "witnesses of the deck catapult" it will be just about "insignificant anti-ship missiles", which is "silly to mention in counterarguments." In general, let's translate these militant "convergence" to a common denominator. To begin with, let's answer the question all together. What EXACTLY do we need this ship for? That's right in the current realities. And, turn it over, "constructivization" of the discussion, bringing it to a common opinion and a denominator, is exactly what is happening at the top. And we do not build a huge and beautiful ship just because there are no global imperial ambitions, which (historically) do not require a special explanation for the appearance of "big things".
        5. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 30 2021 21: 22
          +1
          If you look for what you invented, then there will always be a reason to accuse the authorities of not fulfilling the promises you made up.
      2. Doctor
        Doctor April 28 2021 09: 44
        -6
        do YOU ​​have a vision like?

        Nightmare. 5 trillion for a mindless navy.
        Despite the fact that the reconnaissance battalions in the Ukrainian divisions ride motorcycle leagues.

        History teaches only that it teaches nothing ... recourse
        1. dorz
          dorz April 28 2021 10: 40
          +8
          There is considerable and quite sufficient funding for the Navy (the lion's share of which today goes to dubious submarines, which the enemy will sink and shoot, starting from the exits from the bases).

          Turkey is preparing for the construction of its own aircraft carrier with the experience gained in the construction of the TCG Anadolu amphibious assault helicopter ... If the Turks are capable of building an aircraft carrier, then Russia simply needs it.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor April 28 2021 10: 58
            -3
            If the Turks are capable of building an aircraft carrier, then Russia simply needs it.

            While we will spend money on the fleet, they will reach Moscow by land. It has already happened more than once.

            Priority for Land and Air Force. Then all sorts of toys.
            1. dorz
              dorz April 28 2021 11: 15
              +6
              Russia only sells $ 400 billion worth of minerals a year. There is money, but there is no will to take it.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 April 28 2021 17: 15
                +4
                In general, over the past year, Russia's raw materials exports amounted to $ 167 billion, and the total exports amounted to $ 336 billion.
                1. dorz
                  dorz April 28 2021 19: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  In general, over the past year, Russia's raw materials exports amounted to $ 167 billion, and the total exports amounted to $ 336 billion.

                  I don't remember the source, most likely it meant export, domestic market and smuggling.
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 April 28 2021 22: 12
                    +1
                    Well, smuggling is the same in terms of volume as export.
            2. Normal ok
              Normal ok April 28 2021 12: 01
              0
              Quote: Arzt
              If the Turks are capable of building an aircraft carrier, then Russia simply needs it.

              While we will spend money on the fleet, they will reach Moscow by land. It has already happened more than once.

              Priority for Land and Air Force. Then all sorts of toys.

              I agree with you on one thing: there are real economic opportunities and "you can't jump above the ceiling." DO NOT agree on how the resources available are being used. even the available opportunities could be used more efficiently. And not for a total cut of the budget.
            3. timokhin-aa
              April 28 2021 15: 57
              +7
              We have no enemies on land that we could not unwind.
              But there are enemies at sea.
              That could destroy us if we miss a beat. With impunity.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor April 28 2021 17: 23
                -2
                We have no enemies on land that we could not unwind.
                But there are enemies at sea.
                That could destroy us if we miss a beat. With impunity.

                Can you imagine what kind of fleet we should have to reliably neutralize all "Ohio"? 10 budgets are not enough for us.

                It is enough to provide a guaranteed retaliatory strike.
                And this is even now, otherwise we would have been unwound long ago. belay
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 28 2021 17: 26
                  +4
                  Can you imagine what kind of fleet we should have to reliably neutralize all "Ohio"? 10 budgets are not enough for us.


                  I can imagine. Enough.

                  It is enough to provide a guaranteed retaliatory strike.


                  And if it turns out that the enemy is no longer afraid of him?
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor April 28 2021 18: 15
                    0
                    I can imagine. Enough.

                    It even became interesting ... winked
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      April 28 2021 18: 40
                      -1
                      This is not for the press. For now, at least.
                      Such ideas are not shared.
                      1. Doctor
                        Doctor April 28 2021 19: 07
                        -2
                        This is not for the press. For now, at least.
                        Such ideas are not shared.

                        laughing
                        Just don't forget about dialectics.

                        And then the Japanese also thought - we will hit Pearl Harbor and we are the masters in the Pacific Ocean.

                        Once an aircraft carrier is laid down in Russia, Huntington Ingalls Industries will lay down three.

                        And then there is such a strategy in poker - to crush the bank. Who will run out of money before.
                        Considering the fact that the Russian economy is 26 times inferior to the United States, the outcome is obvious.
                        Even the USSR failed. No.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        April 28 2021 19: 09
                        +4
                        To win a war at sea does not require superiority in forces. We need superiority in a salvo, and not stupidly numerical, but winning the fight for the first salvo.
                      3. Doctor
                        Doctor April 28 2021 19: 21
                        -2
                        To win a war at sea does not require superiority in forces. We need superiority in a salvo, and not stupidly numerical, but winning the fight for the first salvo.

                        Like you will cover their shipyards with the first salvo?
                        Oh well. No.
                        But the problem lies elsewhere.
                        You still need to collect this volley.
                        And as soon as you start doing this, they will react.
                        This is called the arms race.
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        April 28 2021 19: 23
                        +4
                        You would have at least some idea of ​​tactics would have got yourself - about the first salvo.
                      5. Doctor
                        Doctor April 28 2021 19: 27
                        -2
                        You would have at least some idea of ​​tactics would have got yourself - about the first salvo.

                        I served in the Air Force and the Aerospace Forces, so I vaguely imagine the first sea salvo. Enlighten too. fool
                      6. timokhin-aa
                        April 28 2021 19: 30
                        0
                        https://topwar.ru/181114-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-morskoj-boj.html
                      7. Doctor
                        Doctor April 28 2021 19: 58
                        +1
                        https://topwar.ru/181114-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-morskoj-boj.html

                        Thank you for reading. Again. wink
                        The problem remains the same. To win, you need quantitative and qualitative superiority. And we don't even have it close.

                        In quantitative terms, they will always be ahead, recall how much they built in the Second World War?
                        50 pieces per year only escort Casablanca.
                        Such:


                        And only 150 incl. 20 heavy. But there were also battleships.
                        A trifle like 800 destroyers and we don't count more than 2000 transports.

                        And that's just the fleet.
                        Aviation, tanks, art, trucks ... in unmeasured quantities.
                        Tushnyak and clothes at last.

                        In high quality - pick up your iPhone and our phone from the 80s.
                        These are open civilian products.
                        It's hard to even imagine what they have in the military.
                        But judging by the lack of reaction to our rearmament, Borei and Ash are a dummy. No.
                      8. Vadim237
                        Vadim237 April 28 2021 22: 15
                        +2
                        In a nuclear missile strike, the decisive word will be for the Boreys. Ohio Minutemen Yars Voivods Vanguards and Sarmatians.
                      9. Ryusey
                        Ryusey 4 May 2021 22: 13
                        0
                        There won't be enough of them, and what's next?
                    2. sleeve
                      sleeve April 30 2021 07: 13
                      0
                      Where is the "rzhu-can't" emoticon here?
    2. geniy
      geniy April 29 2021 13: 47
      -1
      Can you imagine what kind of fleet we should have to reliably neutralize all "Ohio"? 10 budgets are not enough for us.

      Why should you imagine? You just need to build a hundred small (nuclear) submarine fighters of American missile submarine cruisers. I also have such a submarine project.
      This is not for the press. For now, at least.
      Such ideas are not shared.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor April 29 2021 13: 59
        +1
        Why should you imagine? You just need to build a hundred small (nuclear) submarine fighters of American missile submarine cruisers. I also have such a submarine project.

        It remains to find US nuclear submarines in the ocean. wink
      2. geniy
        geniy April 29 2021 20: 59
        0
        It remains to find US nuclear submarines in the ocean.
        To do this, you can apply two methods: 1 method of waiting for the Russian Small nuclear submarine near the base of American SSBNs. Method 2 - search for an underwater sound channel in the PZK. You should know that all countries have a maritime border just 12 miles from the coast. And the United States has no maritime border at all! They consider themselves the ruler of the world and did not bother to mark their border. And this means that Russian nuclear submarines have every right to graze close to the American shores - yes, even at a distance of one mile - and wait for the next American SSBN to leave the base, and then our fighter boat will follow on his heels for 3 months and wait for the order to fire torpedoes into her side.
        The second way: you know that in the ocean at a depth of 2 kilometers there are so-called underwater sound channels in which sound travels for thousands of kilometers. And I know how to design a submarine that can easily dive to a depth of 6 km, and the depth is only 2 kilometers without any questions. Therefore, patrolling at a depth of 2 km, a Russian fighter boat can easily detect an American SSBN at any range.
        Thus, hundreds of Russian fighter boats will be on the heels of all American nuclear submarines for months. This means that in the event of the onset of a threatening period, all American SSBNs will be immediately destroyed. And the United States will completely lose the most important part of its triad - the nuclear submarine fleet. And then they will only have bombers and missiles in the silos - but as you know, planes fly rather slowly compared to missiles, and the missile silos can be destroyed.
      3. Doctor
        Doctor April 29 2021 21: 05
        +1
        It remains to find US nuclear submarines in the ocean.
        To do this, you can apply two methods: 1 method of waiting for the Russian Small nuclear submarine near the base of American SSBNs. Method 2 - search for an underwater sound channel in the PZK. You should know that all countries have a maritime border just 12 miles from the coast. And the United States has no maritime border at all! They consider themselves the ruler of the world and did not bother to mark their border. And this means that Russian nuclear submarines have every right to graze close to the American shores - yes, even at a distance of one mile - and wait for the next American SSBN to leave the base, and then our fighter boat will follow on his heels for 3 months and wait for the order to fire torpedoes into her side.
        The second way: you know that in the ocean at a depth of 2 kilometers there are so-called underwater sound channels in which sound travels for thousands of kilometers. And I know how to design a submarine that can easily dive to a depth of 6 km, and the depth is only 2 kilometers without any questions. Therefore, patrolling at a depth of 2 km, a Russian fighter boat can easily detect an American SSBN at any range.
        Reply
        Quote

        I give up. You are truly a genius. lol
      4. geniy
        geniy April 30 2021 22: 50
        -1
        Eh, if only your words are in the ears of God. How to persuade the leadership of the navy to build at least one experimental small nuclear fighter submarine with a displacement of no more than one thousand tons, a speed of up to 50 knots with a crew of 10 people, and have a huge immersion depth of several kilometers. I have a project too. And then start their serial production, so that in the next few years to build a hundred such submarines, and in ten twenty years so that the Russian fleet will receive a thousand of such boats - after all, the larger the series, the cheaper the construction. And then you can threaten the complete destruction of the entire American fleet, the number of which is about half a thousand ships. The fact is that now all underwater weapons - anti-submarine torpedoes have a maximum immersion depth of no more than 900 meters, and Russian submarines will be able to walk at a depth of several kilometers for years, and therefore it will be impossible to get them at all, but Russian submarines will be able to destroy all the fleets of the world. How would I find like-minded people in the leadership of the fleet?
  • for
    for April 29 2021 17: 48
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    10 budgets are not enough for us.

    It depends on how you spend it.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor April 29 2021 18: 36
      +2
      It depends on how you spend it.

      Yes, at least how.
      Not according to Juan sombrero. lol

      The share of countries in the world economy.
      1. sleeve
        sleeve April 30 2021 07: 18
        +1
        Actually, of course, the "ball" is terrible. I read somewhere that "taken out" production is counted in GDP by both those who took it out and those where it was taken out ... I'm not talking about GDP at PPP. Now it seems like it prevails, otherwise it's hard for investors to figure out where to shove the loot.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 4 May 2021 22: 11
    0
    You do not have enough gray matter and this is already regrettable.
  • antivirus
    antivirus April 28 2021 11: 54
    +2
    I am not a supporter and not an opponent of Av. BUT joking at them.
    started (?) with Komoedov the submariner. decided to develop seriously one thing without shortcomings and tails, or AB (1 rank) or a trifle. We revised the groundwork for the 13th five-year plan.
    in my opinion - solve all the problems with Eurasia - 6 tons of km of the border - only then "the longest coastal border"
    there is no instability for the seaside in Central Asia and the Caucasus. "friendship" with China, etc. (excluding Mongolia).

    me kaeettsya - the hands of the country protects the money - assets in foreign policy, trade and within the country from assaults. these are EU-SrAsia and East Asia.
    DRY AND FOR STUDENTS - Strategic Missile Forces. when they provide the perimeter, then we will reach AB. they are not evil to the navy, and I too ... but the question of annexing the regions (protectorate) in Asia will arise - who will help watered ruk-woo? 10 pcs AB 100 000VI each?
    wrote about paravoz and brake systems - the Angles would develop them by 500% for riches to go, but their trade depends on the sea and the protection of the British Ministry of Railways - from the Navy. we what and whom will AB destroy and protect?
    The collective Deripaska is not asking for Aw for African allyne concessions. until.
    1. con_nick
      con_nick 2 May 2021 22: 08
      0
      Quote: antivirus
      we what and whom will AB destroy and protect?

      The Northern Sea Route at least.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 3 May 2021 07: 32
        0
        Chelyaba and A from Ch can be protected? avoiding an answer and transferring and jumping is a well-known technique, in early childhood it was like this in the yard: "myself", and we have gas in our apartment .. ", but I have XX secret glass"
        1. con_nick
          con_nick 3 May 2021 10: 00
          0
          I didn't get it, please explain.
          1. antivirus
            antivirus 3 May 2021 20: 41
            0
            we are a land power. Is it possible to protect Chelyab and Krasnoyarsk by AVs or something else you need?
            then everything else.
            The United States holds AUG from Pers Gulf to its Kushenga.
            Do we need AV to protect the routes of transportation of our oil and other raw materials to the consumer?
            1. con_nick
              con_nick 4 May 2021 09: 18
              0
              As Mahen wrote, a navy unnecessarily "can only be created by the will of a tyrant." Those. first - the civilian fleet, without its presence the existence of the military is meaningless. Now attention, look at what has been happening lately:
              - tankers, gas carriers and other large-tonnage merchant fleets are being intensively built;
              - the fishing fleet is being built no less intensively;
              - Offshore production platforms are being commissioned;
              - gas pipelines are being built;
              - the river-sea fleet has always been built, and now it is no exception;
              - the most important thing is that the Northern Sea Route is being opened, i.e. ports of the Russian Federation are no longer the final stops on the outskirts of world sea trade.
              The same Mahen, speaking about the importance of the fleet for the United States (it was at the end of the 19th century), said that now the United States can stand on the sidelines, but with the opening of the Panama Canal, they will have to seriously deal with the fleet. We are now in exactly the same situation.
              I think it has convincingly shown that the Russian Federation needs a military fleet, and it cannot be built without AB.
              Quote: antivirus
              Do we need AV to protect the routes of transportation of our oil and other raw materials to the consumer?

              The question is posed incorrectly. You may need it, yes. But the tasks solved by the fleet in general and its aircraft carrier component in particular are much broader. And by the way, the money invested in the fleet also works in peacetime, if it (the fleet) is used correctly. Unlike the army.
              1. antivirus
                antivirus 4 May 2021 20: 32
                0
                while all routes for gas carriers and etc. are closed by coastal aviation - to the North Sea: Germany, etc.; Shanghai and nearby
              2. con_nick
                con_nick 4 May 2021 22: 00
                -1
                As far as I understand, there are no objections to the rest of the points? Well, that's nice. This means that we still need a full-fledged fleet, including aircraft carriers.
              3. antivirus
                antivirus 5 May 2021 12: 07
                0
                the fleet - only after bringing the villages / households of production to the proper modern level and building all the necessary infrastructure for life in the villages ... Moremans live satisfyingly - after the joy of the milkmaid Tmani.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 28 2021 10: 29
    0
    Practically without touching on the topic of the article, I will cling to these words:

    ensuring the rescue of civilians in actions such as the "landing in Mogadishu" in 1978. Status obliges
    .
    But we have a very similar situation. In the LDNR, a considerable number Soviet Russian citizens, and at the same time no aircraft carriers are needed, not even the marines to save them from at least shelling.
  • Per se.
    Per se. April 28 2021 10: 43
    +6
    Quote: prior
    Medvedev said at one time - NO money.
    He also said, "but you hold on." There is no money because our Central Bank (or not ours, under the IMF and FRS) cannot lend to its government.
    However, it's not about money, and not even about their quantity, but about desire. It depends on this whether they find opportunities or reasons. Now, people have "iron logic" (Yaroslav Zhigulin)
    13 augs versus one ... Good luck

    What is there to say about this.
    The Germans did not build one battleship, and the Japanese did not build one aircraft carrier.
    If you want to fight the NATO fleet your fleet must be at least 2/3 of the NATO fleet.


    Indeed, what can I say, it turns out, if we do not have 13 AUG, so not only aircraft carriers, but also the fleet is useless, since we will no longer build destroyers with frigates, not even nuclear submarines.

    Moreover, according to this logic, we can't do it at all, don't have more modern aircraft, don't call into the army more than the United States with all of NATO, plus their puppets, can do.
    In general, the army and the navy either exist or not. The army and navy are either strong or weak. But having less does not mean being worse if the army and the navy are full-fledged and not flawed, as the "well-wishers" are suggesting right there, speaking of the "coastal fleet."

    Further, presumably, they will offer a "frontier mini-army" with PMCs and "surface air forces" from cheap drones.
    It is easier then, in general, to mine all your nuclear power plants, plus nuclear warheads. You don't need to have anything else, they blew everything up right on their territory, without problems with missile defense, and the whole world is over. As the Supreme Commander said, "we, as martyrs, will go to heaven, and they will simply die."

    It seems that some generally wish that Russia did not have an army and a navy, that there would be enough allies and oil and gas. When the Soviet reserve of strength dries up, everything will crumble, it will be possible to surrender to the Western masters, in the name of the world of humanism and tolerance, dumping for the "hillock", to the "acquired by back-breaking labor" ...
    I hope these traitors will be hanged before they can plunder and destroy Russia.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor April 28 2021 11: 01
      +3
      Indeed, what can I say, it turns out, if we do not have 13 AUG, so not only aircraft carriers, but also the fleet is useless, since we will no longer build destroyers with frigates, not even nuclear submarines.

      Moreover, according to this logic, we can't do it at all, don't have more modern aircraft, don't call into the army more than the United States with all of NATO, plus their puppets, can do.
      In general, the army and the navy either exist or not. The army and navy are either strong or weak.

      Exaggerate.
      You just need to prioritize based on real threats. And spend your money wisely.

      If the money spent on battleships had been invested by Hitler in tank troops and aircraft, we would now be living in a different world.
      If only we lived ... wink
      1. Per se.
        Per se. April 28 2021 11: 31
        +3
        Quote: Arzt
        If the money spent on battleships, Hitler invested in tank troops and aircraft
        Hitler should not have come to power at all, and the West should have allowed the Germans to violate the restrictions of Versailles. But the fact of the matter is that Britain and the United States financed the Nazis, ultimately allowing the creation of the Third Reich, and Germany to gain the necessary military and economic power, as an anti-USSR. The Germans were allowed to take Austria, they gave Czechoslovakia, then the "strange war", in which Hitler continued to gain the necessary potential, nevertheless, allowing the British to get away from Dunkirk. Harry Truman's cynicism explains everything
        If we see that Germany is winning, then we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, then we should help Germany, and so let them kill as much as possible, although I would not want to see Hitler a winner under any circumstances. None of them keep their word


        Hitler was not supposed to defeat, at least the Anglo-Saxons, his actual masters. There is no doubt that they were going to finish off the survivor further, there is no doubt that the plans for nuclear bombing would have been at least under the USSR, at least under exhausted Germany, in which there was already an example of Dresden.

        Spending money wisely, is it "coastal fleet"? Sometimes you have to exaggerate, but this is better than doing demagoguery under the aegis of concern for "economy". What is your rationality, to our topic about the fleet, remained behind the scenes words about the spending of Hitler. You have to understand that if the USSR (or Russia) invested in tank troops and aviation, then we would also live now in another world, or in another world ...
        1. Doctor
          Doctor April 28 2021 11: 45
          +5
          What is your rationality, to our topic about the fleet, remained behind the scenes words about the spending of Hitler. You have to understand that if the USSR (or Russia) invested in tank troops and aviation, then we would also live now in another world, or in another world ...

          You are about the political aspects, and I am about the structure of the armed forces.

          The cost of the battleship Bismarck is 197 million Reichsmarks.
          The cost of the T-IV tank is 103 thousand.
          Roughly - instead of one battleship, one could have 1912 T-IV tanks.
          This is despite the fact that there were about 3500 of them on the eastern front. And this is not T-4, but all sorts. wink

          Do you understand now what this is about?

          Now we are again stepping on the rake.
          5 trillion in the fleet, and to fight again on the Kursk Bulge. laughing
          1. Per se.
            Per se. April 28 2021 12: 02
            +8
            Quote: Arzt
            Now we are again stepping on the rake.
            Yuri, you can't measure everything in "half-liters". Hitler's battleships, like their Plan Z in general, were the engine of the economy and military thought. The significance of the "Bismarck", which sank the "Hood" and damaged the "Prince of Wales", caught up with such fear on the British that they threw the PQ-17, barely learned about the departure of the same type of "Tirpitz". The forces that delayed these ships were significant, one can only assume that the Bismarck would not have violated the radio silence, had it reached the French Brest, what would have happened next in the naval war. The Germans built as many tanks and aircraft as they could build. The entire economy of the Third Reich was hypertrophied for the war, victory, like defeat, wrote off all debts.

            What I mean, I understand perfectly well, it was the USSR that had multiple superiority in tanks and aircraft over Germany by the summer of 1941, but it was not the number that decided everything, but the full-fledged structures of the German ground forces and aviation, their interaction, excellent communications and control. In this case, the fleet is a structure that is not instead of tanks and aircraft, but together, and for interaction.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor April 28 2021 12: 12
              +1
              Yuri, you can't measure everything in "half-liters". Hitler's battleships, like their Plan Z in general, were the engine of the economy and military thought. The significance of the "Bismarck", which sank the "Hood" and damaged the "Prince of Wales", caught up with such fear on the British that they threw the PQ-17, barely learned about the departure of the same type of "Tirpitz". The forces that delayed these ships were significant, one can only assume that the Bismarck would not have violated the radio silence, had it reached the French Brest, what would have happened next in the naval war. The Germans built as many tanks and aircraft as they could build. The entire economy of the Third Reich was hypertrophied for the war, victory, like defeat, wrote off all debts.

              What I mean, I understand perfectly well, it was the USSR that had multiple superiority in tanks and aircraft over Germany by the summer of 1941, but it was not the number that decided everything, but the full-fledged structures of the German ground forces and aviation, excellent communications and control. In this case, the fleet is a structure that is not instead of tanks and aircraft, but together, and for interaction.

