Military Review

On the oddities in setting tasks for the Russian Navy and a little about aircraft carriers

348

The article offered to your attention was conceived as a continuation of the material "Answer of the supporters of the aircraft carrier lobby to" inconvenient "questions" and had to tell why, in fact, we need aircraft carriers and where we are going to use them. Unfortunately, it quickly became clear that it was completely unrealistic to give a well-grounded answer to this question within the framework of one article. Why?


On the criteria for the usefulness of Russian naval weapons


It seems that there is nothing complicated here. Any state has goals to achieve which it seeks. The armed forces are one of the instruments for achieving these goals. The navy is part of the armed forces, and its tasks directly follow from the tasks of the country's armed forces as a whole.

Therefore, if we have specific and clearly formulated tasks fleetintegrated into the system of equally understandable goals of the armed forces and the state, then the assessment of any naval weapons system can be reduced to the analysis according to the criterion "cost / effectiveness" in relation to the solution of the tasks assigned to the Navy. Of course, the "cost" column takes into account not only the economy - throwing hand grenades at the bunker may be cheaper, but the losses among the Marines in this case will be immeasurably higher than when using tank.

Of course, with such an analysis, it is necessary to simulate as realistically as possible all forms of naval combat with the participation of "tested" weapons systems, and this is the lot of professionals. But, if the necessary mathematical models are developed, then it is relatively easy to determine which of the "competing" weapons (and their combinations) solves the assigned tasks with the best efficiency at the lowest cost.

Alas. In the Russian Federation, nothing is ever easy.

Tasks of the Russian Navy


Let's start with the fact that we do not have clearly defined goals of the state. And the tasks of the armed forces are formulated in such a way that it is often completely unrealistic to understand what exactly is being discussed. Here we go to the official website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. The goals and objectives are "cut" according to the types and types of troops, this is normal. Open the tab dedicated to the Navy and read:

"The Navy is designed to protect the national interests of the Russian Federation and its allies in the World Ocean by military methods, maintain military-political stability at the global and regional levels, and repel aggression from sea and ocean directions."

In total, there are three global goals. But - without any detail and specifics. True, it is additionally indicated:

"The foundations, main goals, strategic priorities and tasks of state policy in the field of naval activities of the Russian Federation, as well as measures for its implementation, are determined by the President of the Russian Federation."

Well, we have the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 20, 2017 No. 327 "On the approval of the Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030", which I will refer to as "Decree" and which I will further reference. All quoted text, which you, dear reader, will read in the following three sections, is a citation of this "Decree".

Goal # 1: Protecting National Interests in the World Ocean


It sounds impressive, but who else would explain exactly what interests we have in this very ocean.

Unfortunately, the “Decree” does not give at least any intelligible answer to this question. The Decree clearly states that Russia needs a powerful ocean-going fleet to protect its national interests. But why Russia needs it, and how it is going to use it in the ocean - almost nothing is said. In short, the main threats are “the desire of a number of states, primarily the United States of America (USA) and their allies, to dominate the World Ocean” and “the desire of a number of states to restrict the access of the Russian Federation to the resources of the World Ocean and its access to vital important maritime transport communications ”. But what these resources and communications are and where they lie is not said. And the adversaries who prevent us from using them have not been identified. On the other hand, the "Decree" informs that "The need for a naval presence of the Russian Federation ... is also determined on the basis of the following dangers," and even lists them:

“A) the growing desire of a number of states to possess sources of hydrocarbon resources in the Middle East, the Arctic and the Caspian Sea basin;

b) the negative impact on the international situation of the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, conflicts in the Near and Middle East, in a number of countries in South Asia and Africa;

c) the possibility of exacerbation of existing and emergence of new interstate conflicts in any area of ​​the World Ocean;

d) an increase in pirate activity in the Gulf of Guinea, as well as in the waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans;

e) the possibility of foreign states countering the economic activity of the Russian Federation and the conduct of scientific research in the World Ocean ”.

Just what does the term “presence” mean? The ability to enforce peace in the Falklands 1982 British pattern? Or is it just about showing the flag?

The "Decree" contains an indication of "the participation of forces (troops) of the Navy in operations to maintain (restore) international peace and security, take measures to prevent (eliminate) threats to peace, suppress acts of aggression (break the peace)." But there we are talking about operations authorized by the UN Security Council, and this is completely different.