              Yes, a fleet to interact with. But there is also a criterion for the effectiveness of the invested funds.

              I wrote below - boat type IV - 4,2 million, tank T-IV - 103 thousand.
              Instead of 1000 boats, Hitler could have 40 tanks.
              And then Guderian would have taken not only Paris, but also Moscow.

              Instead, 291 sunk ships out of 12057 that left the United States and South Africa at the height of the 1939-1941 submarine war.
              2,4% laughing

              And don't forget - one G7a torpedo - 50 thousand.
              2 torpedoes - tank.

              And there are 14 of them on the seven. wink
              1. Trapperxnumx
                Trapperxnumx April 28 2021 15: 36
                +1
                Quote: Arzt
                I wrote below - boat type IV - 4,2 million, tank T-IV - 103 thousand.
                Instead of 1000 boats, Hitler could have 40 tanks.

                He could have tanks. Where would you get so many crews? Towards the end of the war, they began to rivet tanks, but there was no point. Until the Hitler Youth, they put them in cars with a corresponding result.
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor April 28 2021 17: 29
                  -3

                  He could have tanks. Where would you get so many crews? Towards the end of the war, they began to rivet tanks, but there was no point. Until the Hitler Youth, they put them in cars with a corresponding result.

                  This is a conditional calculation showing possible paths.

                  +5000 tanks
                  +5000 aircraft
                  +5000 artillery
                  Hitler's on the Eastern Front in June 1941

                  And the world would be different. recourse
              2. timokhin-aa
                April 28 2021 16: 09
                +6
                Who told you that tanks and battleships can be converted into each other like this?
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor April 28 2021 17: 16
                  -1
                  Who told you that tanks and battleships can be converted into each other like this?

                  Karl Marx. laughing
                  "Money is a commodity adopted for the role of a universal equivalent."

                  We can now invest 100 yards here:


                  Or here we can:
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    April 28 2021 17: 25
                    +4
                    Not really.
                    There is a limit to the funds that a UAC or USC can master.
                    The Germans also had one, their production of tanks was close to the limit. Empty shipyards would not have accelerated it.
                    1. Doctor
                      Doctor April 28 2021 17: 32
                      0
                      Not really.
                      There is a limit to the funds that a UAC or USC can master.
                      The Germans also had one, their production of tanks was close to the limit. Empty shipyards would not have accelerated it.

                      Come on!
                      They, that battleships began to rivet from the fact that there was nowhere to invest money? laughing
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      April 28 2021 17: 58
                      +3
                      They began to rivet them because their enemy was at sea.
                      You simply do not understand the reality - if Hitler had run over Britain, and on June 22, no war would have started with us.
                      It all came down to the fleet.
                    3. Doctor
                      Doctor April 28 2021 18: 02
                      -1
                      They began to rivet them because their enemy was at sea.
                      You simply do not understand the reality - if Hitler had run over Britain, and on June 22, no war would have started with us.
                      It all came down to the fleet.

                      Everything is correct. Wrongly prioritized.
                      He got involved in a battle with a naval power without having an adequate fleet and without finishing - with a land power without having an adequate army.

                      As fans of AB are proposing to us now.
                      You can't be strong everywhere at the same time. winked
                    4. timokhin-aa
                      April 28 2021 18: 31
                      0
                      Where is our mega-enemy on land?
                    5. Doctor
                      Doctor April 28 2021 18: 55
                      +1
                      Where is our mega-enemy on land?

                      Where it has always been - Europe. Ukraine is the vanguard.

                      In the future, after a complete reprogramming - Central Asia with the Turks behind.

                      And by the way, where is the Mega-enemy across the sea? lol
                2. Trapperxnumx
                  Trapperxnumx April 28 2021 18: 04
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  You simply do not understand the reality - if Hitler had run over Britain, and on June 22, no war would have started with us.

                  Do you really believe that? And would there be eternal peace and friendship?
                3. timokhin-aa
                  April 28 2021 18: 30
                  +1
                  Of course not, but it could have been as Stalin told Zhukov - that way in 42.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 28 2021 17: 24
        -2
        So it’s just not spent on this or that, but to prioritize what is really needed now and for the future at the moment, Russia needs modern Strategic Missile Forces, attack drones of the MTR and the reinforcement of air defense forces and ground troops - the fleet is in third place. Russia will not fight at sea with anyone, even in the most distant future, and no one will be with Russia.
  • Tavrik
    Tavrik April 29 2021 21: 26
    0
    ... caught up with such fear on the British that they threw the PQ-17, as soon as they learned about the departure of the same type of "Tirpitz"

    Good Lord! Shaw, again? belay Why should they be afraid of Tirpitz, when a year before they drowned Bismarck together? In general, in the vast majority of cases, Royal Navy acted aggressively and skillfully.
    it was not the quantity that decided everything, but the full-fledged structures of the German ground forces and aviation, their interaction, excellent communication and control

    But I agree with this. The separation of the means of destruction from the means of comprehensive support does not lead to good.
  • lelik613
    lelik613 April 28 2021 19: 09
    0
    Alaverdi Yuri. If Stalin had invested the money spent on battleships in tank troops (ZSU, spare parts, evacuators and auxiliary vehicles) and aviation (turbochargers, M-105 and M-82 engines without scattering on other things ...), we would now live in another world.
    1. Doctor
      Doctor April 29 2021 14: 06
      0
      Alaverdi Yuri. If Stalin had invested the money spent on battleships in tank troops (ZSU, spare parts, evacuators and auxiliary vehicles) and aviation (turbochargers, M-105 and M-82 engines without scattering on other things ...), we would now live in another world.

      By itself. And all because the money is state. Not your own.

      Give now any horseless 3 million and he will buy himself a Land Cruiser.
      He won't even think about the yacht. laughing
      1. lelik613
        lelik613 April 29 2021 19: 56
        0
        Cruiser, Matiz or Maybach can be parked under the window. Unlike a yacht. And getting to work on a yacht is problematic
  • Yaroslav Zhigulin
    Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 11: 29
    0
    Russia does not have ocean communications for the protection of which a fleet is needed
    The influence in wartime on such a continental naval power is minimal. To strike at the United States there is the Strategic Missile Forces, why spend money on the fleet when they can be spent on the Air Force and the Strategic Missile Forces.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. April 28 2021 11: 45
      +6
      Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
      Why spend money on the Navy when they can be spent on the Air Force and Strategic Missile Forces.
      Then, Yaroslav, that it is not always possible to shoot at sparrows from cannons. The fleet can extinguish many problems in the bud, just without bringing the matter to the apocalypse. The point is not in the availability of ocean communications in our country, and even not in the availability of them in our "partners", but in the possibility or impossibility of pursuing an independent foreign policy, in which there will be more than just expressions of concern. We are not only a "continental power", but also the power with the world's largest coastline. If we allow ourselves to be imposed on all sides, to be sealed from the sea, they will make "Muscovy" out of us, for which Peter I would have hung all such "well-wishers" of Russia on the yard.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 28 2021 17: 29
        -3
        Sealing and imposing from the sea will soon no longer work - on the way are hypersonic anti-ship missiles and medium-range anti-ship MRBMs that will be able to sink all ships, including aircraft carriers, thousands of kilometers from their shores.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 28 2021 22: 26
            -2
            This is most directly related to China's anti-ship MRBMs, we have the same Zircon undergoing the final stage of testing and this missile is completely universal with Onyx and Caliber launchers, which means that it can be used from the Bastions - and it is these complexes that will decide the supremacy of the sea as each the captain of any surface ship will know if he enters the affected area, then in the event of hostilities he will be sunk with a 90% probability. What promises all surface ships a gloomy future at least than stuff them with ABM AFAR with electronic warfare lasers, this will not help them in any way.
            1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 971
      971 April 28 2021 11: 54
      -4
      Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
      The influence in wartime on such a continental naval power is minimal.

      only when ready to drain
      and even the "limitrophes"
    3. Doctor
      Doctor April 28 2021 12: 18
      +2
      Russia does not have ocean communications for the protection of which a fleet is needed
      The influence in wartime on such a continental naval power is minimal. To strike at the United States there is the Strategic Missile Forces, why spend money on the fleet when they can be spent on the Air Force and the Strategic Missile Forces.

      It's like that.
      The fleet must be built after we provide reliable protection of the state and become economically powerful.
      At least a budget of 2 trillion yards.

      Then the time will come for the redivision of the world and the struggle for Africa, South Africa, etc.
      There is no way without a fleet, including an aircraft carrier. fellow
      1. dauria
        dauria April 28 2021 16: 23
        +2
        The fleet must be built after

        That's all right. Hitler didn’t need a fleet to kick out the "mistress of the seas" from everywhere. From Norway to Africa. And if he hadn't climbed to the USSR, the Mediterranean would have been the internal sea of ​​the Third Reich from Gibraltar to Suez. And he would even spit on the fact that he does not have a "Bismarck" with "Tirpitz" and there is no one to drown "Hood" or "Royal Oak".
        There would be no question of any England landing on the mainland. And about air raids too. They could not even approach the coastal edge - mainland aviation is stronger than any aircraft carrier. We would sit on our hummock and watch how Germany builds a fleet.
        And the USSR did not need a fleet to break the back of Hitler.
        Factories, roads, airfields - this is what we need now blood from the nose. To support the native infantry. As long as it is there, the devil with two will stick even on a hundred aircraft carriers.
        And only then you can say, "I'm tired of potatoes, but shouldn't I buy oysters? There seems to be some money"
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik April 29 2021 21: 29
          0
          And if he hadn't climbed to the USSR, the Mediterranean would have been the internal sea of ​​the Third Reich from Gibraltar to Suez

          Well, perhaps if the Luftwaffe had caught up there. Then yes, and Malta would have fallen.
          But on the other hand, the British would have freed the ships, which were occupied with the escort of convoys. Incl. aircraft carriers.
          1. dauria
            dauria April 29 2021 22: 50
            0
            ships escorted by convoys. Incl. aircraft carriers.


            Aircraft carriers accompanied? Tried it in the beginning, became a target and refused. With the advent of radars on corvettes and destroyers, by the end of 41, the boats were simply driven under water, depriving the main thing - a night attack from the surface position. And a boat slowly crawling under water is not dangerous to anyone. And the escort aircraft carriers were no longer needed. So, with fat to mock the helpless Germans, not giving them even from afar during the day to pursue the convoy.
            So Doenitz rushed about in search of "tonnage" already in the 42nd either to the shores of the United States or to the Caribbean. And by 43, even that had calmed down. Only boats were wasted.
            And what did he decide with his gross tons? Never mind . A drop in the sea.
  • sleeve
    sleeve April 30 2021 07: 29
    0
    Ah yes well them, these "calculations" are numerical. Is that what we want? Naturally, there is no landing at home, naturally, their floating rocket platforms are far away, so that at least the flight time would be at the level of reaction, well, and their communications should be shaken. This is in case if we go crazy and get together without a "vigorous loaf". For there is no more America in the world that is beautiful and unattainable for the enemies of America ("Sarmat" and "Yars" suck with political geography) and therefore there is no "invincible rear". Well, as with us though. And what do we need for our Wishlist? Aviation - once, air defense - two, fleet of 1000 miles zone - three. And the mighty underwater corsairs for theirs tankers, ro-ro ships and ports to a heap. Do we have a vector of development? We have. It is necessary to "tumble", educating their shipbuilders and chopping off the hands of the wicked "cashiers". And protect and develop your nuclear shield.
    But when the "empire" will be written without quotation marks, then we will begin a long hike to our "spheres of influence and infusion" with the construction of super-handsome men to loom on the horizon of "suffering independence" as indispensable helpers and defenders of other people's sovereignty. will be? Mighty floating airfields, nimble multi-purpose amphibious bases with UAVs, or even "dumb" underwater super-super carriers of everything (well, so that unexpectedly the interests of Mother Russia are to be realized), who will take it apart ... this 21st century throughout its entire length?
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 4 May 2021 22: 20
    0
    "Rome does not pay traitors" - the Jews forgot this phrase, but in vain the West is the direct heir of Rome ...
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 28 2021 13: 01
    +3
    The other government, which does not take everything in its hands, does not "nightmare" the business, allows it to develop.
    Offhand, you need a budget of at least the level of Britain.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 28 2021 13: 03
    +2
    laughing or it will change and there will be no fleet or army
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 28 2021 14: 12
    +4
    Quote: prior
    Maybe already enough about the fleet and about aircraft carriers ...

    How can it be "enough" when the soul aches for the Fleet.

    Thanks to Maxim Klimov for the excellent article. Nice to read.
    Let me emphasize that the effectiveness of an aircraft carrier cannot be a subject of discussion ...
    Only his appearance (and air groups) and models for solving problems can be the subject of dispute.

    I absolutely agree.
    By whom and when it was hammered into the minds of many that there are "land" (or "continental") powers, but there are "sea" ones. There are no such concepts. If you want to become a strong sea power - become it. A separate question, that it is very difficult to do this, requires great mental abilities and considerable material costs from the people. But when there is a goal, desire and will, then all tasks will be solved sooner and later.
    It makes no sense to argue how much the Navy needs a nuclear cruiser or an aircraft carrier, it is better to think about how to use these most powerful ships more efficiently, especially in difficult conditions of strong quantitative and (often) qualitative superiority of the enemy.
    1. prior
      prior April 28 2021 14: 24
      0
      Of course, you can dream, discuss the look.
      But build ?!
      It's like making a one-legged disabled person run a hundred meters after a heart attack in a bag.
      There is no dock for construction, there is no approved modern project, there is no catapult, there is no serving coastal structure, there is no AUG composition, there is no modern deck aircraft, there is no AWACS deck aircraft, there are no trained personnel, there is no concept of application.
      But of course you can dream, why not dream.
      1. 971
        971 April 28 2021 14: 29
        +2
        Quote: prior
        There is no dock for construction, there is no approved modern project, there is no catapult, there is no serving coastal structure, there is no AUG composition, there is no modern deck aircraft, there is no AWACS deck aircraft, there are no trained personnel, there is no concept of application.
        But of course you can dream, why not dream.

        everything that is "not" is a consequence of deliberate sabotage in the subject
        and those who "maybe there will be no war" "dream"
        1. prior
          prior April 28 2021 14: 32
          +1
          When approaching a barbell, it would be good to measure your capabilities and the weight of the barbell.
          And then not for long and .....,
          1. 971
            971 April 28 2021 14: 36
            +4
            Quote: prior
            When approaching a barbell, it would be good to measure your capabilities and the weight of the barbell.
            And then not for long and .....,

            the question is that you need to start to approach it
            first with LOW WEIGHT
            in the meantime, with AB we have "turning the sofa" with the gloss of sports magazines and a flood of "physical education is harmful" (and "sport is generally dangerous to health")
          2. Doccor18
            Doccor18 April 28 2021 16: 09
            +4
            Quote: prior
            When approaching a barbell, it would be good to measure your capabilities and the weight of the bar.

            Agree, it's not about the barbell?
            Some are afraid to approach her, while others press 300 kilos and are proud of it ...
            There is no need to be afraid of the barbell, it develops a muscle corset very well
      2. Doccor18
        Doccor18 April 28 2021 16: 05
        +4
        Quote: prior
        There is no dock for construction, there is no approved modern project, there is no catapult, there is no serving coastal structure, there is no AUG composition, there is no modern deck aircraft, there is no AWACS deck aircraft, there are no trained personnel, there is no concept of application.

        Which of the tasks listed by you is insurmountable for the Russian science, industry and budget?
        I will answer myself - there are no such tasks. Everything can be solved. There is only one thing - political will ...
  • demiurg
    demiurg April 28 2021 15: 02
    -3
    But when will you, propagandists of all stripes, get rid of the discussion of interesting articles. And Medvedev, and hungry pensioners, all dragged along the complex.
    And why are you afraid of a pension of 2700 bucks? Your ancestors plundered a couple of continents for three or four centuries? Or did they profit from the supply of weapons for the two world wars?
    Do you want a salary of 200 bucks and without a pension, like 2/3 of the world's population? Life in all sorts of favelas, romance?
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 28 2021 23: 48
    -1
    Quote: prior
    no money.

    in this article, the most important and informative is the cost table, what do we see? Since it is clear that there is no money, the fleet is the largest expense item of the Ministry of Defense, imagine, the VKS, Strategic Missile Forces, KOSMOS, ground forces receive several times less than the fleet, although it is clear that the Russian Federation is a land power, and the role of ground forces, Strategic Missile Forces, Aerospace Forces cannot be underestimated, so it's not fair to blame the Defense Ministry for allegedly not paying attention to the fleet ... and how does the fleet respond to this? Wishlist trillions on meaningless AB? And what is the money spent by the Defense Ministry, taken from the urgent needs of the Strategic Missile Forces of the Aerospace Forces and the Ground Forces? so far on SSBNs and MCSNS, these are very expensive products, and if Klimov indicates this money as a source for stupid AV, then he is going to cancel the construction of the nuclear submarine! And if there is no nuclear submarine, then why the fleet at all? and by the way, the fleet treats this most expensive and long-range weapon of Russia with disregard and criminally negligent ... an example is the presence of the fleet in the Baltic Sea of ​​the Caspian Sea in the Sea of ​​Japan, while nuclear submarines are thrown to us the arbitrariness of fate in Kamchatka and in the Northern Fleet, which has been reduced to the level of the Black Sea Fleet .. and finally one more idea of ​​a totalitarian destructive sect of the aircraft carrier's supporters ... the security of Kaliningrad! ... I don't even want to discuss, the aircraft carrier in the middle of a Baltic puddle fired through from the shores ... did not even expect such stupidity from Klimov ... Kaliningrad in in case of war, it automatically connects with the Pskov region by land, is it really not obvious? recall from all the ideas presented by the sect to find at least some sense in AB, we heard 1 attack Africa 2 look for American rpsn in the Indian Ocean 3 guard Kaliningrad ... none Of these crazy ideas, it obviously has no tactical or strategic meaning ... so we have been waiting for a long time what are the adequate tasks for AB? won't wait
  • Angry
    Angry 1 May 2021 08: 19
    0
    Klimov, as always, is a GOOD MAN! Well, as regards naval problems, then of course, in the understanding of having an Oceanic aircraft carrier missile-carrying fleet, we are still very far away. Moscow was not built in a day. The fleet is only on the way in its development. Now we are witnessing its evolutionary development. Of course it would be good to All and Immediately ... BUT ... it only happens in fairy tales. For ten years we have to build frigates. another ten years to build a cruiser, and then AB will ripen. Everything will be, believe me. Well, if not during our lifetime, then our children will see it all for sure.
  • Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. April 28 2021 09: 22
    +4
    The author of the PD-50 floating dock interested me ... what is Klimov hinting at? Why does he not speak directly about the possible reason for his drowning?
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 09: 28
      +5
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Why does he not speak directly about the possible reason for his drowning?

      this is for the investigation and the court
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine April 28 2021 09: 49
      +4
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      The author of the PD-50 floating dock interested me ... what is Klimov hinting at?

      Interestingly, "they felt a shock in the dock and the lighting turned off."
      1. 971
        971 April 28 2021 10: 01
        +3
        Quote: tihonmarine
        Quite interesting "felt a blow in the dock

        for "natural" reasons, the docks DO NOT sink SO
        they do it "softly" and "almost imperceptibly"
        at the neighboring crew in the "covered" dock, the duty officer fell asleep at the control panel and pressed the fill keys with his forehead
        noticed when the trim changed by 0,5 degrees, they came running and woke up
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine April 28 2021 10: 59
          +5
          Quote: 971
          for "natural" reasons, the docks DO NOT sink SO

          They drown correctly "softly" if there are a lot of holes due to old age, but here "blow - blackout".
          1. 971
            971 April 28 2021 11: 02
            +2
            Quote: tihonmarine
            Drowning correctly "softly"

            exactly!
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine April 28 2021 11: 05
              +2
              Quote: 971
              exactly!

              And many know the reason, but are silent.
              1. 971
                971 April 28 2021 11: 08
                +2
                Quote: tihonmarine
                And many know the reason, but are silent.

                specifically about "Kuznetsov" - three different admirals contacted me with the problem that "Kuznetsov" might not get out of repair and BH?!?!?
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 April 28 2021 17: 33
                -1
                The reason is the most mundane structural wear, the fatigue of the welded joints at this dock at the time of the flooding was 40 years old - and there is no need to come up with any conspiracy crap.
                1. 971
                  971 April 28 2021 20: 29
                  -1
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  and there is nothing to come up with any conspiracy crap.

                  Monsieur, this is not "conspiracy" but NUMEROUS WITNESS INDICATIONS recorded incl. in court records
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 April 28 2021 22: 27
                    0
                    There was no impact there - but there was a rupture of the hull structures.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
        2. KKND
          KKND April 28 2021 20: 05
          -1
          Quote: 971
          for "natural" reasons, the docks DO NOT sink SO
          they do it "softly" and "almost imperceptibly"
          at the neighboring crew in the "covered" dock, the duty officer fell asleep at the control panel and pressed the fill keys with his forehead
          noticed when the trim changed by 0,5 degrees, they came running and woke up

          Yes, we have already understood that this is your mine from St. Petersburg to the dock finally sailed. Joke lol
          1. The comment was deleted.
    4. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx April 28 2021 09: 51
      0
      I am amazed at how often the topic of the Russian fleet and Russian aircraft carriers in particular began to appear on the site. And the worries of the authors are clear to me. Only more realistic forecasts are drawn by Roman Skomorokhov (no matter how I feel about his work). Am I really the only one who sees in his articles not so much sarcasm and irony as the pain of forced doom? Or would you like to see "Tsushima XXI Vkea" with your own eyes?
      You, Mr. Maxim Klimov, give comparisons and examples. Commendable. Only this:
      And there is a strange "mouse fuss" in the direction, let's call a spade a spade - preparation of the military defeat of the country.

      to whom is it addressed? To those who revealed the shortcomings and outright failures in naval development? Who, in your words, is preparing the "military defeat of the country"? Or do you consider the actions of R. Skomorokhov criminal only because he, as a surgeon, opens an abscess after an abscess?
      Too long (not ending in the future) term of office imposes on the head of state not only responsibilities in the matter of amendments to the constitution, his own status and rewarding those who are not involved. But also wise appointments to leadership positions in government and industry. Especially in the military. Or do you think that "effective managers" are capable of raising our Armed Forces to the proper level. Or does the head of state think so?
      Then let's compare the pace of construction of everything that has been built over these twenty years. Let's compare and, putting our hand on our hearts, admit someone’s real righteousness, and not fantastic projects and pictures from “bright tomorrow”.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2021 09: 56
        +9
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Or do you consider the actions of R. Skomorokhov criminal only because he, as a surgeon, opens an abscess after an abscess?

        If he opened it, then the price would not have been for him. But he not only reveals how much he holds his views on the fleet, but they ... are infinitely far from what the Russian Federation really needs
        1. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx April 28 2021 10: 03
          -5
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          If I opened, then he would not have a price.

          Yours is not true. Indicates both the real situation and the problems. Unfortunately, naval commanders in Russia disappear with a decrease in the number of ships, and Roman has no opportunity to influence the opinion of high-ranking officials ...
          You do not think that Hitler's attack on the USSR was sudden and treacherous? It may have played an unpleasant "joke" with the USSR Armed Forces, when the enemies destroyed (captured) a lot of (including new) equipment and weapons.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2021 10: 06
            +6
            Quote: ROSS 42
            Yours is not true. Indicates both the real situation and the problems.

            Excuse me, did you just read the first words of my commentary? There is still
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But he not only reveals how much he holds his views on the fleet, but they ... are infinitely far from what the Russian Federation really needs

            it is a fact
            Quote: ROSS 42
            You do not think that Hitler's attack on the USSR was sudden and treacherous? It may have played an unpleasant "joke" with the USSR Armed Forces, when the enemies destroyed (captured) a lot of (including new) equipment and weapons.

            I don’t understand what you mean at all. What "mass of equipment" was captured? :)))) And the attack, yes, it was both treacherous and sudden - without a declaration of war. Ours, in principle, expected that it could happen at any moment, but there was nothing they could do.
          2. 971
            971 April 28 2021 10: 19
            +1
            Quote: ROSS 42
            Indicates both the real situation and the problems.

            is it YOU about YOU "Chinese diesel" and "cut board" on "Karakurt" ???
      2. 971
        971 April 28 2021 09: 59
        -3
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Only more realistic forecasts are drawn by Roman Skomorokhov

        fool
        BABLO WAS:

        and he was "SUCCESSFULLY HASED" - for what we will definitely be defeated
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Or would you like to see "Tsushima XXI Vkea" with your own eyes?

        in order for this not to happen, you need to DO
        and not "something and a little bit" but WHAT IS NECESSARY and HOW IS NECESSARY
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Who, in your words, is preparing the "military defeat of the country"?

        I have already given some surnames once
        the consequences of this could be observed by all
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Or do you think the actions of R. Skomorokhov are criminal

        I'll just put a smile fool
        Quote: ROSS 42
        because he, like a surgeon, opens an abscess after an abscess?

        the facts are that he I haven’t written anything on this topic at all
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Then let's compare the pace of construction of everything that has been built over these twenty years. Let's compare and, putting our hand on our hearts, admit someone’s real righteousness, and not fantastic projects and pictures from “bright tomorrow”.

        let YOU stop creaking the sofa
        there are examples of enchanting ditch and a huge cut
        and there is a successful solution of problems in a short time and for a reasonable price
        and "interfere" (in search of the "average temperature in the hospital") it can only be "sofa dwellers"
        1. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx April 28 2021 10: 18
          -1
          Quote: 971
          and there is a successful problem solving in a short time and for a reasonable price

          Voice this crap with examples of reasonable money.
          Russia became famous only for the fact that during the year of the pandemic more than $ 100 billion floated out of it. And the Valokordin that is produced in Germany costs 147 rubles ...
          1. 971
            971 April 28 2021 10: 24
            +3
            Quote: ROSS 42
            Voice this crap with examples of reasonable money.

            22800
            K-186 (they used money there, but in fact the total amount was more than divine)
            etc.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 28 2021 17: 40
            -1
            2020 billion rubles were allocated from the budget to fight the pandemic in 670 "
            "Russia became famous only for the fact that over a year of the pandemic more than $ 100 billion floated out of it" - Bredyatina sucked from a finger. In 2020, the net capital outflow from Russia reached $ 47,8 billion. And yes, in 2020, Sputnik V, the first and most effective vaccine against covid, was created in Russia.
            1. Ross xnumx
              Ross xnumx April 28 2021 17: 53
              -2
              Quote: Vadim237
              Delirium sucked out of the finger.

              You know better where you suck from:
              Forbes magazine has published an annual list of the richest people in the world. It was headed by the same famous people - Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bernard Arnault and Bill Gates (we wrote more about the leaders of the world ranking of the rich in the last article).
              The current list of dollar billionaires includes 123 Russians - a year ago there were 102. Not only the number of the rich has increased, but also their wealth. According to Forbes, the total capital of Russian moneybags grew by 54% over the year - from $ 392,3 billion to $ 606,2 billion.

              Read on WWW.KP.RU: https://www.kp.ru/daily/27261/4393989/
              Where these billions come from, you must know.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 April 28 2021 22: 47
                +1
                Well, here you are, my friend showed what kind of trash you suck and dump. "The total fortune of Russian billionaires in 2020 increased by $ 24,3 billion, follows from the data of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index on January 4." Therefore, "According to Forbes, for the year the total capital of Russian moneybags grew by 54% - from $ 392,3 billion to $ 606,2 billion." Forbes considers this to be the estimated market value of movable and immovable property, the cost of shares, investment bonds, profit, etc. - real money from this all, every billionaire of 10 percent, their fortune grows at the expense of quotations on the stock exchange.
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 29 2021 00: 06
        0
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Or would you like to see "Tsushima XXI Vkea" with your own eyes?

        it is very easy to avoid tsushima, you just need to withdraw the entire fleet from Vladivostok to Kamchatka and there will be no more tsushima, the aircraft carrier in tsushima is a legitimate target for Japanese coastal missiles and aircraft
    5. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx April 28 2021 11: 31
      -2
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Why does he not speak directly about the possible reason for his drowning?

      I was satisfied with the following explanation:
      The causes of the accident that occurred in the last days of October in the Murmansk region will be the subject of heated debate among specialists for a long time. Of course, the investigation will have the last word. But today it can be argued that the main reasons for the death of the largest dock in the Arctic were not “power outages”, but a symbiosis of incompetence and negligence of officials responsible for the operation of this engineering structure.

      http://новости-россии.ru-an.info/новости/диверсия-на-пд-50-оставила-россию-без-важнейших-боевых-кораблей/
  • knn54
    knn54 April 28 2021 09: 23
    +4
    Sorry, but after reading the article, 1937 suggests itself.
    For starters, senior officers and admirals, their close relatives check for real estate and accounts abroad.
    Article plus. I would like to hear the author's opinion on the state of the coastal infrastructure and about cooperation with China.
    1. aleksejkabanets
      aleksejkabanets April 28 2021 09: 34
      +7
      Quote: knn54
      For starters, senior officers and admirals, their close relatives check for real estate and accounts abroad.

      To begin with, the government, the State Duma and the Federation Council must be checked, together with the Ozero cooperative.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 28 2021 13: 04
        +2
        And the admirals are saints and you can't touch them?
        1. aleksejkabanets
          aleksejkabanets April 28 2021 16: 47
          0
          Quote: Barberry25
          And the admirals are saints and you can't touch them?

          Did I say that? You just need to remember that the fish rots from the head.
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 28 2021 16: 52
            0
            only in reality, the fish usually rots from other places and in cases with the industry - we have both inadequate requirements of admirals and problems in terms of supply, as well as overshoots of shipyards' hands ... Therefore, first you need to clearly define what is needed and for what purpose and allocate funds for this and provide work ... and these mriyas about "yes, remove Putin and everything will be cool at once" - bullshit, because the hands of the shipyards as it was and will be, the admirals will demand something incomprehensible, so they will ..
  • Yaroslav Zhigulin
    Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 09: 25
    -2
    13 augs versus one ... Good luck

    What is there to say about this.
    The Germans did not build one battleship, and the Japanese did not build one aircraft carrier.
    If you want to fight the NATO fleet your fleet must be at least 2/3 of the NATO fleet. One aircraft carrier is indispensable here.

    I wonder why, with superiority, it was not the Germans who built the pl but not the NK?
    Don't explain

    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 09: 29
      -1
      Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
      13 augs versus one ... Good luck

      No problem
      taking into account the capabilities of our "rocket fist"
      we only have problems with its REALIZABILITY, and here even one AV BOTH understands the effectiveness of the strike forces
      1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
        Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 09: 36
        +1
        What is our missile fist less than 100 pcr on all carriers larger than mrk on all fleets
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 09: 49
          0
          Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
          What is our missile fist less than 100 pcr on all carriers larger than mrk on all fleets

          the question is what their% will be IN THE BOARD
          besides, your numbers are not correct
          even a couple of loaves is 48 "Granites"
          + rest (including X-31AD)
          1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
            Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 10: 05
            -1
            Ksf
            2 949
            1 885
            1 1444
            1 1164
            2 22350

            Pacific Fleet
            2 949
            1 1164
            1 2380

            Chf
            1 1164
            3 11356 but there they can’t be glasses just under the caliber of onyx.

            Condors and boukari will try to fend off the Virjrni Astityuds and other si-wolves, they will not have to attack the Augs.
            1. timokhin-aa
              April 28 2021 10: 37
              +7
              2 949
              1 885
              1 1444
              1 1164
              2 22350


              Well, count the volley

              At the Black Sea Fleet, all battles will be in a small closed water area, it is necessary to add DBK, MRK, boats and an assault aviation regiment.
              1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 10: 41
                -6
                And the enemy will sit and watch when the PKR will arrive at him.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 28 2021 10: 54
                  +8
                  So it is possible to dissolve the Armed Forces altogether - not one enemy will sit and watch.
              2. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 10: 46
                -1
                You yourself are not afraid of the difference in the outfits of forces? I understand not for you to go into battle, but still.

                3 pl and 4 nk is less than 1 aug. What volleys do you think, what are we throwing behind the caps?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 28 2021 10: 57
                  +3
                  two loaves and one Severodvinsk is in the limit of 88 supersonic anti-ship missiles.
                  Ustinov is another 16 and Petya is another 20
                  Two frigates are 32
                  In total - 156 missiles.
                  Nakhimov is on the way.

                  The main goal is to show them.
                  1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                    Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 11: 00
                    -1
                    10 Nimites 1 Gerald Ford 22 Tikanderogi 67 Arleigh Berkov and this is only the USA. 102 it comes out less than 1.5 missiles on the ship is gorgeous

                    Just don’t tell me you are comparing the KSF with the entire US fleet. I can add the fleet of France, Turkey, Spain, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Germany, etc. and to our KSF there are only 100 more missiles on tofe
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      April 28 2021 11: 06
                      +7
                      1. They cannot withdraw more than 8 aircraft carriers.
                      2. Tikanderog left 11, the other 11 are taken into the reserve, and it seems they will never come out of it.
                      3. We do not need to destroy them all. We need to inflict losses on them, which will exclude effective offensive actions on their part.

                      You just think in some cliches. The same aircraft carrier is valuable only for its aircraft.
                      One well-organized missile ambush and no air wing.
                      The aircraft carrier drops out of the list of targets.
                      Etc.

                      URO ships are a different story.
                      They put them on an aircraft carrier guard warrant, and on a false warrant, in radar patrols, an anti-missile barrier, etc.
                      If you do not try to break through to the main target immediately, then all volleys will come to them.
                      Hypersonic missiles destroy collective defenses; Aegis hardly works against them.

                      Etc.
                      1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                        Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 11: 14
                        +1
                        And who said that we can enter everything that we have.?

                        And there they are all such fools.
                        The same PK is valuable only for its missiles, one competent raid and no missiles

                        How many hypersonic missiles have we deployed on carriers, something around 0?
                        And aug they are here and now

                        You also had a curious article a war that didn't happen
                        So tell me what we will do if Japan takes a forceful seizure of smokers.
                        This is Crimea, something sacred, and there are three Kuril Islands somewhere far away ..
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        April 28 2021 17: 29
                        +1
                        There is little we can do now if Japan lands in the Kuril Islands. But you can prepare for this scenario.
                        And yes, this war will not be entirely naval, if that.
                      3. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 28 2021 19: 58
                        -2
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        There is little we can do now if Japan lands in the Kuril Islands. But you can prepare for this scenario.
                        And yes, this war will not be entirely naval, if that.

                        Why helicopter carriers do not suit you for these tasks?
                      4. 971
                        971 April 28 2021 20: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        Why helicopter carriers do not suit you for these tasks?

                        so that they are TARGETS
                      5. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 28 2021 20: 42
                        0
                        Quote: 971
                        so that they are TARGETS

                        https://topwar.ru/161373-vozdushnye-bojcy-nad-okeanskimi-volnami-o-roli-vertoletov-v-vojne-na-more.html

                        In this article Timokhin wrote exactly the opposite.
                        Can helicopters aboard URF ships and landing ships available to the Russian Navy take on some of the tasks that are supposed to be accomplished in a comprehensive manner by forces based on full-fledged aircraft carrier ships - both ship planes and helicopters?

                        The answer is yes, they can. And this is confirmed not only by various theoretical studies and exercises, but also by a relatively "fresh" by historical standards, combat experience.
                      6. 971
                        971 April 29 2021 10: 15
                        0
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        In this article Timokhin wrote exactly the opposite.

                        to increase the efficiency of the existing naval forces and provide a real solution to problems - this is a completely different level of efficiency
                        roughly - a helicopter can help a ship to survive 300 km from an airfield with fighters, but already at 400 the effect of this will be extremely insignificant
              3. Xscorpion
                Xscorpion April 30 2021 12: 24
                +1
                Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                And who said that we can enter everything that we have.?

                And there they are all such fools.
                The same PK is valuable only for its missiles, one competent raid and no missiles

                How many hypersonic missiles have we deployed on carriers, something around 0?
                And aug they are here and now

                You also had a curious article a war that didn't happen
                So tell me what we will do if Japan takes a forceful seizure of smokers.
                This is Crimea, something sacred, and there are three Kuril Islands somewhere far away ..

                First, try to explain how and how Japan will land on the Kuril Islands? How will they suppress the DBK? How will they sink the KTOF? How will they shoot down all our aviation and suppress the air defense? Just think and try to answer. Their fleet, even beyond their territorial waters, will not be able to get out without falling under the sight of our DBKs and anti-ship missile systems of the fleet. Tomahawks or their analogues they have no strike aircraft with cruise missiles, they have nothing to suppress these complexes. But we can still destroy many ports, bases, airfields from our bases and without leaving the state border Japanese Navy and Air Force. And in a few hours after the start of the conflict (and in real life in a few minutes, since intelligence will know everything in a few days) dozens of "long-range" and "strategists" will arrive and another missiles will be thrown. DBK, fleet, submarine and aviation. Aviation hits from air defense missiles and fighters still on the way, or will be destroyed at airfields. Their submarines will either have to sit at home or climb without cover into our territorial waters, where dominated by our anti-submarine helicopters and aircraft, as well as ships and submarines, although in the beginning the composition of their fleet and aviation googled at first, and even better their weapons.
          2. 971
            971 April 28 2021 11: 06
            -1
            Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
            10 Nimites 1 Gerald Ford 22 Tikanderogi 67 Arleigh Berkov and this is only the USA. 102 it comes out less than 1.5 missiles on the ship is gorgeous

            Monsieur YOU are a thimbler
      2. 971
        971 April 28 2021 11: 05
        -2
        Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
        I understand not for you to go into battle, but still.

        do you think "couch warrior" wassat ? lol
        Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
        You yourself are not afraid of the difference in the outfits of forces?

        "I ate them"
  • JD1979
    JD1979 April 28 2021 10: 14
    +1
    Quote: 971
    No problem

    hm?
    Quote: 971
    problems only with its REALIZABILITY

    Ahh ... It's like I’m you with one left, just wait, I’ll grow up and make money on the bat))
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 10: 20
      -3
      Quote: JD1979
      wait, I'll grow up and make money on the bat))

      can YOU change the sofa?
      on a trampoline for example?
      1. JD1979
        JD1979 April 28 2021 10: 41
        0
        Quote: 971
        can YOU change the sofa?
        on a trampoline for example?

        For the trampoline, this is to Rogozin)). And you solve problems with realizability))) otherwise it won't work without problems)))
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2021 10: 02
    +12
    Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
    13 augs versus one ... Good luck

    2- 3 AMG we are quite capable of. And this will be enough to solve the tasks facing the fleet today.
    Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
    If you want to fight the NATO fleet your fleet must be at least 2/3 of the NATO fleet.

    we do not need a "clear victory" at sea, but protection against aggression from sea areas and the stability of NSNF. For this, a 2/3 NATO fleet is not needed
    Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
    I wonder why, with superiority, it was not the Germans who built the pl but not the NK?
    Don't explain

    The Germans built the LC, see plan "Z". They began the mass construction of submarines already in the war, because it was already impossible to create a fleet of NK of sufficient size in terms of time.
    Having created the best submarine fleet in the world, the Germans eventually lost the naval war with a bang
    1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
      Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 10: 11
      +2
      With a bang, they lost the submarine war because they played battleships for too long. Completing them already when the war began. What the USSR did not do with its own, preferring them, as Klimov put it, the green troops.
      What would happen if instead of Tirpitz near Moscow there were 3 extra tank divisions

      And who said that we have these terms?

      1 Borey is in prices how many regiments of the Strategic Missile Forces with yars? A very good picture where there is 1 trillion in the Strategic Missile Forces and 5 trillion for the fleet and the question is price efficiency

      In the presence of the white sea, for the stability of the MS, an aircraft carrier is not needed at all. It is a trivial task to hide the rpskn there.
      But 3-4 Aug is already pulling on an attempt to accept a knightly battle with NATO at sea

      The whole guarantee of our independence rests on yao. Or am I wrong?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2021 10: 18
        +8
        Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
        They lost the submarine war with a crash because they played battleships for too long.

        You are making the classic mistake of an alternative. You think that if Germany before the war took up the construction of a powerful submarine fleet everyone would look at it and do nothing.
        Yes, if by some miracle in 1939-40 Germany suddenly appeared out of nothing 200-250 submarines with trained crews, they could force England to surrender. Because England at that time was not ready for a war with such an enemy. But in 1943, these forces were defeated by the Allies, who improved their PLO.
        If the Germans began to massively build submarines before the war, both Britain and the United States would have invested in submarines much earlier, and would have had a much more powerful submarine than in reality.
        1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
          Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 10: 22
          -2
          Germany had an example of the First World War. And how their first submarines were burned there.

          The fact that they made the wrong conclusions. Doesn't force us to follow their path in the same way by making the wrong conclusions.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2021 10: 45
            +6
            Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
            The fact that they made the wrong conclusions. Doesn't force us to follow their path in the same way by making the wrong conclusions.

            Just the Germans made the right conclusions :))))) The massive construction of submarines, which they undertook during the war years, is a palliative that did not lead them to success. In general, the Germans in their submarine fleet have merged the war at sea twice, but for some reason you are sure that the submarine is our everything.
            1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
              Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 11: 09
              -4
              And then I thought they merged the 2nd war because they did not have an equal outfit of forces trying to butt with a stronger enemy.
              What do you suggest
              And it turns out that the pl who inflicted real losses on supply are to blame.
              1. 971
                971 April 28 2021 11: 12
                0
                Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                And I thought they merged the 2nd war

                they had quite a chance not to drain
                both times
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2021 11: 22
                +9
                Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                And then I thought they merged the 2nd war because they did not have an equal outfit of forces trying to butt with a stronger enemy.

                How cute you twist. Discussed your thesis
                Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                With a bang, they lost the submarine war because they played battleships for too long.

                And now you skilfully jumped on the reasons for Germany's loss in the war :)))))
                Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                And it turns out that the pl who inflicted real losses on supply are to blame.

                Can you tell me where exactly I wrote that the PL was to blame for the loss of Germany in WWII? Quote please :)))))
                As for your remark about the "stronger enemy", then everything is simple. Germany planned to build its fleet in such a way that it would be able to defeat the British, this is Plan Z. That is, a program for the construction of a similar fleet. It was a realistic task for her. But getting involved in a war with Britain and the United States at the same time was not very smart. Today we do not have the task of defeating the NATO naval forces. We have a task to ensure the stability of the NSNF. Therefore, the analogy you clumsily cobble together simply does not work.
                1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                  Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 11: 32
                  -5
                  So the fact of the matter is that plan z was a mistake. He did not have the strength or the means to simultaneously develop the Navy and you and St. No country could afford after WWII (except for the United States and with reservations)
                  Great Britain had a powerful fleet and strong air force with rather stunted
                  Germany decided to be in time everywhere.

                  As we do now, we need powerful air force cx and the Strategic Missile Forces here, all without question. But we're trying to chase 2nd place in the power of the navy
                  Stability msyas ​​once again the white sea is the easiest inner bastion to control
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2021 11: 42
                    +6
                    Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                    So the fact of the matter is that plan z was a mistake.

                    Not a mistake, but the only way to achieve your goal
                    Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                    and he had neither the strength nor the means to simultaneously develop the Navy and you and St. No country could afford after WWII (except for the United States and with reservations)

                    Only now the Germans were not aware of this. And from the moment Hitler came to power i.e. since 1934 it has been quite successfully building powerful land, air and naval forces. In 1940, the Wehrmacht is the strongest army in Eurasia, backlashes are the strongest in the air in the same Eurasia, and the fleet received 4 newest LCs. Well, or 2LK and 2 LKR, if you like. And he would have received further if Germany had not started the war in 1939, after which the construction of new large surface ships lost its meaning.
                    1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                      Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 11: 55
                      -5
                      Just what is 2 lux versus what the United States and England had nothing ..

                      No, they would not. After the Tirpitz was laid at 35, new luxes were not built
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2021 14: 50
                      +6
                      Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                      Just what is 2 lux versus what the United States and England had nothing ..

                      Once again - the fleet was preparing for confrontation with England, and not with England and the United States. What are 4 modern capital ships in 1940? England had one.
                      Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                      No, they would not. After the Tirpitz was laid at 35, new luxes were not built

                      On April 14, 1939, an order was made for the laying of the first 2 ships: H and J. On May 25, contracts were signed for the construction of the remaining four ships. Two of them were actually laid down.
    2. 971
      971 April 28 2021 10: 21
      +1
      Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
      They lost the submarine war with a crash because they played battleships for too long.

      fool
      YOU have not tried before THAT to flog nonsense at least something sane on the topic to read?
      1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
        Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 10: 28
        -4
        Tell me about the amazing success of the Kriegsmarine I didn’t know about
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 10: 37
          +1
          Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
          Tell me about the amazing success of the Kriegsmarine I didn’t know about

          behind beads contact the owner lol
          1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
            Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 10: 45
            -5
            When there is nothing to say it is better to remain silent
            1. 971
              971 April 28 2021 10: 58
              +2
              Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
              When there is nothing left to say

              I will note that there was not a single sane word from YOU on the matter and topic lol
  • Doctor
    Doctor April 28 2021 11: 55
    -1
    The Germans built the LC, see plan "Z". They began the mass construction of submarines already in the war, because it was already impossible to create a fleet of NK of sufficient size in terms of time.
    Having created the best submarine fleet in the world, the Germans eventually lost the naval war with a bang

    Good lesson for us too.

    The cost of the boat type VII is 4,2 million.
    The cost of the T-IV tank is 103 thousand.
    In total, 1 boat = 40 tanks.

    More than 1000 boats were built.
    And you could have 40 tanks.
    wassat

    If Hitler were consistent and did not grab onto everything at once, as we are now, he would have figured out first on land, and then he would have started building the fleet of his dreams. wink
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov April 28 2021 19: 59
    +2
    Andrey, Maxim laid out the calculations in which 25% appears for the needs of the fleet.
    How would you comment on your estimated 33% brotherly?
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 29 2021 06: 48
    +1
    2- 3 AMG we are quite capable of

    The question is how expensive it will turn out, how complicated, what displacement.
    It is highly probable that there will be no catapults on them.
    (Lucky for the same French, who supplied 2 steam catapults to the "Charles de Gaulle" under the US license.
    Maybe China will develop and sell?)
    Until 2050, there will definitely not be a finished ship of this class.
    In addition, the events of 2014 led to increasing restrictions. Financial, access to technology and components. Economic growth is minimal (according to the statements of official structures).
    IMHO, there was no strategy even close there, purely reflexes and the hope that somehow it will settle down ("it is not profitable for them either").
    These restrictions will have an impact and strongly "shift to the right" / cancel large-scale military projects, which include the construction of 2-3 AMG.
  • Niko
    Niko April 28 2021 10: 31
    +6
    Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
    13 augs versus one ... Good luck

    What is there to say about this.
    The Germans did not build one battleship, and the Japanese did not build one aircraft carrier.
    If you want to fight the NATO fleet your fleet must be at least 2/3 of the NATO fleet. One aircraft carrier is indispensable here.

    I wonder why, with superiority, it was not the Germans who built the pl but not the NK?
    Don't explain

    Have you ever heard what the Germans' bet on pl as a wunderwaffe led to in TWO world wars?
    1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
      Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 10: 38
      -6
      It turns out that this pl is to blame for everything ... and we didn't even know
      1. Niko
        Niko April 28 2021 11: 06
        +3
        Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
        It turns out that this pl is to blame for everything ... and we didn't even know

        Partly yes, but YOU really didn't know. Read it helps
  • vvvjak
    vvvjak April 28 2021 11: 14
    +7
    Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
    13 augs versus one ... Good luck


    At a given point in time, only 2 US ABs can pose a hypothetical threat to the Russian Federation.
    1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
      Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 11: 20
      -2
      The accumulation and concentration of forces before a strike is too difficult ...
      1. 971
        971 April 28 2021 11: 56
        0
        Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
        The accumulation and concentration of forces before a strike is too difficult ...

        13 AB - certainly lol
        let me remind you that they do not pass through the Panamanal AB
        1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
          Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 12: 43
          -2
          I will reveal a terrible secret that the Panama Canal is not the only place where the Pacific and Atlantic oceans meet.
          1. 971
            971 April 28 2021 12: 51
            +3
            Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
            I will reveal a terrible secret that the Panama Canal is not the only place where the Pacific and Atlantic oceans meet.

            Yeah
            only 13 aircraft carriers are still flying around South America
            tunings lol
            1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
              Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 13: 44
              0
              Yeah, and the Russian Federation is attacked every day.
              1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 28 2021 17: 26
        +2
        Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
        The accumulation and concentration of forces before a strike is too difficult ...

        PMSM, if they accumulate, then no more than 2/3. Otherwise, the shipyard will be sewn up. There, and so, to speed up work on one AV, work on another is frozen.
        Moreover, such accumulation is one of the signals of the "threatened period".
    2. Xscorpion
      Xscorpion April 30 2021 12: 32
      0
      Quote: vvvjak
      Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
      13 augs versus one ... Good luck


      At a given point in time, only 2 US ABs can pose a hypothetical threat to the Russian Federation.

      In the event of a real war, it will not be much more, since the United States has other adversaries that need to be controlled, including China, with which relations are getting worse every day, so the Americans will be forced to disperse their forces. World War II, when the USSR had to keep significant forces and assets in the Far East, although there was no war with Japan.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 28 2021 16: 59
    0
    laughing so no one is talking about 1 aircraft carrier .. you need 2-3, so that 1 is on duty, 1 is in service ..
  • Boris55
    Boris55 April 28 2021 09: 25
    -10%
    Aircraft carriers are the privilege of independent states, to promote their interests in the world. Aircraft carriers are not assigned to colonies because of their status. they are dependent on those who have aircraft carriers and who are not interested in competitors.

    Is the leadership of our country doing anything to gain independence? Yes, it does (changes in the Constitution, renewal of the army, food independence, etc.). As soon as we become sovereign, then, and only then, the question of aircraft carriers will arise, and for now it is too early to talk about this, and even more so to blame the country's leadership for this.

    The primary task is to resolve the issue of clintonoids in management and bulk in general. Otherwise, with a change of power, everything will again go, at best, to scrap metal, to the West.
    1. aleksejkabanets
      aleksejkabanets April 28 2021 09: 37
      +3
      Quote: Boris55
      Is the leadership of our country doing anything to gain independence? Yes, it does (changes to the Constitution).

      What are you talking about? Zeroing. is this a step towards independence in your opinion?
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 April 28 2021 09: 49
        -5
        Quote: aleksejkabanets
        Zeroing. is this a step towards independence in your opinion?

        Besides that, you don't want to see anything else?
        About the rest of the amendments that thread heard?

        About "zeroing":
        1. I am sure that Putin will no longer run for president.
        I would like to make a mistake.
        2. The Constitution gives him such a right, but the last word will be with the voters.
        We have a democracy or what?

        ps
        For fun, go to the cemetery and look at the age of those buried in the 90s.
        1. Semyonich from the Urals
          Semyonich from the Urals April 28 2021 09: 59
          +3
          No, you don't have a democracy ..
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 April 28 2021 10: 00
            -5
            Quote: Semyonich from the Urals
            No, you don't have a democracy ..

            Perhaps we have different interpretations of this term. What do you think is democracy?
            1. Semyonich from the Urals
              Semyonich from the Urals April 28 2021 11: 03
              0
              Everything is simple ..
              If there is no chance of electing another person instead of the current one, then this is not democracy ... Just like in Belarus ... We just don't need to plant, from the country to threaten children and beat the people with truncheons and rubber bullets ..
              But if necessary, they will easily do it (they demonstrated this at the Navalnovsk rallies)
              1. Boris55
                Boris55 April 28 2021 11: 12
                -4
                Quote: Semyonich from the Urals
                If there is no chance to elect another person instead of the current one, then this is not democracy

                Does it have to choose another?

                There is such a proverb: "To ruin the business, change the leader more often." To ruin the state, hold elections more often. The activities of a leader in the rank of president should be assessed by the standard of living of citizens, taking into account all factorsincluding external ones.

                Re-election for the sake of re-election is nonsense. If people's lives are getting better (taking into account all factors), then why change to someone unknown?
        2. aleksejkabanets
          aleksejkabanets April 28 2021 10: 00
          +7
          Quote: Boris55
          If you spent time with your mother under a skirt in the 90s, then listen to those who survived them. For fun, go to the cemetery and look at the age of those who were buried in those years.

          I came from the army in 90 and got a job at the plant. I remember those years well, I also remember the characters from the 90s, now they are "respected" people and friends of the "reset", they are in power, they have not gone anywhere.
          Quote: Boris55
          Besides that, you don't want to see anything else?
          About the rest of the amendments that thread heard?

          Remind the rest of the amendments, nothing more than "background noise", an anecdote about a naive Chukchi youth?
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 April 28 2021 10: 07
            -6
            Quote: aleksejkabanets
            I remember well those years

            Are they similar to the current ones?

            Quote: aleksejkabanets
            The rest of the amendments are nothing more than "background noise

            The Constitution is a fundamental legal document, within the framework of which all laws and by-laws are adopted that define our entire life. They are mandatory for all citizens of Russia, regardless of their position.

            You must remember how the first Duma churned out the Laws, nullifying, here really nullifying, all the achievements indicated in the Constitution of the USSR.
            1. aleksejkabanets
              aleksejkabanets April 28 2021 10: 40
              +3
              Quote: Boris55
              Are they similar to the current ones?

              In many ways, they are worse. For pensioners and state employees, they are better, for me, a working person and not a pensioner - worse, for my children, the same is worse.
              Quote: Boris55
              The Constitution is a fundamental legal document, within the framework of which all laws and by-laws are adopted that define our entire life. They are mandatory for all citizens of Russia, regardless of their position.

              Let's talk about the constitutional right to freedom of assembly? Do you know what by-laws are?
        3. unaha
          unaha April 28 2021 10: 46
          +3
          "We have democracy or how" - undoubtedly "or how."
        4. Semyonich from the Urals
          Semyonich from the Urals April 28 2021 11: 05
          +3
          <<< About the rest of the amendments, what thread have you heard? >>>
          About what for example?
          <<< For fun, go to the cemetery and look at the age of those buried in the 90s. >>>
          For fun, check out the demographic statistics for the last year.
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 April 28 2021 11: 15
            -5
            Quote: Semyonich from the Urals
            For fun, check out the demographic statistics for the last year.

            Once again, everything is in plain sight in the cemetery, without any statistics. The dead don't lie.
            1. Semyonich from the Urals
              Semyonich from the Urals April 28 2021 11: 45
              0
              What songs will I go to watch what happened 25 years ago when it has crept up now too ..
              What then minus half a million a year what now ..
      2. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 28 2021 13: 22
        -2
        laughing Do you really believe that Putin will go to the next term? He seems to have never been a fool ... So this is a snag
        1. aleksejkabanets
          aleksejkabanets April 28 2021 17: 11
          0
          Quote: Barberry25
          Do you really believe that Putin will go to the next term? He seems to have never been a fool ... So this is a snag

          Do you think that only Putin is the case?
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 28 2021 17: 29
            0
            laughing I think that it is necessary to set up the system itself, but these speeches in the style of "Putin must be removed, the government must be removed, the corporate must be removed The lake must be removed, the Illuminati must be removed" .. this is already populism .. Until there is an adequate scheme for the work of shipbuilding, there is no sense will ... now the problems are as follows: lack of engine capacity, obsolescence of ship production technology, too much R&D in ships. Even if we now make the super-duper system work, we can get 1 frigate, 3-4 corvettes, 2 apl, depl and heels of MRK / patrol / minesweepers ... For the same ships of the MRK level can do a lot, almost 8 ships per year, but there are no engines for them ... The same Yantar is now engaged in the construction of a large landing ship and an Indian order, although he could make corvettes / frigates for the fleet ... but if we load it with our orders, then we cannot build for export ... therefore, it is required to establish a scheme-optimally by expanding the production of engines and building modern assembly workshops ... to transfer Carry out the load on the construction of modern ships with the subsequent modernization of the current capacities.
            1. aleksejkabanets
              aleksejkabanets April 28 2021 17: 38
              +2
              Quote: Barberry25
              I think that you need to configure the system itself

              Quote: Barberry25
              Until there is an adequate scheme for the work of shipbuilding, there will be no sense ... Now the problems are as follows: lack of capacity ...

              Until there is a system of government that is not built on corruption and thieves' privatization, nothing will happen.
              Quote: Barberry25
              Even if we now make the super-duper system work, we will be able to receive 1 frigate, 3-4 corvettes, 2 apl, a deple, and heels of MRK / patrol / minesweepers ..

              Look at Stalin's industrialization and the post-war reconstruction of the country and it will immediately become clear to you that the system of governing the country should be put at the forefront, then everything else will catch up.
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 28 2021 17: 45
                -1
                ooo .. communism has surfaced .. About Stalin's industrialization .. They are constantly looking for people to work in the North with a large salary .. and it is very difficult to find .. and you mean "industrialization" .. It's not even funny, this is golimy populism. in style "and when I was young I stood there and it was cool" .. If you got stuck on the topic "we need communism", then this topic died out 30 years ago
                1. aleksejkabanets
                  aleksejkabanets April 28 2021 17: 58
                  0
                  Quote: Barberry25
                  They are constantly looking for people to work in the North with a large salary ... and it is very difficult to find them ..

                  Do not la-la, if you are not in the subject, then do not write about it. My brother is a welder, with all the approvals and so on, in Turkey, in the Caspian, he cooked a pipe on a barge, etc. There is no normal work, and even with the design, there is now a pipe "weaving" for water is brewed near Novoros, they do not formalize and pay little. There is no work in the north available to everyone.
                  Quote: Barberry25
                  ..If you are stuck on the topic "we need communism", then this topic has died out 30 years ago

                  Your idols, with "zeroed out" at the head, have gone out, what have they done in 30 years, except that the country has been squandered? Boring girls. You've done it well.
                  1. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 April 28 2021 18: 02
                    -4
                    laughing uuu..what kind of golimaya politota .. if it’s not the husband of the “daughter of a Crimean officer”? this is different ... In general, you are boring here ... apparently too much Navalny look .. hi
    2. Bez 310
      Bez 310 April 28 2021 10: 04
      +4
      Quote: Boris55
      The primary task is to resolve the issue of clintonoids in management and bulk in general.

      You haven't confused the resource?
      Can you say something on the merits of the issue under discussion?
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 April 28 2021 10: 08
        -9
        Quote: Bez 310
        Can you say something on the merits of the issue under discussion?

        Read my first post, there - in essence. Subsequent ones are answers to questions.
        Don't ask questions - there will be no answers. hi
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 April 28 2021 10: 13
          +8
          Quote: Boris55
          Read my first post, there - in essence.

          Yes, you have nowhere "in essence", you always have only a set of newspaper headlines and retellings of TV programs.
          No need to answer ...
    3. Niko
      Niko April 28 2021 10: 34
      +2
      Aircraft carriers have or are building a dozen states, those who write as if only the states have them apparently do it in their own interests
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 April 28 2021 11: 03
        -3
        Quote: Niko
        Aircraft carriers have or are building a dozen states

  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich April 28 2021 09: 41
    0
    The discussion went into another round, but nothing new. Nearby is an article on the "Tallinn breakthrough" in the Second World War, there was not enough aircraft carrier.
    1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
      Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 09: 42
      -4
      Mine is the first naval commander who decided to drive an aircraft carrier into this puddle
      1. 971
        971 April 28 2021 09: 48
        0
        Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
        Mine is the first naval commander who decided to drive an aircraft carrier into this puddle

        FACE BY TABLE:
        once aircraft carrier Intrepid even entered the Baltic Seathat was an extraordinary event, and at that time of extreme military tension and simply dangerous.
        The weather was disgusting. It was raining, it was windy, and the clouds dropped below 200 meters. The ship was seen from the shore in the German Democratic Republic and immediately "reported where it should be." The information got to the headquarters of the USSR Air Force and Long-Range Aviation, as well as the Baltic Fleet, but neither Il-28R front-line reconnaissance aircraft nor Tu-16 aircraft of the Navy and Long-Range Aviation could find it. Then one Tu-95MR from the 409th TBAP was sent to the search area.
        1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
          Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 09: 57
          -3
          Already at Denmark, the aircraft carrier was spotted and targeted.
          1. 971
            971 April 28 2021 10: 03
            -1
            Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
            Already at Denmark, the aircraft carrier was spotted and targeted.

            once again with a face on the table
            neither the Il-28R front-line scouts, nor the Tu-16 aircraft of the Navy and Long-Range Aviation could find it. Then one Tu-95MR was sent to the search area.

            and the question is not that "on sight", but that without AV we will not provide convoys to the enclave
            1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
              Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 10: 31
              -3
              The ship was seen from the shore in the German Democratic Republic and immediately "reported where it should be."

              The commander of the Tu-95MR ordered a descent to take photographs of the aircraft carrier.

              Convoys to the enclave have a military scenario. This means that Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (where the guards grew up, they won't even have to involve everything) are already occupied. Belarus is under arms and all supplies are carried out on the ground.
              1. 971
                971 April 28 2021 10: 41
                -1
                Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                Convoys to the enclave have a military scenario. So Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (the guard grew up there, even the sun will not have to be recruited) are already occupied

                fool
                I understand ... with this - not for me
                I do not have for YOU medical Education
                Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                Belarus has been put under arms and all supplies are carried out by land.

                YOU studied geography according to "Murzilka"? or do YOU ​​have "just such rotten training manuals"? lol
                1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                  Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 10: 50
                  -3
                  I believe you can handle
                  1. 971
                    971 April 28 2021 11: 01
                    +2
                    Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                    I believe you can handle

                    then take one look with the optometrist lol
                    maybe at least he will explain to YOU ​​that Belarus has no border with the Kaliningrad region
                    1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                      Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 11: 38
                      -4
                      So Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (the guard grew up there, even the sun will not have to be recruited) are already occupied

                      Indeed, you need to look at the optometrist, but not for me
                      1. 971
                        971 April 28 2021 11: 45
                        -1
                        Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                        So Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (the guard grew up there, even the sun will not have to be recruited) are already occupied

                        let's go further - Sweden, Norway and Canada
                        why their "bastard" feel sorry for lol
              2. timokhin-aa
                April 28 2021 11: 08
                +4
                In a war, the coast of the German Democratic Republic would have become a little bit radioactive, and no one would have reported anything from there, the Tu-95MR would have knocked down a missile ship long before it found an aircraft carrier, etc.
                1. Yaroslav Zhigulin
                  Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 11: 39
                  -3
                  Nobody would have led him into this puddle during the war
                  Because the GSVG tanks would have already stood somewhere in Spain, etc.
                  1. 971
                    971 April 28 2021 11: 52
                    -2
                    Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin
                    Because the GSVG tanks would have already stood somewhere in Spain, etc.

                    fool
                    what a dreamy lover ... lol
                  2. timokhin-aa
                    April 28 2021 13: 37
                    +2
                    Spain? Well, you give. Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov never dreamed of this even from an unkind memory.
            2. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 28 2021 17: 49
              0
              In the case of the DB, the aircraft carriers really have nothing to do in the Baltic, just like the Americans, even if they cancel the convention in Chernoe, they will not drive their aviks ..
    2. 971
      971 April 28 2021 09: 43
      -5
      Quote: S. Viktorovich
      The discussion went into another round, but nothing new. Nearby is an article on the "Tallinn breakthrough" in the Second World War, there was not enough aircraft carrier.

      Will there be anything from YOU on the case? angry
      Or YOU "as usual" wassat ?
    3. Doctor
      Doctor April 28 2021 09: 55
      -2
      The discussion went into another round, but nothing new. Nearby is an article on the "Tallinn breakthrough" in the Second World War, there was not enough aircraft carrier.

      Exactly. Thinking hasn't changed in 100 years. At the beginning of the last century, they laid down "coastal battleships" (non-seaworthy type of Sevastopol), now we want a "coastal aircraft carrier".

      And drive him into the Black Sea ... laughing
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine April 28 2021 09: 45
    +3
    And we have such people in the defense industry complex. There are admirals who are really tuned in and aim to "plow" so that the fleet and the country find a really effective aircraft carrier (aircraft carriers).

    "But it is not admirals who run the show" in the navy, but "top managers" with diplomas of journalists and economists, close to the oligarchy.
    Boots should be sharpened by the shoemaker, and the cakes should be baked by the pastry. But in reality it turns out "swan, cancer and pike".
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 April 28 2021 10: 01
    +8
    Again an article-sheet, when you read the end of which you forget what was there in the beginning. In my opinion, the author is arguing with the wrong people in his article. The author argues, so to speak, with home-grown analysts, and the main people in the "building" of the fleet are those for whom research and development, R&D, ... are much more important in terms of mastering the budget, regardless of the result, than the serial construction of ships.
    As far as I understand, the people involved in the "construction" of the fleet are not interested in the result, they are interested in the process of using the allocated budget funds. What aircraft carrier can we talk about if we don't even have destroyers ...
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 10: 05
      -3
      Quote: Bez 310
      and the main people in the "building" of the fleet are those for whom R&D, R&D, ... are much more important

      they are reading
      and receive the newsletter wink
      here half an hour ago and got bully

      What aircraft carrier can we talk about if we don't even have destroyers ...

      yes and to hell with him
      EM without AV still does not make sense (especially since the "Leader" was drunk initially)

      and the question is simple - either BE READY, or IMAGE APPEARANCE READINESS (realizing that if something we will simply be swept away)
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 April 28 2021 10: 46
        +4
        Quote: 971
        or BE READY, or SHOW APPEARED READY

        This question, about the readiness of a ship (fleet) for battle, was very well revealed by Azolsky in his novel "Long Shot", using the example of EM "Boyky" Zhilkin and other ships of the "royal" brigade.
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 11: 00
          -1
          Quote: Bez 310
          on the example of EM "Boyky" Zhilkin and other ships of the "royal" brigade.

          maybe I was lucky with my first crew, but that's what they taught
          the last question on admittance to the ship from the chief officer was on the exit (971 projects) from under the impact of the Kyrgyz Republic on the base - INDEPENDENT, by the forces of watch only
    2. 971
      971 April 28 2021 10: 26
      0
      Quote: Bez 310
      Again an article-sheet,

      by the way, in its continuation there will be objections to a number of your comments
      and I perfectly understand why you think so, but ... a different model of solving the problem is also possible
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 April 28 2021 10: 29
        +4
        Quote: 971
        in its continuation there will be objections to a number of your comments

        Of course, mind, I read it with interest.
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 10: 39
          -2
          Quote: Bez 310
          Of course, mind, I read it with interest.

          it's supersonic
          moreover, your logic (objections) is clear and in the "framework of the current conditions" is correct
          but ... there are also "other solutions" in terms of application models
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 April 28 2021 10: 50
            +4
            Quote: 971
            it's supersonic

            But here it is better not to mind.
            Although ... let's see what we can think of in terms of "other solutions".
            1. 971
              971 April 28 2021 11: 02
              -2
              Quote: Bez 310
              Although ... let's see what we can think of in terms of "other solutions".

              I recommend to play "Harpoon"
              with script editor
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 April 28 2021 11: 16
                +3
                Quote: 971
                I recommend to play "Harpoon"

                No no no...
                I don't play toys anymore.
                1. 971
                  971 April 28 2021 11: 18
                  -1
                  Quote: Bez 310
                  I don't play toys anymore.

                  this is actually not a game, but a very good operational-tactical simulator
      2. KKND
        KKND April 28 2021 21: 04
        +1
        Quote: 971
        by the way, in its continuation there will be objections to a number of your comments
        and I perfectly understand why you think so, but ... a different model of solving the problem is also possible

        What admiration for "authority"! And if a person is a sofa specialist, then he is a priori wrong, and he must be humiliated in every possible way.
        Mina, do not think that you are an expert in all matters, you did not work in production. And my father worked for the ship industry and although it is really full of ineffective spending and nepotism, etc. we have a main problem little really strong specialists like in the USA, so we invent a backward PTZ or a torpedo and ask it to be adopted, not because bribes were given, but because there is not enough brains to come up with something more complicated. And you will not hammer your brains with executions or pounding your fist on the table. It is possible to drive all the brainy guys from Russia to the navy, like they once did to the Buran, but who will then be responsible for the air defense, aviation and others?
        And according to the article, I agree that we need aircraft carriers, but we stretch our legs over the clothes. And our propaganda has always presented need as a virtue. You shouldn't pay attention to propaganda.
  • Trickster
    Trickster April 28 2021 10: 08
    -4
    Thank God that the Ministry of Defense does not read the topvar. And it's even better that there are wise people sitting there who perfectly understand that aircraft carriers are going nowhere.
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 10: 10
      -2
      Quote: Trickster
      Thank God that the Ministry of Defense does not read the topvar.

      how they read it!
      laughing
      Quote: Trickster
      And it's even better that there are wise people sitting there

      fool
  • JD1979
    JD1979 April 28 2021 10: 11
    0
    A lot has been written ... only more and more water, and objections like "d * cancer himself." In some places it is even funny when the author, literally in two adjacent sentences, manages to first refute the opponent and immediately refute himself)). Well, just ROFLs like: coastal defense aircraft carrier))) and Tu-214 in the role of AWACS belay Will he sit on the deck?))) Or Su-33UB))) he WAS))) as the author himself writes 20 years ago, so today there is NOTHING as a carrier-based AWACS aircraft. In short, once again in the course of the investigation they came out on themselves)) Avics for Russia are now useless and harmful until a normal high seas and support fleet is created.
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 10: 17
      -1
      Quote: JD1979
      when the author literally in two adjacent sentences manages to first refute the opponent and immediately refute himself

      it is you rave lol
      Quote: JD1979
      Tu-214 in the role of AWACS Will he sit on the deck?

      and the author wrote that he would sit down?
      or "some" wrote that "even AWACS really can't" (in the sense for all the RF Armed Forces), the answer to which would be an example with 214
      Quote: JD1979
      or Su-33UB))) he WAS))) as the author himself writes 20 years ago, so today there is NOTHING as a carrier-based AWACS aircraft

      solutions (organizational) of this issue are now being discussed in a closed format
      technical capabilities YES
      Quote: JD1979
      Avics for Russia are now useless and harmful

      again - a convoy to the Kaliningrad enclave with what to provide ????
      and this is just one example (question) from a series
      1. vvvjak
        vvvjak April 28 2021 10: 25
        0
        Quote: 971
        and the author wrote that he would sit down?

        I understand that you are the author?
      2. JD1979
        JD1979 April 28 2021 11: 11
        +1
        Quote: 971
        it is YOU delusional

        As I understand it, the article was not mastered lol
        Quote: 971
        and the author wrote that he would sit down?
        or "some" wrote that "even AWACS really can't" (in the sense for all the RF Armed Forces), the answer to which would be an example with 214

        For those who have poor eyesight, we read from the subtitle: "Briefly on the AWACS factor and carrier-based fighters" you can replace the Tu-100 (well, ok, you can, but where is Avik here? And on the third Su-214UB, which is only in old pictures)))
        So what about the deck ships?))) He refuted himself)))
        Quote: 971
        solutions (organizational) of this issue are now being discussed in a closed format
        technical capabilities YES

        We have a plan and we are sticking to it))) How (organizational) rearrangement of beds in a brothel will solve the issue of creating a new plane?)))) You were told so directly about the closed format))) well, agent Mulder)))
        Quote: 971
        once again - a convoy to the Kaliningrad enclave with what to provide ????
        and this is just one example (question) from a series

        belay belay belay Seriously? Just like that with an aircraft carrier ... a convoy ... across the Gulf of Finland ... Medicine is powerless ... where do they come from ... write such nonsense in all seriousness ... I can certainly attribute this to heavy drugs, but something I doubt that they are to blame.
        Here the article was just about the convoy in the Baltic during the Second World War and what problems there were.
        Have you even looked at the map for general development before writing this? In the course that everything there is shot not only by coastal missile defense systems, in some places even by ordinary artillery. Avik is in a "puddle" .... I'm damn shocked ...
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 11: 17
          -2
          Quote: JD1979
          And on the third Su-33UB, which is only in old pictures

          this is an example of the possibilities WHICH WERE
          the main priest on AV now - the death of Marbashev
          a year ago, when I last spoke to him, his last phrase was:
          - I was left alone ...
          Those. opportunities are now SIGNIFICANTLY less than in the early 2010s
          But they are.
          Quote: JD1979
          Here the article was just about the convoy in the Baltic during the Second World War and what problems there were.

          there was not an "article" but bullshit
          Quote: JD1979
          Have you even looked at the map for general development before writing this? In the course that everything there is shot not only by coastal missile defense systems, in some places even by ordinary artillery.

          Monsieur, I not only "looked at the map", but also acc. "Decisions ..." were developed by the command.
          Quote: JD1979
          I am aware that everything is under fire there, not only by coastal missile defense systems

          this is to the question of CRITICAL NEED for air cover = AB
          Quote: JD1979
          sometimes even conventional artillery

          fool
          southern part of BM?!?!?
          YOU are delusional! lol
          Quote: JD1979
          Avik in a "puddle" .... I'm damn shocked ...

          an example from AB USA is given below
          1. JD1979
            JD1979 April 28 2021 11: 32
            +1
            Quote: 971
            this is an example of the possibilities WHICH WERE

            Are you going to land on the deck?)))
            Quote: 971
            there was not an "article" but bullshit

            Delirium of a gray mare? Yes, you are a 1st rank ChSVshnik)))
            Quote: 971
            Monsieur, I not only "looked at the map", but also acc. "Decisions ..." were developed by the command.

            Herr ... (although I wanted to write in Dutch))) in light of what you wrote in the post above ... I'm still inclined to admit the guilt of heavy drugs))) or BF)))
            Quote: 971
            this is to the question of CRITICAL NEED for air cover = AB

            Yes, yes, yes ... cover from the air from 155 caliber ... and what I recall is the phrase from the movie "Down House" ....
            Quote: 971

            southern part of BM?!?!?
            YOU are delusional!

            Where are you from to drive the convoys from a mythical point in the south of BM? Or will they have a specific point of departure and still need to get to this southernmost part? or...
            Quote: 971
            You probably meant teleport
            )))
            As the teacher said on one subject - an interesting clinical case)))
            1. 971
              971 April 28 2021 11: 39
              -4
              Quote: JD1979
              Are you going to be able to land on the deck?

              WHAT and HOW I want to plant on the deck I will not discuss with murzilkas like YOU, but those who DIRECTLY deal with this
              Quote: JD1979
              Delirium of a gray mare? Yes, you are a 1st rank ChSVshnik)))

              Monsieur in the same place in the comments ADEQUATE and solid from the colonel in reserve Morozov
              Quote: JD1979
              I'm still inclined to admit the guilt of heavy drugs))) or BF)))

              with YOUR delirium, if you please, to the doctors
              Quote: JD1979
              Yes, yes, yes ... cover from the air from 155 caliber.

              155 caliber from the shore wassat in the middle of the Baltic Sea?!?! - beware of your drug dealer! lol
              Quote: JD1979
              Where are you from to drive the convoys?

              from where - it doesn't matter
              for the problem with the end point
      3. S. Viktorovich
        S. Viktorovich April 28 2021 11: 18
        +1
        Of all the possible examples of the use of Russian aircraft carriers, the "Kaliningrad convoy" is not the most successful. The fate of not "Intrepid", but "Zeppelin" awaits them there.
        "Kaliningrad convoy" is possible only by land.
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 11: 20
          -3
          Quote: S. Viktorovich
          Of all the possible examples of the use of Russian aircraft carriers, the "Kaliningrad convoy" is not the most successful.

          yes, not the best
          but CRITICALLY NECESSARY
          incl. to CONTAIN
          Quote: S. Viktorovich
          The fate of not "Intrepid", but "Zeppelin" awaits them there.

          to drain Poland - it is necessary to try
          however, our Rafters may well succeed
          Quote: S. Viktorovich
          "Kaliningrad convoy" is possible only by land.

          see on the map
          land is TMV
          1. JD1979
            JD1979 April 28 2021 11: 47
            +1
            Quote: 971
            yes, not the best
            but CRITICALLY NECESSARY
            incl. to CONTAIN

            Containment of what))) whining of the enemy? who will just laugh if Avik is there))) Oh yes, pink ponies ...
            Quote: 971
            to drain Poland - it is necessary to try
            however, our Rafters may well succeed

            Swedes, Finns, United sprats and American bases, well, absolutely no one has access to BM except Poland))) I think I can guess what decisions you made there ... those that fit into a 10 by 10 square on a leaf in a box)))
            Quote: 971
            see on the map
            land is TMV

            Shouting in golosin, and the situation when you need not only armed guards, but just an urgent need for an avik convoy is not a TMV, and so the fleet commander decided to go fishing))) G - logics)))
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. JD1979
                JD1979 April 28 2021 11: 58
                0
                Quote: 971
                WARS
                knowingly LOSING for us
                if without AB

                The patient's confidence in Wunderwaffe was added to the clinical picture of the disease, which in one instance will allow either to contain or even win the war)))
                Quote: 971
                YOUR "opinion" floats too shallow
                in a puddle

                Somewhere near yours))) which also searches for the third bottom)))
                Quote: 971
                it would be better if the remnants of the brain were turned on

                Do not overstrain the only neuron, otherwise it will completely fail, the dendrites have already fallen off))
                1. 971
                  971 April 28 2021 12: 00
                  -2
                  Quote: JD1979
                  in Wunderwaffe, which is in one copy

                  no need to attribute YOUR nonsense to others
                  Quote: JD1979
                  Somewhere near your

                  Monsieur, I have on acc. depth maps were from tens of meters to kilometers
                  1. JD1979
                    JD1979 April 28 2021 12: 05
                    0
                    Quote: 971
                    no need to attribute YOUR nonsense to others

                    And our memory is girlish))) or scorosis is not diarrhea - every day news)))
                    Quote: 971
                    WARS
                    knowingly LOSING for us
                    if without AB

                    And whose is this nonsense))) can you tell me?
                    Quote: 971
                    Monsieur, I have on acc. depth maps were from tens of meters to kilometers

                    and what are you there, in a dream, conquered the depths of the ocean on submarine aircraft carriers))) or did you drop ships from maps?))) Now these maps with depths ....))))
                    1. 971
                      971 April 28 2021 12: 15
                      -2
                      Quote: JD1979
                      And whose is this nonsense))) can you tell me?

                      bunny, try to lead the convoy to the enclave
                      without AB
                      but with AB it is easy (against Poland)
                      Quote: JD1979
                      Now these maps with depths ....)))

                      bunny, a document for me signed by the beginning of the OU of the Navy laid out
                      so download ...
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. 971
                        971 April 28 2021 12: 49
                        -2
                        Quote: JD1979
                        To the enclave? Easily. Even without an escort. This is how they walk now)

                        TO THE DOCTOR
                        Quote: JD1979
                        Believe that apart from Poland, all other NATO members and non-members will sit on their banks and watch a movie

                        bunny, well, push your version - so the Washington regional committee "spun" about the 5th article? eh?
                        Quote: JD1979
                        Not about writing off an hour for professional incompetence?

                        no bunny
                        about the appointment and in the OU of the General Staff of the Navy
    2. KKND
      KKND April 28 2021 21: 10
      +1
      Quote: 971
      it is YOU delusional

      Sorry, but you really have an extremely confused presentation of thoughts, I read several of your articles. When about technique, then the presentation of thoughts becomes clearer, but when about your disputes with people, then here in the text "both ink and light." Naturally, this is just my opinion, multiply it or assume otherwise.
    3. moody
      moody April 28 2021 23: 51
      0
      Can I ask you two questions?
      1. While Kuznetsov (for example, repaired and operational) is based in the Northern Fleet. Will he be able to freely enter the Baltic Sea during the threatened period? If, for example, at the request of "overseas friends" the straits are blocked by accident for "technical reasons".
      2. Is the Ka-31 alive and relevant (at least for modernization) as a deck AWACS? It seems that in the XNUMXs it was also exported.
  • Gust
    Gust April 28 2021 10: 18
    +3
    In the current conditions, the imperative of the Navy should be to ensure the stability of SSBNs in the DB areas, or at least within a couple of seas, to guarantee a retaliatory or retaliatory oncoming strike. For this, of course, it is better to have an aircraft carrier than not to have one. But if we talk about "bastions", then it is more expedient to use shore-based aviation - anti-submarine, bomber, reconnaissance (of which there is very little). In short, here and now a powerful MRA is needed - unlike new aircraft carriers, this is quite feasible both technically and in terms of money.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 April 28 2021 10: 33
      +4
      Quote: Rafale
      In short, here and now a powerful MRA is needed - unlike new aircraft carriers, this is quite feasible both technically and in terms of money.

      Approve!
      But we also need a submarine, in the form of a "patrol" aircraft capable of performing both PLO-shny missions and reconnaissance.
    2. 971
      971 April 28 2021 11: 10
      -5
      Quote: Rafale
      unlike new aircraft carriers, this is quite real

      Air defense of the convoy to Kaliningrad You will "provide" MRA?
  • Gust
    Gust April 28 2021 10: 21
    0
    And the aircraft carriers themselves, in the classical sense, are outliving theirs. With the development of drones, their radius and characteristics, this is a matter of the near future.
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 10: 22
      -3
      Quote: Rafale
      And the aircraft carriers themselves, in the classical sense, are outliving theirs. With the development of drones, their radius and characteristics, this is a matter of the near future.

      You probably teleport meant
      for YOUR example with drones is just nonsense
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • Niko
    Niko April 28 2021 10: 38
    +1
    Thank you Maxim. Regardless of your opinion on this issue, it is always pleasant to read a competently presented material written by a person who understands the subject. It's a pity that you have to spend time answering the "experts" to whom nothing of the above can be attributed to me
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 28 2021 10: 39
    -3
    This is all manilovism. We must proceed from the fact that we can build serially right now. That is, RTOs. And with them we will not even be able to cover our coast; rather, on the contrary, we will have to defend the MRK so that it can release its few weak missiles. Is such a useless ship really necessary?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2021 10: 48
      +9
      Quote: Basarev
      This is all manilovism. We must proceed from the fact that we can build serially right now.

      Oddly enough, but the aircraft carriers are within our reach. Right now :))) I agree that there are more important programs, but to build an AV to replace Kuznetsov when it's time for metal, and then a couple more - it is quite within our power
      1. Gust
        Gust April 28 2021 10: 52
        +3
        Yes, quite capable. And even needed, the defense of the areas where the missile submarine missile submarine is carried and the boundaries of the ASW. But faster and more correct in our case MRA + PLO + AWACS.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 28 2021 11: 00
          +8
          Quote: Rafale
          But faster and more correct in our case is MRA + PLO + AWACS.

          One does not interfere with the other, but completely complements itself. And if instead of "dreams of reason" like "Poseidons" and their carriers, 22160, as well as the DKVD on the Black Sea, etc. etc., would have invested in normal corvettes, a new aircraft of basic aviation, and so on - everything would work out
  • BAI
    BAI April 28 2021 10: 59
    +2
    Only his appearance (and air groups) and models for solving problems can be the subject of dispute.

    The point of dispute can only be the need or unnecessary need for aircraft carriers. They are designed to support ground forces and independent combat operations away from the metropolis. Russia has no such plans. Military doctrine does not provide for military operations far from the border. At the moment, aircraft carriers are absolutely unnecessary. Is that just for pride and flag demonstration. There are no real combat missions (and not sucked from the finger by various theorists) for them. And Syria, by the way, has clearly demonstrated this. The Ministry of Defense does not have such tasks where one cannot live without aircraft carriers, they manage somehow now, which means that they can continue to do so.
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 11: 03
      -3
      Quote: BAI
      away from the metropolis.

      this is not true
      and the question has been studied a long time ago
    2. timokhin-aa
      April 28 2021 11: 09
      +7
      And Ukraine, for example, does without aviation normally. Take an example from her?
      And Ghana can do without tank troops.
      Let's put it as an example too?
      1. BAI
        BAI April 28 2021 11: 15
        0
        Can. Switzerland is costly. The Vatican, Monaco, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein - all get along and do not live badly, with a military potential below Ukraine. And m. Ghana. Canada, Norway, Australia do not have aircraft carriers - generally recognized maritime countries. And none of them feel flawed.
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 28 2021 13: 31
          +4
          Don't you think that the degree of danger from different aggressive countries for Ghana and Switzerland is incomparable with us?

          The question is not who feels flawed. The question is the ability of the Armed Forces to defend the country. With the main threat from the sea, this cannot be solved without aircraft carriers.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 28 2021 17: 47
            0
            “And you don’t think that the degree of danger from different aggressive countries for Ghana and Switzerland is incomparable with us” - Not comparable - because only suicides will attack Russia.
            1. timokhin-aa
              April 28 2021 17: 58
              +1
              Chechnya attacked Russia in 1999.
              By the way.
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov April 28 2021 22: 19
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Chechnya attacked Russia in 1999.
                By the way.

                And only thanks to Kuznetsov they dragged him.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 30 2021 19: 52
                  0
                  The fact is, they weren't afraid.
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 April 28 2021 22: 49
                0
                Well, where are all these Chechen attackers now?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 30 2021 19: 53
                  0
                  The fact is, they weren't afraid.
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 1 May 2021 19: 15
                    0
                    By the way, at that time, apart from the Strategic Missile Forces, Russia and the army did not have such a thing - in comparison that now it is heaven and earth.
      2. Yaroslav Zhigulin
        Yaroslav Zhigulin April 28 2021 11: 48
        -2
        And Great Britain without air force and cx but 2 aircraft carriers
    3. Roman070280
      Roman070280 April 28 2021 12: 09
      -1
      They are designed to support ground forces and independent combat operations. away from the metropolis


      That's right !!

      Although some in the previous topic suggested placing them near their shores .. to intercept cruise missiles ..))
    4. Niko
      Niko April 28 2021 13: 24
      +1
      Pathological opponents of aircraft carriers do not seem to read at all. They themselves come up with tasks for aircraft carriers and they themselves deny the need for ships and tasks themselves invented. Here is an article written by an intelligent person above: READ before commenting!
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra April 28 2021 11: 02
    +7
    The word sabotage is quite apt. Moreover, systemic sabotage.

    "... The dock builder for Admiral Kuznetsov complained to the Prosecutor General's Office. The construction in Murmansk has been suspended due to the increase in the cost of the dock and the contractor's dispute with the USC ..."

    "... Baltiysky Zavod is also facing difficulties in modernization. The enterprise has not yet managed to build a new dock for 12,5 billion rubles, although plans for its creation were discussed at USC several years ago ..."

    Shipyard "Zaliv" with a 360-meter dry dock came along with Crimea.

    "The main production asset of the enterprise is a dry dock with a length of 360 m, a width of 60 m, and a depth of 13 m, which is one of the largest in Europe."

    "The dock is equipped with two GOLIATH cranes with a lifting capacity of 320 tons each, which makes it possible to form blocks weighing more than 600 tons."

    There are those who want to discuss why not two 40 thousand tons of light aircraft carriers, but two 40 thousand tons of helicopter-carrying UDCs, were unexpectedly laid down at the Zaliv shipyard?

    "What can the Russians not come up with just to The roads aircraft carriers do not build "(C) I
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 11: 08
      -1
      Quote: AlexanderA
      The word sabotage is quite apt. Moreover, systemic sabotage.

      Yes
      1. KKND
        KKND April 28 2021 21: 16
        0
        Quote: 971
        Yes

        And the dropping of a dummy mine in St. Petersburg can be attributed to an act of sabotage?
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. timokhin-aa
      April 28 2021 13: 45
      +3
      Sabotage is not limited to aircraft carriers. In general, the entire fleet is subject to sabotage.
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra April 28 2021 14: 16
        +1
        "Cadres are everything." In the Russian Navy, for some deep-seated reasons, negative selection of personnel has turned into an "age-old" tradition, which even wars and revolutions cannot destroy.
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 28 2021 14: 41
          +5
          Here the problem is different. A lot of people in the military-industrial complex, the Ministry of Defense, etc. deliberately makes harmful decisions.
          Even to the detriment of the pocket.
          This is not just the case.
          1. Alexandra
            Alexandra April 28 2021 15: 12
            +1
            There is a special question about the defense industry complex. How is it that not only the USC's great interest is constantly being declared, but also the readiness to build aircraft-carrying ships ... although in fact there is nowhere to build even an analogue of Kuznetsov without excessive time and labor costs.

            Since the creation of the USC in 2007, all efforts on the issue of where to build without strain have been reduced only to the fact that the Baltiysky Zavod, the only domestic enterprise today - the builder of nuclear surface ships, has been returned to the state's ownership. But the construction of the dry dock, which is badly needed by the Baltic shipyard, has not yet begun.
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 April 28 2021 11: 09
    +6
    Plus article. Everything is right.
  • Roman070280
    Roman070280 April 28 2021 11: 46
    -1
    The status is binding. And this is not something "virtual", but a very specific pillar of the state (and not abstract, but with very specific political and economic consequences). The Power must be able to effectively respond to such challenges.


    The status obliges .. the state is obliged ..
    But in reality, it will never pay off economically ..

    And all that happened, of course, shows that there was a point in sending the ship. Precisely "look and check". And draw conclusions.


    Funny meaning ..)) I think the conclusion is obvious - nafig Kuznetsov was not needed there ..

    Although, you can go further .. and "look and check" what happens if .. send -teen aircraft carriers .. Yes, I don't care about the economy .. it's more important for us to see ..))
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 11: 48
      -3
      Quote: Roman070280
      But in reality, it will never pay off economically ..

      prevention knowingly losing war is it like? - "will not pay off" ???
      Quote: Roman070280
      Yes, I don't care about the economy .. it's more important for us to see ..)

      get off the armored car
      figures for sawing the dough on the Navy led
      1. Roman070280
        Roman070280 April 28 2021 12: 06
        0
        how is it to prevent a losing war? - "will not pay off" ???


        ensuring the rescue of civilians in actions such as "landing in Mogadishu" in 1978. The status is binding. And this is not something "virtual", but a very specific pillar of the state (and not abstract, but with very specific political and economic consequences)


        What did we NOT prevent in Magadishu, what war did we lose, and how much did the economy suffer from this?)
        Well, it's clear about the status .. how can you not stick your nose somewhere ..

        get off the armored car
        figures for sawing the dough on the Navy led

        It's more convenient for me here ..
        You can use whatever numbers you like .. this does not negate the fact that the more costs (and AUG is not costly without a mat), the tighter you will have to tighten your belts ..
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 12: 13
          -2
          Quote: Roman070280
          You can use whatever numbers you like .. this does not negate the fact that the more costs (and AUG is not costly without a mat), the tighter you will have to tighten your belts ..

          fool
          once again - within the established budget, due to the maneuver with the CUTTINGS, a good and necessary business is obtained
          where is YOUR personal "belt" and belly?
          1. Roman070280
            Roman070280 April 28 2021 12: 52
            -2
            due to the maneuver with the CUTTING articles

            And what is so possible ??
            It's like, instead of a palace in Gelendzhik - AUG ?? Well then I don't mind ..))
            So then it and your ISS can be launched .. instead of a cut on the Vostochny ..
            Or, for example, instead of FC Chelchi, how much can be built for the country ..
            Wow, we'll live soon ..))

            By the way, the very first post in the topic with which you started arguing was just about this:
            Maybe already enough about the fleet and about aircraft carriers.
            The government will change in Russia - then there will be a fleet, there will be aircraft carriers.
            Medvedev said at one time - NO money.
            1. 971
              971 April 28 2021 12: 53
              -1
              Quote: Roman070280
              It's like, instead of a palace in Gelendzhik - AUG ??
              By the way, the very first post in the topic,

              I suppose that what is the budget of the RF Ministry of Defense (and the articles of the Navy in it) can only be explained to YOU ​​by a doctor lol
              1. Roman070280
                Roman070280 April 28 2021 12: 58
                -1
                I suppose so


                Well, you have already explained to me about the sawing articles in the budget ..))
                But about the fact that the budget will not be born from scratch, and if it has arrived somewhere, then somewhere it should go away, I have already explained to you above using the example of tightening the belts.
                Otherwise, you will think that the retirement age for people was raised simply out of boredom, although it was possible to simply "redistribute" the budgets, and that's all ..))
  • parusnik
    parusnik April 28 2021 12: 01
    0
    The worse the well-being of the people, the more the "muscles" are poured. Without aircraft carriers and the fleet, we will not defend Pepsi and Coca-Cola, Fords, Renault-Nissan-VAZ, etc. Western imperialists will come and take it all away. smile
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 12: 07
      -3
      Quote: parusnik
      the stronger the "muscles"

      why are YOU so nervous?
      taking into account the fact that the question is not about "additional funding" but about RESTRENDING the funds already allocated
      Quote: parusnik
      Western imperialists will come and take it all away.

      will come
      see industrial clean-up in Eastern Europe
      I'm not talking about the scandal with the revelations of Mr. Sikorsky
      1. Roman070280
        Roman070280 April 28 2021 12: 53
        -1
        taking into account the fact that the question is not about "additional funding" but about RESTRENDING the funds already allocated

        Fresh legend ..
        Or whatever else .. blessed are those who believe .. Here ..))
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 12: 59
          0
          Quote: Roman070280
          Or whatever else .. blessed is he who believes.

          I do not "believe" I KNOW
          and that is why SABOTAGE on AB has "2 vectors" - one "political", and the second "financial-underwater"
          1. Roman070280
            Roman070280 April 28 2021 13: 07
            -1
            I know
            SABOTAGE on AB

            Ay-ay-ay .. But the men didn't know ..
            Then for the first time in my life I will be glad for sabotage ..))
            1. 971
              971 April 28 2021 13: 11
              -1
              Quote: Roman070280
              Then for the first time in my life I will be glad for sabotage ..))

              apparently the holiness of our submarines on PTZ YOU will also "rejoice violently"
      2. parusnik
        parusnik April 28 2021 13: 55
        0
        It is strange when there were "well-fed" years, "we were friends with NATO, oil at $ 100 per barrel, there was no such debate on the construction of aircraft carriers. Oil, at $ 30, $ 70, prices for products, services, taxes increased, flew enterprises in the course of a pandemic, the number of foreign goods, products increases. It took a tough job for "world imperialism". We will go to heaven, and they will go to hell. So, one wise man said.
        1. SVD68
          SVD68 April 29 2021 05: 51
          0
          Quote: parusnik
          It is strange when there were "well-fed" years, "we were friends with NATO,

          "Friendship with NATO" does not depend on us. In 2014 NATO launched an information war against us. The reason was the alleged oppression of "sexual minorities" at the Sochi Olympics.
  • 971
    971 April 28 2021 12: 11
    -2
    on AWACS on behalf of our aircraft carrier program (from Sukhoi)
    http://www.balancer.ru/g/p9681113
    We were supposed to have both airplanes and RLD helicopters. At the same time, the aircraft conducted long-range observation in a likely threatened direction, and helicopters over the TAVKR (while sharply increasing the radio horizon) and in less likely directions.

    The capabilities of an airplane and a helicopter are different, but their combined use leads to more safety for less money.
    For example, an RLD aircraft searches at the turn of 350 km, with a view range on the target of a fighter of less than 400 km, it essentially will not help the ships in "less probable" directions. since he sees the same way as the actual ships with his radar. A helicopter RLD flying just over the TAVKR sees fighters 100-150 km around.

    So RLD plane - we see everything very well, but in few places (or not bad around but flying around TAVKR), the helicopter sees more or less (many times more than ships) but everything is around.

    At the moment, the domestic aircraft carrier will operate where there is no pronounced threatened direction, the threat is rather circular. In these conditions, the helicopter is simpler, cheaper, has a variety of bases, and finally it is.
    The need for an RLD aircraft may arise with an increase in the number of its carriers, if it is not replaced by space vehicles, UAVs.

    Finally, in place of 1 Yak-44, about 5 Ka-31s can be accommodated in the hangar.
    The Yak-44 can stay in the air for 6 hours and make 2 flights a day, the Ka-31 can stay in the air for 3 hours and make up to 4 flights a day.
    In total, for round-the-clock patrolling around the ship, 2 Yak-44 or 2 Ka-31 are enough, only their viewing area is different;) At the same time, both significantly increase the radio horizon of the connection.
    And if you provide a similar viewing area as the Yak-44 (above the compound), then it is necessary to keep 4 Ka-31s in the air.
    Total: to perform the same mission, you need 2 Yak-44 or 8 Ka-31. Taking into account the coefficient of readiness: 3 Yak-44 or 10 Ka-31. In this narrow (but important) task, the advantage is for the Ka-31.
  • Shadow041
    Shadow041 April 28 2021 12: 47
    +2
    It's funny to look at people who argue which is more important, the left leg, or the right one, and which one can be dispensed with. You can do without any of them, but this is a definite disability. An aircraft carrier is not needed near its shores, here is the zone of action of coastal aviation, and if you go somewhere far, then the aircraft carrier needs escort from large universal warships, because it is these ships that have a suitable cruising range, seaworthiness and weapons. Anything smaller than a frigate is not suitable for escorting an aircraft carrier, and it would not hurt to have a missile cruiser or destroyer as the flagship of the formation. This is where we get a vicious circle along which a number of authors walk 1) Without escort of large universal warships, an aircraft carrier is an easy target for the enemy. 2) Without an aircraft carrier, it will be difficult for large surface ships to operate, since they also need oversight target designation for their missiles and reconnaissance, including anti-submarine air patrol and additional protection from enemy aircraft ... So we get the bottom line, what if we want to have an ocean-going fleet, then we need cruisers and destroyers and frigates and aircraft carriers ... It's expensive, but if they start saving on Chubais, and not on grandmothers with their beggarly pensions, as Volodin and others like him suggest, then money will appear on the fleet
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 12: 55
      -2
      Quote: Shadow041
      An aircraft carrier is not needed near its shores, here is the zone of action of coastal aviation

      You forgot the flight time
      And if you have not forgotten and you are "on duty in the air", then the cost of the required outfit of forces turns out to be DIFFERENTLY higher than AB with an air group, - details in articles (closed) by Matveychuk

      Quote: Shadow041
      Without escorting large, versatile warships, an aircraft carrier is an easy target for the enemy.

      even a pair of submarines can be his escort
      1. Shadow041
        Shadow041 April 28 2021 13: 04
        0
        You forgot about the fuel for the aircraft carrier itself and the cost of its depreciation, in addition, the aircraft carrier also needs good weather along the course and the escort of warships, the coastal airfield is much cheaper ... the nuclear submarine is not an escort ... see what is included in the escort of aircraft carriers in the USA and read why so and not otherwise
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 13: 08
          -2
          Quote: Shadow041
          You forgot

          AGAIN
          DETAILS - ARTICLES BY MATVEYCHUK
          HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF TACTICS NK VMA

          unfortunately so far secret
          Quote: Shadow041
          weather along the course, coastal airfield

          first, take an interest in crosswind restrictions on the aircraft ...
          Quote: Shadow041
          the airfield is much cheaper

          by the way, it's not very cheap
          Quote: Shadow041
          The Premier League is not an escort.

          let YOU not tell me your tales
          Quote: Shadow041
          see what is included in the escort of aircraft carriers in the United States and read why this is and not otherwise

          AGAIN
          I EATED THEM
          1. Shadow041
            Shadow041 April 28 2021 13: 10
            +3
            I did not write to you, if you do not like something, communicate with someone else, but tell others about the difference in the cost of a coastal airfield and a large ship and their operation.
            1. 971
              971 April 28 2021 13: 25
              -4
              Quote: Shadow041
              and tell others about the difference in the cost of a coastal airfield and a large ship and their operation

              Do YOU ​​have data on their cost? I highly doubt it
              not to mention the fact that we are not talking about comparing price tags but about efficiency (or eff / cost)
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov April 30 2021 21: 27
                0
                Quote: 971
                Quote: Shadow041
                and tell others about the difference in the cost of a coastal airfield and a large ship and their operation

                Do YOU ​​have data on their cost? I highly doubt it
                not to mention the fact that we are not talking about comparing price tags but about efficiency (or eff / cost)



                The construction of a new runway in the Ulan-Ude air harbor began in 2016 due to
                federal funds, the project cost - 3,9 billion rubles. The length of the strip will be 3,4
                km, width - 45 m, it will be able to receive all types of aircraft, including
                multi-ton Boeing and An-124 Ruslan heavy aircraft

                5 billion rubles for a runway designed for heavy transport workers and constant use of heavy vehicles.
                Here the "difficulty" is that airfields are very different.
                It is possible to organize airfield engineering units in the field.
                It is possible on a section of the road.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ4DIFMfvNU


                In Russia, there are 60 federal airfields and 150 smaller ones - they generally bring us money.
                How to take them into account?

                In general, the order of numbers for the price of 1 combat-ready aircraft carrier (2 physically built), you can build about 50 airfields that can participate in the transfer of troops by the VTA forces and from which the Tu-22 fret can take off.

                If you do something simpler, then already under 100 such "sites"
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 28 2021 17: 35
          +1
          Quote: Shadow041
          You forgot about the fuel for the aircraft carrier itself and the cost of its depreciation, in addition, the aircraft carrier also needs good weather along the course and escort of warships, the coastal airfield is much cheaper ...

          One coastal airfield - yes. Now calculate the cost net coastal airfields, which can provide a flight time comparable to AB - for example, for the "bastions" of the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet. And the cost of their constant maintenance in readiness to receive the air group. Moreover, these airfields will have to be built based on tactical considerations, not logistic ones. And according to the law of meanness, the fifth points of the world will be the most profitable. smile
          The aircraft carrier is good because not only the air group is mobile, but also the runway, BAO and TECh.
        3. SVD68
          SVD68 April 29 2021 05: 58
          -1
          Quote: Shadow041
          You forgot about the fuel for the aircraft carrier itself and the cost of its depreciation,

          Depreciation is the transfer of the value of the means of production to the result of labor. How much can an aircraft carrier amortize an aircraft carrier?
      2. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 28 2021 13: 35
        -1
        Quote: 971
        even a pair of submarines can be his escort

        Another Jules Verne was found.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. timokhin-aa
            April 28 2021 13: 46
            -1
            4th flotilla in action.
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette April 28 2021 14: 11
              -1
              Again by. 10 OPESK in its best years.
              1. timokhin-aa
                April 28 2021 14: 40
                -1
                Not again, but just by.
                Why, then, is there such no outlook?
                1. Silhouette
                  Silhouette April 28 2021 14: 45
                  -2
                  It's not for you, son, to evaluate my horizons. First you have to grow out of pink panties.
                  1. 971
                    971 April 28 2021 15: 16
                    -1
                    Quote: Silhouette
                    son, my horizons are to be assessed. First you have to grow out of pink panties.

                    bunny, hike your "horizon" wassat this is the drum in the orchestra lol
                    aggravated by dementia belay
                  2. timokhin-aa
                    April 28 2021 15: 49
                    +2
                    Oh well.
                    So who's a shitty outlook just cuts his eyes, if that.
              2. 971
                971 April 28 2021 15: 18
                -2
                Quote: Silhouette
                10 OPESK in its best years.

                considering YOUR denseness, there is only one option - YOU were there "moonlighting with an orchestra" lol
                even "zam" are just lights on your "background" wassat
    2. Roman070280
      Roman070280 April 28 2021 13: 01
      -1
      more importantly, the left leg, or the right and which one can be dispensed with.

      An aircraft carrier is not needed near its shores, here is the zone of action of coastal aviation,and if you go somewhere farthen


      And if you don't go somewhere far - behind the third leg - then it turns out that all this is not needed ..))
    3. Niko
      Niko April 28 2021 13: 17
      -1
      Quote: Shadow041
      It's funny to look at people who argue which is more important, the left leg, or the right one, and which one can be dispensed with. You can do without any of them, but this is a definite disability. An aircraft carrier is not needed near its shores, here is the zone of action of coastal aviation, and if you go somewhere far, then the aircraft carrier needs escort from large universal warships, because it is these ships that have a suitable cruising range, seaworthiness and weapons. Anything smaller than a frigate is not suitable for escorting an aircraft carrier, and it would not hurt to have a missile cruiser or destroyer as the flagship of the formation. This is where we get a vicious circle along which a number of authors walk 1) Without escort of large universal warships, an aircraft carrier is an easy target for the enemy. 2) Without an aircraft carrier, it will be difficult for large surface ships to operate, since they also need oversight target designation for their missiles and reconnaissance, including anti-submarine air patrol and additional protection from enemy aircraft ... So we get the bottom line, what if we want to have an ocean-going fleet, then we need cruisers and destroyers and frigates and aircraft carriers ... It's expensive, but if they start saving on Chubais, and not on grandmothers with their beggarly pensions, as Volodin and others like him suggest, then money will appear on the fleet

      All your arguments have the right to be, BUT provided that you have not read the article
  • iouris
    iouris April 28 2021 12: 54
    +2
    Our Tsushima has taken place.
    1. parusnik
      parusnik April 28 2021 13: 56
      0
      In 1991, in October, 1993, the success was consolidated. smile
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 28 2021 12: 58
    0
    The most realistic way to get an affordable AB with carrier-based aircraft is to create your own F-35B.
    Ideally - also a tiltrotor AWACS.
    Both of them will be able to take off from the deck of a large UDC (for example, pr 23900) without a catapult, while with a large load, good range and not consuming a lot of fuel during takeoff (short takeoff).
    Yes, the performance of the new heavy nuclear-powered Ford cannot be compared, but the (insane) goal of destroying the US fleet in the ocean is not set.
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 13: 10
      -2
      Quote: 3danimal
      F-35B.
      Ideally - also a tiltrotor AWACS.
      Both of them will be able to take off from the deck of a large UDC (for example, pr 23900)

      what freedom for sawing the dough !!!
      and in the style of "either donkey or padishah"

      and this is in the presence of the necessary backlog for normal AB!
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal April 28 2021 13: 28
        0
        the presence of the necessary backlog for normal AB!

        The backlog is a springboard light / medium AB. (The British bought themselves an F-35B and they are doing well)
        Or a large UDC - a helicopter carrier.
        Where is at least one catapult?
        Where is the infrastructure for servicing heavy nuclear powered vehicles? Shipyards similar to Newport News Shipbuilding?


        what freedom for sawing the dough !!!

        I'm not saying it's easy.
        But if AB is really needed, not blind at the same time (and there is not enough money and opportunities), then the proposed option is optimal request
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 13: 32
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          Where is at least one catapult?

          there is a backlog for EMC and EMAF
          moreover, several groups of developers
          amerovskie jambs are clear (they are not mechanics but electrical)
          Quote: 3danimal
          for the maintenance of heavy atomic AB?

          why is it necessary to Nimitz?
          Quote: 3danimal
          if you really need AB, not blind at the same time (and there is not enough money and opportunities), then the proposed option is optimal

          no
          and, in fact, estimates of this were carried out in the west (the last they have is the REND report about which Timokhin wrote)
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal April 28 2021 13: 39
            0
            there is a backlog for EMC and EMAF
            moreover, several groups of developers
            amerovskie jambs are clear (they are not mechanics but electrical)

            They have the most extensive experience in operating steam catapults.
            There are AVs with ready-made, working electromagnetic (they require a very powerful power grid, which is present on Ford), they are gaining experience with them. Every day.
            What do we have now?
            But on SKVVP there were many flying samples.
            It will not work to repeat the F-35 program, IMHO, but you only need one type of aircraft.
            You can, of course, try to "finish" and version "A" for export (or maybe it will come in handy here).
            1. 971
              971 April 28 2021 13: 42
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              What do we have now?

              I will not comment on this (except for advertising images posted on the network)
              at least for now
        2. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 28 2021 13: 59
          0
          bases in any case will have to be modernized ... as well as building a new / expanding old shipyards ... because at the current capacities it is impossible to talk about the serial construction of frigates / destroyers
        3. Alexandra
          Alexandra April 28 2021 14: 42
          -1
          Quote: 3danimal
          Where is at least one catapult?

          Catapults are forced to be used by those whose carrier-based aircraft are traditionally tied to catapults. In the 70s of the XX century, 4th generation fighters appeared with a take-off thrust-weight ratio (with a normal take-off weight) above one. In the early 80s of the last century, a springboard appeared. From that time on catapults could no longer suffer.
          Where is the infrastructure for servicing heavy nuclear powered vehicles?

          The question should probably be divided into two. Russia has the infrastructure for servicing nuclear ships. There is no infrastructure for the construction and maintenance of ships of large displacement, for the reason that the creation of such was sabotaged for a long time, moreover, since Stalin's times. What can we say, if for several decades there were reasons not to build dry docks to service TAVKR, and the hulls of these TAVKRs in the USSR were formed ... on an inclined slipway.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal April 28 2021 15: 17
            0
            There is no infrastructure for the construction and maintenance of ships of large displacement, for the reason that the creation of such was sabotaged for a long time, and since Stalin's times

            Rather, due to the lack of technology and experience.
            Analogy: PD-50 was built by the Norwegians, there was another one expropriated from the Germans.
            And not a single Soviet one.
            The conclusion is clearly not as simple as it might seem.
            Catapults are forced to be used by those whose carrier-based aircraft are traditionally tied to catapults.

            In the 40s, the United States did not have catapults (but it has a lot of experience in the production of steam engines for hundreds of thousands of hp). Later, catapults were needed, up to large aircraft with high mileage. They were made.
            In the 70s of the XX century, 4th generation fighters appeared with a take-off thrust-weight ratio (with a normal take-off weight) above one. In the early 80s of the last century, a springboard appeared. From that time on catapults could no longer suffer.

            With a high thrust-to-weight ratio, they took off with a lower load of weapons and fuel, at a shorter range.
            The F-35B appeared even later. And it turned out that the UDC may well be an aircraft carrier with modern and maneuverable supersonic decks (Harriers are more suitable as attack aircraft).
            US ILC satisfied smile
            In the late USSR / RF and early 90s, there were developments and flying prototypes of supersonic SCVVP. There was also a preliminary design of the Yach-201, which is somewhat similar to the "B". (One of the options is with a lift fan).
            Hence the idea of ​​justifying the creation of a new SKVVP request
            1. timokhin-aa
              April 28 2021 15: 48
              +1
              Are you aware of how "satisfied" the ILC is? Do you know why the composition of the air group during the actions of the UDC as a light aircraft carrier cut up to 10 fighters? Isn't that 40+ kilotons of VI for 10 fighters?
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal April 28 2021 16: 25
                0
                I understand that this is not AB.
                Just one of the options, before the appearance of, say, the version of “Queen Elizabeth” in the navy.
                (I consider it extremely unlikely to build an analogue of "Nimitz" or "Ford")
                1. timokhin-aa
                  April 28 2021 16: 29
                  0
                  UDC is not an aircraft carrier. The Americans specifically checked this, sent the Wasp into combat service without a landing.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal April 28 2021 16: 44
                    0
                    Was the helicopter carrier tested in this capacity?
                    The Japanese are going to place the F-35B on the Izumo request
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      April 28 2021 16: 54
                      0
                      The Japanese initially built it as an aircraft carrier, they simply hid it.
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal April 28 2021 19: 59
                        0
                        But!
                        "Total" 27000 tons of full displacement. Built in 3 years.
                        2 lifts, as well as on the 45000-ton UDC "America".
                        Much more realistic to build than Queen Elizabeth request


                        Even with 10 F-35Bs on board, they can always raise half of them on patrol (repelling an attack on the KUG).
                        And if Boeing builds a tiltrotor AWACS for them, then there will be eyes in the sky.
                      2. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 28 2021 22: 23
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        But!
                        "Total" 27000 tons of full displacement. Built in 3 years.
                        2 lifts, as well as on the 45000-ton UDC "America".
                        Much more realistic to build than Queen Elizabeth

                        They avoid the topic of helicopter carriers since helicopter carriers are indeed many times more realistic.

                        At first Timokhin wrote which helicopters are cool ..

                        Can helicopters aboard URF ships and landing ships available to the Russian Navy take on some of the tasks that are supposed to be accomplished in a comprehensive manner by forces based on full-fledged aircraft carrier ships - both ship planes and helicopters?

                        The answer is yes, they can. And this is confirmed not only by various theoretical studies and exercises, but also by a relatively "fresh" by historical standards, combat experience.

                        Now he drowns for what nifiga.
                      3. 3danimal
                        3danimal April 28 2021 22: 47
                        0
                        What I mean: IMHO, our Izumo / America with SCVVP will appear earlier than a large AB with catapults and heavy deck ships.
                        By the way, the problem of the latter is also that they can be taken less.
                        Only the late F-18s remained on the USA AB.
                      4. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov April 28 2021 22: 54
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        What I mean: IMHO, our Izumo / America with SCVVP will appear earlier than a large AB with catapults and heavy deck ships.
                        By the way, the problem of the latter is also that they can be taken less.
                        Only the late F-18s remained on the USA AB.

                        and earlier and easier and more (by the number of pieces)
                      5. 971
                        971 April 29 2021 10: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        and earlier and easier and more (by the number of pieces)

                        the fact that a helicopter carrier is a BIG TARGET "trampoline jumper" Vorotsov does not care
                    2. 971
                      971 April 29 2021 10: 49
                      -1
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      with SCVVP than a large AB with catapults and heavy deck ships.

                      no
                      the existing groundwork in power electrical engineering allows the implementation of EMC and EMAF many times faster and cheaper than in the USA
                      about the cost of the DRUNK with the development of VTOL aircraft and there is no comparison
                    3. 3danimal
                      3danimal April 29 2021 10: 59
                      +1
                      existing groundwork in power electrical engineering

                      I have something to do with energy.
                      So, the power equipment of our production is worse. Electric motors are worse (compared to ABB, for example).
                    4. 971
                      971 April 29 2021 11: 09
                      -1
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      I have something to do with energy.

                      I also
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      our production is worse. Electric motors are worse

                      depends on what

                      in this particular case, efficiency plays a very important role, even a few percent
                      and just with this we are very good
                      example - Ichthyosaurus motor efficiency VPPM 0,97-0,98 similar to BlackShark (Italians) 0,93-0,94

                      our production is worse.

                      the problem is that we have very few "at the trough" (order) that are not at all the best ... one story how many "drowned" VPDM
                    5. 3danimal
                      3danimal April 29 2021 11: 13
                      0
                      depends on what

                      Vacuum switches, electric motors, batteries, generators.
                      Ichthyosaurus motor efficiency 0,97-0,98 similar to BlackShark (Italians) 0,93-0,94

                      1. Where does the engine data come from?
                      2. What difference does it make? We are talking about the United States, they did the catapult (General Atomics).
            2. 971
              971 April 29 2021 10: 48
              0
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              They avoid the topic of helicopter carriers since helicopter carriers are indeed many times more realistic.

              LIE
              Timokhin and I wrote about helicopters
              the question is what the effectiveness of the aircraft carrier for the most critical tasks of the Navy is simply incomparable with the effectiveness of the aircraft carrier
            3. 3danimal
              3danimal April 29 2021 11: 01
              0
              Build a helicopter carrier realistically (UDC 23900 is already under construction), and Nimitz? Or Queen Elizabeth?
              Something like Charles de Gaulle will not work without catapults.
            4. 971
              971 April 29 2021 11: 11
              -1
              Quote: 3danimal
              realistic (UDC 23900 is already under construction

              Do you know what "brothel" wassat is it going on there?
              I am "slightly in the know" (including in the part "correct in time" errors that "later" would be almost unrealistic to correct)
              Quote: 3danimal
              Something like Charles de Gaulle will not work without catapults.

              EASILY
              there are problems with AWACS
              but they can be solved
              + EMK is just as real
            5. 3danimal
              3danimal April 29 2021 11: 24
              0
              EASILY

              How irresponsible.
              Let's imagine that they gave a budget (limited) and put in charge of the design and construction (there will be no firing squad).
              "In 10 years, take it and do it."
              So what? Will it work in 5? (It's easy after all)
              EMK is just as real

              So is the steam room. We are writing a decree: to do it in a year smile
            6. 971
              971 April 29 2021 11: 29
              -1
              Quote: 3danimal
              (there will be no firing squad).

              Easily. And without the firing squad.
              It would be enough and the opportunity a couple of times a year in Bocharovoy to give for signature the GDP respectively. docks, - and for a visa I AGREE (and not in any case "by the established procedure").
              Really in 5 years ... TECHNICAL.
              It is NOT possible for "organizational reasons"
              , which can only be bypassed by "indulgence" ("I AGREE") 1 person ...
              Quote: 3danimal
              We are writing a decree: to do it in a year

              depends on requirements
              for 30 tons a year is not enough wink
              but for something of several tons ... a few months and an amount commensurate with the cost of a good car - quite
              literally several. Discussed days ago laughing - within one topic bully
            7. 3danimal
              3danimal April 29 2021 11: 58
              +1
              for 30 tons a year little wink
              but for something of several tons ... a few months and an amount commensurate with the cost of a good car - quite
              literally several. days ago, laughing was discussed - within the framework of one topic bully

              Mobilization fiction.
              How many maglevs are produced in Russia?
              Let me remind you that EMALS has been making for more than one year.
              https://www.aviapanorama.ru/2017/12/plan-s-kak-alternativa-emals/

              The Chinese, too, are already messing around (and they have magnetic levitation trains already running a lot where, I suppose, with partial localization of production)
  • timokhin-aa
    April 30 2021 12: 25
    0
    You can build about 40-45 kT with a pair of catapults with a shelf on the deck in 7 years, of which 4 will go to the construction site itself.
    The problem is purely in the organization
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 30 2021 12: 38
    0
    You can build about 40-45 kT

    Where to build?
    Where to get catapults in such a short time?
    of which 4 will go to the construction site itself.

    Will we overtake the USA and China? By the speed of building large ships ??
    What in the history of the last 20 years gives reason to think so?
    UDC 23900 (40 thousand tons) of a much simpler design is going to be built in 5-6 years.
  • timokhin-aa
    April 30 2021 12: 49
    0
    Where to build?


    https://vpk-news.ru/articles/58851

    Where to get catapults in such a short time?


    Carts were already flying from the electromagnetic ones. A steam room on the old documentation of a proletarian plant can be made in five years

    Will we overtake the USA and China? By the speed of building large ships ??


    The problem is purely organizational.

    What in the history of the last 20 years gives reason to think so?


    What in April 51 made it possible to think that in ten years a citizen of the USSR would fly into space?
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 30 2021 13: 05
    0
    What in April 51 made it possible to think that in ten years a citizen of the USSR would fly into space?

    The analogy is irrelevant.
    A steam room on the old documentation of a proletarian plant can be made in five years

    The term is too short.
    The problem will be the production of equipment responsible for the flight control of aviation. This is a very complex and expensive complex, the production experience of which does not have a modern domestic industry. At one time, the solution of this issue caused difficulties even for the USSR.

    You wrote this.
    The problem is purely organizational.

    Different production capacities, country budgets.
    Fantasy, too many ifs.
  • timokhin-aa
    April 30 2021 19: 52
    0
    Yes, there will be problems, but they are quite solvable.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 1 May 2021 02: 20
    0
    But not in 5 years.
    You have to be realistic: in our reality, in our state, this is impossible.
    Hence the "compromise" ideas about SKVVP on UDC request (except for purely technical interest)
  • timokhin-aa
    1 May 2021 12: 41
    +1
    I repeat - the problems are purely organizational. The catapult for "Ulyanovsk" was built at the Proletarsky plant. On the "Thread" and in Yeisk there are steam catapults, though not from ships. There is a backlog, there are drawings, calculations, documentation, photos.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 1 May 2021 06: 32
    0
    Even a large AB - an analogue of “Queen Elizabeth” designed for the SCVVP basing will be much simpler (accordingly - faster to build and put into operation) than the modern version of Kuznetsov or the bailout of “De Gaulle”.
  • timokhin-aa
    1 May 2021 12: 41
    0
    Queen Elizabeth is the pinnacle of British stupidity in every sense.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 1 May 2021 12: 52
    0
    But he is much more combat-ready "America" ​​or "Izumo". Scottish parsimony won out in AB design controversy smile
    But only earlier such ships were forced to be content with subsonic "Harriers" (good only as attack aircraft).
    And with the advent of the F-35B, they have full-fledged 5th generation strike fighters (stealth, AFAR, sensors, good maneuverability), with a combat load, and a combat radius much better / better than that of the Super Hornet.
    Heavy Nimitzes and Fords will rearm on the F-35S.
  • timokhin-aa
    1 May 2021 12: 56
    +1
    America is not an aircraft carrier. As for Izumo, it seems like yes.
    But let's compare it at least with the Vikrant, which can carry twenty MiG-29K or F / A-18. And they - for a minute - are carrying anti-ship missiles.
    I am already silent about "Charles".
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 1 May 2021 13: 12
    0
    America - UDC with a displacement of 45000 tons, will be able to carry 10 F-35Bs, like the helicopter carrier Izumo (28000 tons).
    70600 ton HMS Queen Elizabeth - takes up to 24 F-35B. And they are also armed with anti-ship missiles - NSM or LRASM. request
    Together with 14 helicopters, a maximum of 38 aircraft is obtained, while the ejection de Gaulle has 40. He is a little heavier. But his hangar is smaller.

  • timokhin-aa
    1 May 2021 13: 36
    0
    Here are just de Gaulle's Rafali and E-2.
    Not exactly the same thing as "verticals" with AWACS helicopters.
    Well, you can also recall the American aircraft with 70 kT and a non-nuclear power plant.
    Compare with Elizabeth.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 1 May 2021 13: 37
    0
    Sorry, "Charles" has a displacement of 42000 tons smile
  • timokhin-aa
    1 May 2021 13: 39
    +1
    Exactly
    Nice difference, right?
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 1 May 2021 14: 05
    0
    You can see that the hangar of the Frenchman is noticeably smaller: 29x138m versus 33,5x155 for the "Queen".
    Despite the fact that the F-35B is about the same dimensions as Raphael.
    Fewer aircraft can be kept on deck, the same number of fighters is easier to maintain.
    The main advantage of "Charles" is the ability to launch / receive E-2.
    But there are AWACS projects based on a tiltrotor, their appearance will noticeably equalize the possibilities.


  • timokhin-aa
    1 May 2021 14: 17
    0
    Charles's main plus is that his aircraft can carry anti-ship missiles in terms of their performance characteristics and VPH.
    The second plus is that a 40-ton aircraft can be launched from a catapult, and a 50-ton one too.
    That gives opportunities that trampoline ships do not have and cannot have.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 1 May 2021 14: 59
    0
    Charles's main plus is that his aircraft can carry anti-ship missiles in terms of their performance characteristics and VPH.

    They are not unique in this capacity.
    The second plus is that a 40-ton aircraft can be launched from a catapult, and a 50-ton one too.

    Can.
    But the ship is more complicated and more expensive.
    Indeed, there is no landing system on the Korolev.
    AB in its likeness can be made and put into operation faster. And place the SCVVP on the UDC, if required.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 28 2021 17: 49
    0
    Quote: 3danimal
    In the 40s, the USA did not have catapults.

    Were
    Pneumatic catapults were still on the Langley. The Lex and Sarah were mechanical. And from the beginning of the 30s the era of hydraulics began (Enterprise and beyond).
    According to the project, three H-Mk-IV hydropneumatic catapults were supposed to be installed on Essex-class aircraft carriers: two in the bow of the flight deck and one across the hull on the hangar deck. However, in the course of construction, one deck-based catapult was abandoned: the size of the ships allowed all the aircraft of that time to take off using the free takeoff method. The hangar catapult was mounted on only six aircraft carriers (CV-10, CV-12-CV-14, CV-17 and CV-18), before its complete uselessness became clear. The lead Essex entered service without catapults at all, and the CV-16 Lexington with only one deck: the shipyards were building aircraft carriers so quickly that equipment suppliers could not keep up with them.
    © S. A. Balakin. Essex-class aircraft carriers.
    Here is the preparation for the launch of the "Hellcat" from the hangar catapult:

    And when the hydraulics were no longer enough, they had to switch to steam.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal April 28 2021 20: 17
      0
      In the photo there are side catapults, not "classic" steam ones on the deck ..
      But also touched, there was something to start with. good
      1. 971
        971 April 29 2021 10: 50
        -1
        Quote: 3danimal
        In the photo there are side catapults,

        which were abandoned during operation during the war
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal April 29 2021 11: 02
          0
          I am not defending them.
          Small catapults were relevant for launching seaplanes from battleships.
          1. 971
            971 April 29 2021 11: 12
            -1
            Quote: 3danimal
            Small catapults were relevant for launching seaplanes from battleships.

            they are still relevant now
            1.heavy UAVs
            2.As an effective addition to the springboard
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 29 2021 13: 15
        +1
        Quote: 3danimal
        In the photo there are side catapults, not "classic" steam ones on the deck ..

        And here is the classic:
        1. AB "Hancock" of the "Essex" type (December 1944) - hydraulic catapults in the bow of the deck (two light gray tracks):

        2. The same AB "Hancock" of the "Essex" type - but with steam catapults in place of the hydraulic ones:

        Steam catapults began to be used on American AB in 1954.
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra April 28 2021 20: 51
    +1
    Quote: 3danimal
    Rather, due to the lack of technology and experience.

    And what experience was needed to build a TAVKR not on an inclined slipway? What in the Brezhnev era prevented the construction of the same dry dock at the Black Sea shipyard as at the Zaliv plant in Kerch? There, the construction of the dock was started in 1968 and completed in 1971 - as part of the implementation of plans for the construction of a large-tonnage fleet. What prevented at the same time from building a dry dock covered by a boathouse at the Baltic Shipyard? Who lacked the experience to give up welding the hulls of nuclear icebreakers (AK-27 and AK-28 steels require heating of the welded edges) in the open air? Until now, after all, the hulls of nuclear icebreakers of project 22220 have to be cooked with torment on the inclined open slip A of the Baltic shipyard.

    Analogy: PD-50 was built by the Norwegians, there was another one expropriated from the Germans, and not a single Soviet one.

    Well, this was the late Soviet program for the modernization of factories for the implementation of plans for the construction of large-tonnage units. PD-41 was built by 1978 at the facilities of the Japanese Ishikawajima Heavy Industries. And they paid in hard currency.

    The conclusion is clearly not as simple as it might seem.

    If the whole USSR gets only one 360-meter building dock, and TAVKR, TARKR and nuclear-powered icebreakers are built "in the old fashioned way" on inclined stocks, then of course it is not easy.

    In the 40s, the United States did not have catapults (but it has a lot of experience in the production of steam engines for hundreds of thousands of hp).

    From the very beginning, the Americans installed catapults: mechanical, powder, hydraulic. Another thing is that in the era of piston aviation on large aircraft carriers, they were not particularly required. But the first jet carrier-based aircraft, due to the low thrust-to-weight ratio and high take-off speed, needed catapults. The power of the hydraulic catapults quickly became insufficient. The steam catapult was first used by the British on the HMS Perseus (1950), and the Americans almost immediately copied it.

    With a high thrust-to-weight ratio, they took off with a lower load of weapons and fuel, at a shorter range.

    In the body of the article, there is a photo of a MiG-29K preparing for takeoff in the role of a tanker from the second starting position of AV Vikramaditya with a takeoff weight close to its maximum of 24,5 tons. A catapult is not needed for such a takeoff of the MiG-29K. The Su-35S and Su-57 have a thrust-to-weight ratio higher than that of the MiG-29K. It is necessary to try very hard to spoil a 4 ++ or 5 generation multipurpose fighter so that a catapult is required to take off from a deck with a takeoff weight close to maximum. In the case of the F-35C, it succeeded - its takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio with a maximum takeoff weight of only 0,64. For comparison, the Su-57 has a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio with a maximum takeoff weight of more than 1 (with Type 30 engines). Why Su-57 catapult?

    The F-35B appeared even later. And it turned out that the UDC may well be an aircraft carrier with modern and maneuverable supersonic decks.

    Today The F-35C can fly at a top speed of Mach 1.3 for 50 cumulative seconds, while the F-35B is limited to 40 seconds at Mach 1.3. Neither the F-35B nor the F-35C as maneuverable supersonic fighters frankly succeeded.

    Hence the idea of ​​justifying the creation of a new SKVVP

    The "successes" of the F-35B do not justify the idea of ​​SCVVP. The limit of 40 seconds of flight at a speed of M = 1,3 is a discrediting of the idea of ​​a supersonic SCVVP.

    "The wise learns from the mistakes of others, the smart learns from his own, and the stupid repeats them." In the foreseeable future, the SCVVP will not be equal in its flight characteristics to the best conventional takeoff and landing fighters.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal April 28 2021 22: 18
      0
      Who lacked the experience to give up welding the hulls of nuclear icebreakers (AK-27 and AK-28 steels require heating of the welded edges) in the open air? Until now, after all, there are hulls of nuclear icebreakers of project 22220 on an inclined open slipway.

      There was a lack of production culture (remember, after the arrival of the Bolsheviks, Russia lost the ability to build battleships of large displacement), common sense. I wanted to save money here and now, but then somehow .. request
      Neither the F-35B nor the F-35C as maneuverable supersonic fighters frankly succeeded.

      Version A definitely took place. Allowed maneuvers with Max overload and "a miracle happened."
      The F-35C can fly at a top speed of Mach 1.3 for 50 cumulative seconds, while the F-35B is limited to 40 seconds at Mach 1.3.

      A source of information?
      Why Su-57 catapult?

      It exists in the amount of 1-2 serial copies. There was no talk of chilling.
      Without a springboard, it will not take off.
      In the case of the F-35C, it succeeded - its takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio with a maximum takeoff weight of only 0,64. For comparison, the Su-57 has a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio with a maximum takeoff weight of more than 1 (with Type 30 engines)

      It makes no difference to the F-35S version - there is a mighty catapult.
      Su-35s (a heavy fighter with two engines) with a maximum take-off weight has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0,84.
      Su-57 with current engines 0,85
      Product 30 is not yet ready.
      In the foreseeable future, the SCVVP will not be equal in its flight characteristics to the best conventional takeoff and landing fighters.

      With the best, no.
      And you can get the Mig-29K version of the SKVVP, with new avionics and greater maneuverability. The F-35 is an example of this.
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra April 29 2021 00: 19
        +2
        Quote: 3danimal
        There was a lack of production culture (remember, after the arrival of the Bolsheviks, Russia lost the ability to build battleships of large displacement)

        Since the time of Nicholas II, the technology of building large ships has changed somewhat uh. The culture of production for the construction of nuclear submarines is required higher than for the construction of aircraft carriers. Despite the fact that none of the Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleships was completed, this did not happen due to the irretrievable loss of any pre-revolutionary technological secrets. By the way, a photo of the reconstruction of the slipway shop No. 50 of Sevmash:

        This workshop covered by a boathouse, with two dry docks 302,5x44,4 m, was once built for the construction of battleships of the "Soviet Union" type.
        "The dimensions of the workshop itself during the construction period had no analogues either in our country or in foreign practice, and the technical solutions underlying the design of steel structures contained the advanced ideas of the late 30s. For the first time in the Soviet Union, it was applied here in line -positional method of building surface ships. "

        But with battleships it did not work out. Well, since the 50s, over 90 nuclear submarines have been built in this workshop.
        I wanted to save money here and now, but then somehow ..

        They began to save much later, and not at the end of the 30s, when the largest workshop in the world at that time covered by a boathouse was being built beyond the Arctic Circle, with two dry docks for battleships at once, yielding in displacement only to the world's largest Japanese battleships of the Yamato class. Under Khrushchev, under Brezhnev, they saved money. From that until now, nuclear icebreakers on an inclined open slipway are forced to build.
        A source of information?


        Only the lazy did not write about this in the specialized media.
        https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/
        https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/05/22/the-inside-story-of-two-supersonic-flights-that-changed-how-america-operates-the-f-35/
        https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a32701605/f-35-supersonic-flight-speed-limit/
        It exists in the amount of 1-2 serial copies. There was no talk of chilling.

        Do you think that in 10 years there will be only 2 serial copies of the Su-57 and there will be no deck version, so you can't do without catapults?
        It makes no difference to the F-35S version - there is a mighty catapult.

        What do you think is better for the Russian Navy in the future: to spend resources on a completely new carrier-based fighter with mediocre flight characteristics and on the development of a powerful catapult for it (without which this fighter will not take off from the deck)? Or spend resources on bringing the Product 30 to mass production, on deadening the Su-57 with excellent flight characteristics and saving on the development, production and operation of powerful catapults?

        Why?
        With the best, no.

        But it is the best who win air supremacy. And only when it is conquered can the mediocre ones who are no longer threatened by the "beating of babies" can prove themselves. It is necessary to correctly prioritize: primary air supremacy (albeit temporary, albeit local), only it allows, without heavy losses, to strike from the air at targets at sea or on land. And that means "we are not so rich" to rely on a deck-mounted ATS, which is not capable of wresting air supremacy from them in a collision with the best.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal April 29 2021 01: 02
          0
          The culture of production for the construction of nuclear submarines is required higher than for the construction of aircraft carriers.

          In comparison with aircraft carriers of the same time - not higher, just different.
          I spoke specifically about the construction of the NK.
          They began to save much later, and not at the end of the 30s, when the largest at that time in the world, covered by a boathouse, was being built beyond the Arctic Circle, with two dry docks for battleships at once, yielding in displacement only to the world's largest Japanese battleships of the Yamato class.

          There was a globe on the coat of arms of the Union request
          As well as in the propaganda literature of those times. There were many ambitions, factories and technologies were successfully bought (no matter what the price, though).
          Do you think that in 10 years there will be only 2 serial copies of the Su-57 and there will be no deck version, so you can't do without catapults?

          I believe that by 2030 there will be a maximum of 2-3 dozen Su-57s and more than one fellow carrier. Talk about them will only continue.
          But it is the best who win air supremacy.
          so there are the best on the other side - 195 (197?) F-22.
          And the main work is done by good, massive ones, doing the training of a large number of pilots and group tactics, reconnaissance, and AWACS support.
          carrier-based fighter with mediocre flight characteristics

          A deck boat exists in difficult conditions, therefore, it is always a kind of compromise.
          The F-35 has good flight characteristics. Option A is one of the best in terms of maneuverability without OVT.
          https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/

          The article is almost 2 years old. As far as I know, the problem is being solved.
          The steeper the coating, the more fragile it is often.
          Su-57 is good - it still flies without it. They will begin to apply - either they will classify it, or they will change the rhetoric according to my type smile
          So "we are not so rich" to rely on a deck-mounted ATS, which is not capable of colliding with the best

          At sea, it will collide with F-18E / F and F-35B / S.
          Then, as a result, there will be only MiG-29K at best (if Dr. Frankenstein revives Kuznetsov).
          1. Alexandra
            Alexandra April 29 2021 20: 06
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            In comparison with aircraft carriers of the same time - not higher, just different. I spoke specifically about the construction of the NK.

            For the construction of heavy aircraft carriers in the 50s of the XX century, there were enough of those shipbuilding technologies with the use of which in the late 30s they began to build battleships of the "Soviet Union" type. For the construction of the nuclear submarine in the late 50s, these construction technologies were no longer enough. New ones were needed, and yes, in many ways others. And I repeat, of course, the "Soviet Unions" were not completed, not because of a lack of any technology, the Second World War interfered.
            I believe that by 2030 there will be a maximum of 2-3 dozen Su-57s and more than one fellow carrier. Talk about them will only continue.

            I don’t know what the point is, but a new generation carrier-based aircraft is needed simultaneously with a new generation aircraft carrier. There is nowhere in Russia today to build an analogue in displacement even to the Kuznetsov, because both construction sites suitable for this have already been taken. The times are not Stalinist now, therefore, in 2025 any third shipyard with a free and suitable building site for the construction of an aircraft carrier will not appear in Russia. And since there will be nowhere else to build in 2025, then no new aircraft carrier can be expected by 2030. Everything is logical.
            What about the Su-57. There is a contract for the supply by 2028 of 76 Su-57 aircraft and there is "a study of measures to further increase the purchase of Su-57 aircraft."
            so there are the best on the other side - 195 (197?) F-22.

            187 serials were produced. But it is not important, today this program is in a somewhat frozen state:

            "If the F-15C and F / A-18E / F fighters were modified for the latest AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block II air-to-air missiles, then such work was not carried out with the F-22 for a long time ... In August In 2017, evaluation tests of the F-22 aircraft began with the Increment 3.2B software package, which allows the use of the AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block II UR. The Increment 3.2B software also increases the capabilities of the AN / ALR-74 complex in terms of geolocation of electromagnetic sources. Tests are scheduled for completion in April 2018, and the Increment 2019B software suite is planned to be installed on 2022 F-3.2A fighters between mid-150 and autumn 22. "

            Reports that the F-22A finally received the AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block II missiles have not yet appeared in the Western press. And without the latest missiles, the best fighter is no longer so.

            The article is almost 2 years old. As far as I know, the problem is being solved.

            As far as I know, they decided to leave it as it is.

            https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/

            “This issue was closed on December 17, 2019 with no further actions and concurrence from the US services,” the F-35 JPO statement read. “The [deficiency report] was closed under the category of 'no plan to correct,' which is used by the F-35 team when the operator value provided by a complete fix does not justify the estimated cost of that fix.

            In Russian speaking, to solve the problem, alteration of the tail section of the fuselage and tail assembly is required. This was found to be inappropriate.
            At sea, it will collide with F-18E / F and F-35B / S.

            It follows from the fact that he will face the F / A-XX of the NGAD program:

            https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35993309/navy-reveals-plans-for-next-fighter-jet/

            ... NGAD is the Navy's effort to replace the Super Hornet. Note: It's a completely separate program from the Air Force's own NGAD — which recently designed, tested, and flew a secret new fighter jet — and will produce a completely separate plane. The two aircraft will almost certainly be quite different, with the Air Force's jet more optimized for air superiority. It's likely the two fighters, developed roughly within the same time period, will share much of the same technology ...
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal April 30 2021 00: 25
              0
              It follows from the fact that he will face the F / A-XX of the NGAD program:

              This will be in the 2030s, not before.
              F-35S and F-18E, new missiles (AIM-260, maybe a laser cannon will be added smile ).
              Reports that the F-22A finally received the AIM-120D and AIM-9X Block II missiles have not yet appeared in the Western press. And without the latest missiles, the best fighter is no longer so.

              With AIM-120C-7 missiles (120km max range), it is also very dangerous.
              It is much more inconspicuous than the Su-57: the cockpit canopy, there are no S-shaped air intakes (even the Su-47 had them, not to mention the Rafale, the EF-2000).
              It's about one or two orders. And what about the coatings?
              (By the way, the Indians showed it in many respects because of the inconspicuousness.)
              They will be able to see each other at a distance of 75-130 km (in TWS mode), so from 75-70 kilometers they will start an out-of-field-of-view (BVR) battle. Less visibility is very relevant here: the seeker of missiles is difficult to capture the target, it is necessary to hold it on the radar for much longer (to correct the course), which is not always possible due to return fire.
              There is nowhere in Russia today to build an analogue in displacement even to the Kuznetsov, because both construction sites suitable for this have already been taken.

              That is why I suggested SKVVP on the UDC-helicopter carrier (under construction pr 23900).
              On the Japanese Izumo, up to 10 F-35Bs will be based - a very good strengthening of the order of ships.
              with the use of which in the late 30s began the construction of battleships of the "Soviet Union"

              Let's be objective: this lin cruiser would have come out very crude, in small series and in no way held out in terms of the combined capabilities of Bismarck / George V.
              Guns and armor alone are not enough. I suppose there would be serious difficulties with the power plant.
            2. Alexandra
              Alexandra April 30 2021 01: 23
              0
              This will be in the 2030s, not before.

              So after all, the domestic SKVVP, start work on it right now, will not be in the 2030s earlier. And the new domestic aircraft carrier too.
              It is much less noticeable than the Su-57.

              But it is not equipped with an OLS. As a result, without external information support, I have to unmask myself with the work of the radar. There is also no onboard active jamming station. In the battle of supersonic fighters, it is not the maximum launch range of the URVV that is important, but the guaranteed zone of possible launches (No Escape Zone), which is several times smaller.
              By the way, the Indians presented in many respects due to stealth

              Indians think too much of themselves. In fact, India is the largest papuan a third world country with a corresponding mentality.
              Seeker missiles difficult to lock on target

              This problem certainly exists. It is a pity that we have not created versions of the R-77-1 and R-37M with IR seeker. Well, two-channel radar seeker, active-semi-active and active-passive, have been created.
              That is why I suggested SKVVP on the UDC-helicopter carrier (under construction pr 23900).

              Even looking into the future with optimism, in my humble opinion, the development of the SCVVP (engine for it) will take 15 years, no less.
              Let's be objective: this lin cruiser would have come out very crude, in small series and in no way held out in terms of the combined capabilities of Bismarck / George V.

              Firstly, the commissioning of the head one was not earlier than 1943, and therefore never. The war would inevitably start earlier, and there would be no time for the completion of these mastodons. Secondly, the LC with 406 mm artillery is a mortal threat to the LC of the Bismarck or Georg V. But the Soviet Union of course did not reach the LC of the Iowa type, despite the specific armor protection of American battleships. Due to the American superiority in travel speed, in radar sights and because of the super-heavy 406 mm Mark 8 projectile. What about the power plant. Twin-shaft power plant for cruisers of the project 26/26-bis with a rated power of 110 hp. gave out on tests up to 000 hp. So I don’t know how about the 129 hp rating. but 750 hp from the three-shaft power plant of the battleship one would expect. Worst of all, the maximum speed would have been one and a half knots less than planned, at the same level as Yamato.
            3. 3danimal
              3danimal April 30 2021 02: 53
              0
              So I don’t know how about the 201 hp rating. but 000 hp from the three-shaft power plant of the battleship one would expect.

              The big question is about reliability. How long would a power plant withstand a full stroke?
              deadly threat to Bismarck or George V-class LCs

              Nominally, Yamato was superior to Iowa, but in real combat he had less chances. If only because of the accuracy of the guns.
              Despite the fact that the Japanese had good experience in the production of battleships.
              The Germans, the British: sights, calibration of precision mechanics, developments in the technology for the production of barrels of such calibers.
              You can have a Desert Eagle and not hit a human with the equally deadly and more accurate .44 Magnum.
              So “S. Union ”is about ambition.
              Even looking into the future with optimism, in my humble opinion, the development of the SCVVP (engine for it) will take 15 years, no less.

              So after all, the domestic SKVVP, start work on it right now, will not be in the 2030s earlier. And the new domestic aircraft carrier too.

              The creation of a large AV generally looks unrealizable.
              "Kuzma" will become unusable and will be written off.
              It is necessary to seriously approach the program for the development of SLEF, this is quite realistic. An engine of this type was created on the Yak-141.
              The F-135 is a modified F-119. We take "AL-41F1S" from the Su-35S, with 14,5 tons of thrust in a special mode and do: rotary nozzle, coupling, fan (IMHO, the best solution as a necessary lifting motor).
              The essence of the idea: it is better to “buy Solaris” in 15 years, than “to continue dreaming of Bentley”. Live within your means.
              Having received a helicopter carrier with carrier-based aircraft, you can continue to dream. smile
              active-passive.

              If you are talking about the Washer, then this is a rather mediocre product, outdated.
              On the AIM120 of the latest modifications of the ARL of the GOS AFAR, before the target is locked, the course correction according to the radar data of the fighter / AWACS aircraft. Can be aimed at the signal source.
              it is a pity that we have not created versions of the R-77-1 and R-37M with IR seeker

              IR can be set only as a backup. (Short range) But how do you put both of them in the rocket?
              But it is not equipped with an OLS.

              The range is not comparable, 30 km in PPS and 60 in ZPS. Moreover, the F-22 has a reduced IR signature, in comparison with the 4/4 + generation aircraft.
              A round "cone" OLS in front of the cockpit increases the RCS of the aircraft. Compromises everywhere request
              There is also no onboard active jamming station

              Deliver if required.
              It definitely is on the F-35, with very good characteristics,
              and the guaranteed zone of possible launches (No Escape Zone), which is several times smaller.

              A fighter is usually fired with a rocket with 1/2 of its maximum range (so that there is a sufficient supply of energy for maneuvers).
              The first one saw - took the best position to attack.
            4. Alexandra
              Alexandra April 30 2021 15: 44
              0
              The big question is about reliability. How long would a power plant withstand a full stroke?

              There were no complaints about the reliability of the twin-shaft power plant cruisers pr. 26/26-bis.
              Nominally, Yamato was superior to Iowa, but in real combat he had less chances. If only because of the accuracy of the guns.

              As I have already noted, Iowa-type LCs had an advantage because of the Mk.8 artillery radars and super-heavy radars for this caliber, designed to destroy decks when firing 406 mm Mk.6 shells at a long distance. Neither the Bismarcs nor the King George V LC had such advantages. "... until the very end of the war, British sailors preferred optical surveillance to radar." When meeting with a battleship with 406 mm artillery and appropriate armor, in particular with a Soviet Union type LC, neither the Bismarcs nor the King George V would, as they say, "shine" anything.
              Despite the fact that the Japanese had good experience in the production of battleships.

              But they used outdated "wire" technology in the production of main guns for them.
              You can have a Desert Eagle and not hit a person

              The B-37 cannon with a lined barrel on a landfill installation during the war years fell into its own. Problems with the dispersal of the first specimen with a fastened barrel were studied before the war, the reason was determined - the quality of the powder shells and the leading belts of the shells.
              So “S. Union ”is about ambition.

              It would have been about ambitions if at least one of them had been completed after the war. Or they would start building the LK of Project 24. But outdated ambitions after the war were calmed down and under Stalin only the "bandits" of Project 82 were laid down, who were immediately buried after his death. However, all this sluggish fuss with heavy artillery ships after the war does not seem reasonable. But this is, of course, if you look at it from the position of afterthought.
              The creation of a large AV generally looks unrealizable.

              Technically no less feasible than the construction of a series of nuclear icebreakers of project 10510 with an expected total displacement of 71 thousand tons. A shipyard was found for these icebreakers. And for AB, no. Even for preparations for the construction of the AB, there is clearly a lack of "political will" today. Today we are seeing what the Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Navy feared, who buried the UDC of project 11780. The UDC under construction "took away" from the potential AV the only free building site suitable for this.
              It is necessary to seriously approach the program for the development of SLEF, this is quite realistic.

              It is necessary to seriously approach R&D on the development of turbofan engines for the promising "SCVVP 2040", not with the goal "for the deck", but in general.
              The essence of the idea: it is better to “buy Solaris” in 15 years than “to continue dreaming of Bentley”.

              Dreaming of 100 thousand ton aircraft carriers is really stupid. But to build a series of 60 thousand tons of trampolines. For this, in general, everything is there, up to the power plant, which can be taken from the same atomic icebreaker of project 10510, but ... Such an AB will cost "only" 150 billion rubles per hull in today's prices. And this is not interesting to those anticipating the "big cut" from shipbuilding. As always: "Cadres decide everything!" And there are no suitable personnel either among the admirals of today's Russian Navy, or among the leadership of today's USC.
              If you are talking about the Washer, then this is a rather mediocre product, outdated.

              I'm talking about 9B-1103M-200PS and 9B-1103M-200PA. All ARLGSN without AFAR became obsolete after the Japanese, by 2010, created the first such AAM-4B for the AAM-XNUMXB.
              On the AIM120 of the latest modifications of the ARL GSN AFAR

              On AIM-120C-7 and AIM-120D SHAR. And on Meteor SHAR. AFAR only on the Japanese AAM-4B.
              IR can be set only as a backup. (Short range)

              The capture range of modern cooled matrix IR seeker is comparable to that of ARLGSN URVV medium range. Another thing is that with matrix IR GOS in Russia is not very good.
              The range is not comparable, 30 km in PPS and 60 in ZPS.

              Look for values ​​for PIRATE OLS operating in the extended infrared range and using a quantum well infrared photodetector. OLS 101KS-V uses the same technology.
              Moreover, the F-22 has a reduced IR signature, in comparison with the 4/4 + generation aircraft.

              In fighter combat, infrared visibility from the front hemisphere of the enemy fighter is important. The aerodynamic heating of the leading edges during cruising supersonic flight is higher than during subsonic flight.
              Deliver if required.

              On the F-22A, no space is reserved to deliver the increased radar signature of the OLS.
              It definitely is on the F-35, with very good characteristics.

              The characteristics of the EOTS operating in the medium-wave infrared range for air targets are rather mediocre and significantly inferior to those of the PIRATE OLS, especially in the case of subsonic targets. In fact, they are going to change it on Advanced EOTS, but on the F-35 Block 4, which is constantly going "to the right" in time.
              A fighter is usually fired with a rocket with 1/2 of its maximum range (so that there is a sufficient supply of energy for maneuvers).

              The guaranteed area of ​​possible launches against a highly maneuverable enemy with high acceleration characteristics is several times less than the maximum launch range at a given altitude. Only the UR Meteor has serious advantages in this matter, because its engine does not work for 8-11 seconds, but for several tens of seconds, and in the active phase of the flight, this rocket can maneuver without a significant loss of speed:
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 28 2021 17: 40
    0
    Quote: AlexanderA
    In the 70s of the XX century, 4th generation fighters appeared with a take-off thrust-weight ratio (with a normal take-off weight) above one. In the early 80s of the last century, a springboard appeared. From that time on catapults could no longer suffer.

    The ambush is that the catapult provides the possibility of parallel takeoff with full mass and landing. But the springboard is not. Because the 3rd starting one steadily crawls out to the front of the aerofinishers on the corner deck.
    Plus, a catapult is needed for an AWACS deck aircraft and a transport aircraft.
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 18: 51
      -1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The ambush is that the catapult provides the possibility of parallel takeoff with full mass and landing. But the springboard is not. Because the 3rd starting one steadily crawls out to the front of the aerofinishers on the corner deck.

      this is critical for large AB
      and even then there are options
      see one of the options 7 with a "detour" around the island
    2. Alexandra
      Alexandra April 28 2021 21: 11
      0
      The ambush is that the catapult provides the possibility of parallel takeoff with full mass and landing. But the springboard is not.

      For aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class, the declared maximum intensity of aircraft take-off is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes, and 24 aircraft in 24 minutes for landing.

      I probably won't open America if I write that on Nimitz it takes more than 24 minutes to climb 15 planes:

      Each cycle, or event, is usually made up of 12-20 aircraft. These events are sequentially
      numbered and correspond to the respective cycle in the 24-hour fly day. Event 1 corresponds to
      the first cycle, Event 2 to the second cycle, and so on. Prior to flight operations, the aircraft on
      the flight deck are arranged ("spotted") so that Event 1 aircraft can easily be taxied to the
      catapults once they have been started and inspected. Once the Event 1 aircraft are launched,
      which generally takes about 15 minutes ...

      What about the takeoff with the maximum takeoff weight. The F-35C, with a maximum takeoff weight, has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0,64 - a catapult is needed. The Su-57 with Type 30 engines has a thrust-to-weight ratio with a maximum take-off weight of more than one.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 29 2021 18: 27
        0
        Quote: AlexanderA
        For aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class, the declared maximum intensity of aircraft take-off is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes, and 24 aircraft in 24 minutes for landing.
        I probably won't open America if I write that on Nimitz it takes more than 24 minutes to climb 15 planes

        Takeoff timing isn't the problem. The problem is that the springboard AB cannot simultaneously receive aircraft and release them into the air. Because the takeoff position at full takeoff weight will be right on the landing strip of the corner deck.
        But the ejection AB can, during landing, work with a pair of nasal catapults for takeoff. This is very important when working as an air defense AV.
        Quote: AlexanderA
        What about the takeoff with the maximum takeoff weight. The F-35C, with a maximum takeoff weight, has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0,64 - a catapult is needed. The Su-57 with Type 30 engines has a thrust-to-weight ratio with a maximum take-off weight of more than one.

        So I do not argue that the Su-57 can take off from the deck. The question is - where will he start the run from?
        1. Alexandra
          Alexandra April 29 2021 20: 32
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Takeoff timing isn't the problem. The problem is that the springboard AB cannot simultaneously receive aircraft and release them into the air.

          For a hypothetical deck-based version of the Su-57, there will be no such problem. He will be able to take off from a springboard starting from the 1st and 2nd starting positions even with the maximum take-off weight, since its expected thrust-to-weight ratio even with such a take-off weight is slightly above unity. The thrust-to-weight ratio of the Su-57 with Type 30 engines at a maximum take-off weight of ~ 1,01, wing loading of 394 kg / m². For the MiG-29K, even with a normal take-off weight of 18550 kg, these parameters are much worse.
    3. Alexandra
      Alexandra April 29 2021 20: 20
      0
      A fighter with a maximum take-off weight having a thrust-to-weight ratio above one take-off with such its take-off weight from the 1st and 2nd launch positions. The MiG-29K, under similar circumstances, having a thrust-to-weight ratio of only 0,73, yes, with a maximum take-off weight, it needs a 3rd launch position. Deck aircraft RLDN apparently today should be done with the ability to go to supersonic. In the era of long-range airborne missiles, the non-maneuverable subsonic aircraft of the RLDN becomes too vulnerable to attack by long-range missiles.
      https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2572366C2/ru
      "... The aircraft is equipped with jet engines. To reduce the take-off distance when using the aircraft from short runways or from aircraft carriers with a springboard start, the engines (engine) can be equipped with afterburners. The fuselage is made with nose and tail fairings, in which additional RTK antennas are located. improving all-round visibility ... "
      What about a turboprop transporter, honestly, what kind of catapult? There, and the springboard is not really needed:
      [media = https: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = uM5AI3YSV3M]
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 28 2021 14: 00
    0
    well VTOL aircraft of course is unlikely, but the tiltrotor ... quite an interesting idea
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal April 28 2021 15: 03
      0
      Where the tiltrotor is, there is also the SKVVP request
      With characteristics in the F-35B area (short takeoff range 750 km, combat load at least up to 3 tons)
      The benefit is obvious:
      springboard AB (they suddenly revive the ill-fated Kuznetsov), new UDC - can be used for carrier-based aircraft.
      Yes, the intensity of departures will not be outstanding, but still.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 28 2021 15: 22
        0
        too expensive a pleasure .. and what's the point? we need an AWACS machine .. then either make a helicopter so that it can hang for a long time, or a tiltrotor, because it is economical, and VTOL is eating as if not in itself
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal April 28 2021 15: 37
          0
          SKVVP F-35B has a combat radius of 865 km. Version A - 1080, C - 1140.
          Shortened takeoff allows you to lift a car with full tanks, combat load and moderate excessive fuel consumption.
          Together with the tiltrotor, you will get a full-fledged (with AWACS, air patrol and strikers) mini aircraft carrier.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 April 29 2021 06: 04
    +1
    Quote: 3danimal
    The most realistic way to get an affordable AB with carrier-based aircraft is to create your own F-35B.

    If an aircraft carrier is needed as a fetish, then yes. The combat value of such an aircraft carrier is questionable.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 28 2021 13: 00
    0
    Well, Klimov ... a specific person ... but in this article he outlined everything in the case ... In fact, we need a correct program for the development of the fleet ... of course: 1 expensive project for the future +1 cheap and massive ..
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 28 2021 13: 20
    0
    The A-100 problems are the A-100 problems, and there were no technical problems to receive in a short time (for example, on the basis of the Tu-214 in storage) there were no "tactical" AWACS aircraft - only "organizational" ones.

    The problems of modernization of the A-50 arose not because of the aircraft (radar carrier), but namely the electronic filling of the "filling"
    https://newizv.ru/article/general/12-07-2020/premiera-zatyagivaetsya-pochemu-rossiya-ne-vvodit-v-stroy-letayuschiy-radar?amp=1
    1. 971
      971 April 28 2021 13: 22
      -2
      Quote: 3danimal
      The problems of modernization of the A-50 arose not because of the aircraft (radar carrier), but namely the electronic filling of the "filling"

      there is also other radars
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette April 28 2021 13: 32
    +2
    [quoteYou have no idea about the subject of the conversation. The Kuznetsov base was found (at least at the plant), and there are no problems with the basing of light aircraft carriers "dimension 1144".] [/ Quote]

    The person has no idea what he is writing about. Aircraft carrier basing in the factory! What kind of stupidity? Where does this nonsense come from? An enchanting flight of naval thought, which can only compete with the statement that "there are no problems with the basing of light aircraft carriers of dimension 1144". Let me ask you, Mr. Klimov: where have these problems with basing gone? In front of my eyes, two aircraft carriers were mediocrely ditched in the Strelka raid precisely because of the basing problems. What has changed for the better ?! The Dalzavod could not cope with them and the ships sailed to China, ending their inglorious existence. Do you propose to base aircraft carriers at the Vladivostok seaport?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 28 2021 13: 47
        +1
        Quote: 971
        for example the fact that "Lazarev" and "Andropov" had their own berth

        An argument that reveals the essence of a deep dilettante of the aircraft carrier issue. Tell me why neither Minsk nor Novorossiysk was put on the pier where Frunze (the future Lazarev) stood? But Klimov, without hesitation, thought it out!
        1. 971
          971 April 28 2021 13: 54
          -2
          Quote: Silhouette
          Tell me why neither Minsk nor Novorossiysk was put on the pier where Frunze (the future Lazarev) stood? But Klimov, without hesitation, thought it out!

          Monsieur, YOU have read the article at all?!?!?
          why didn’t put HZ - maybe by draft, or maybe by wind load restrictions
          But it's not that
          but the fact that even AB dimension 30mm (1144+ with boules) is already a very fat plus for us

          and as for the degree of my knowledge or lack of knowledge of this issue, YOUR "opinion" monsieur is too shallow against the background of such persons as Morin, Marbashev ... (and not only)
          1. Silhouette
            Silhouette April 28 2021 14: 06
            +2
            Quote: 971
            why didn’t put HZ

            Sit down - "TWO"!
            Correct answer: Neither the Soviet Union nor the Russian Federation have so far been able to build at least one pier capable of receiving an aircraft carrier for permanent deployment.
            1. 971
              971 April 28 2021 14: 10
              -1
              Quote: Silhouette
              Sit down - "TWO"!
              Correct answer: Neither the Soviet Union nor the Russian Federation have so far been able to build at least one pier capable of receiving an aircraft carrier for permanent deployment.

              fool
              bunny, have you been at the ophthalmologist for a long time?
              or maybe according to the wind load restrictions
              1. Silhouette