The "Decree" explicitly states that the Russian Federation needs an ocean-going fleet. Ready for "long-term autonomous activities, including self-replenishment of material and technical means and weapons in remote areas of the World Ocean ”. Able to win in a battle with "an adversary with high-tech naval capabilities ... in distant sea and ocean areas." Having sufficient strength and strength to provide, no less, "control over the functioning of sea transport communications in the oceans." Ranked "second in the world in combat capabilities", finally!


But when it comes to at least some specifics in terms of probable opponents and areas of the oceans in which we need to use our ocean fleet, everything is limited to an indistinct "presence".

Again, for the purposes of our maritime policy, it is indicated "maintaining ... international law and order, through the effective use of the Navy as one of the main instruments of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation." Taking into account the required power of our fleet, it turns out that our president sets before the Russian Navy the task of implementing the policy of gunboats on the American model. It can be assumed that this policy should be carried out in the regions of "presence". But this will remain just a guess - the “Decree” does not speak about it directly.

Goal # 2. Maintaining military-political stability at the global and regional levels


Unlike the previous task, which was completely incomprehensible, this one is at least half clear - in terms of maintaining stability at the global level. The Decree contains an entire section on strategic deterrence, which, among other things, states:

“The Navy is one of the most effective instruments of strategic (nuclear and non-nuclear) deterrence, including preventing a“ global strike ”.

Therefore, it is required of him

"Maintaining the naval potential at a level that ensures guaranteed deterrence of aggression against the Russian Federation from ocean and sea directions and the possibility of inflicting unacceptable damage to any potential adversary."

That is why a "strategic requirement" is imposed on the Russian Navy:

"In peacetime and in a period of imminent threat of aggression: preventing force pressure and aggression against the Russian Federation and its allies from ocean and sea directions."

Everything is clear here: the Russian Navy, in the event of an attack on our country, must be able to use nuclear and non-nuclear precision weapons so that any of our "sworn friends" will die in the bud. This, in fact, is the provision of military-political stability at the global level.

But how the fleet should maintain regional stability is anyone's guess.

Goal number 3: Reflecting aggression from sea and ocean directions


Unlike the previous two, here, perhaps, there are no ambiguities. The "decree" directly says that in wartime the Russian Navy must have:

“The ability to inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy in order to force him to end hostilities on the basis of guaranteed protection of the national interests of the Russian Federation;

the ability to successfully confront an enemy with a high-tech naval potential (including those armed with high-precision weapons), with groups of its naval forces in near and distant sea zones and oceanic regions;

the presence of high-level defensive capabilities in the field of anti-missile, anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and mine defense ”.

That is, the Russian Navy should not only inflict unacceptable damage on the enemy, but also destroy the naval forces attacking us and protect the country as much as possible from the effects of all types of enemy naval weapons.

On the discussions about the ocean-going fleet


One of the main reasons why discussions on the creation of an ocean-going fleet are reaching a dead end is that the leadership of our country, declaring the need to build such a fleet, is in no hurry to explain what it is for. Unfortunately, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin for more than 20 years of his stay in power has not formulated the goals to which our country should strive in foreign policy. If we, for example, read any "Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation", we will see there that the Russian Federation, in general, stands for all good against all bad. We are for equality, individual rights, the rule of law, the supremacy of the UN. We are against terrorism, harm to the environment, and so on and so forth. A minimum of specifics is present only in regional priorities - it is stated that for us this priority is to build relations with the CIS countries.

Obviously, any reasonable discussion about the need for an ocean-going fleet begins with the tasks that this fleet must solve. But, since the government of the Russian Federation has not announced these tasks, the opponents have to formulate them themselves. Accordingly, the dispute boils down to what role the Russian Federation should play in international politics.

And here, of course, the discussion very quickly reaches a dead end. Yes, even today the Russian Federation is indeed taking a considerable part in world political and economic life, let us at least recall the map of our economic interests in Africa, provided by the respected A. Timokhin.

On the oddities in setting tasks for the Russian Navy and a little about aircraft carriers

But nevertheless, many people believe that today we should not promote any political and economic interests in distant countries. That we should focus on putting things in order in our country, limiting external influences to our neighboring states. I disagree with this point of view. But she, no doubt, has the right to life.

Therefore, in my next materials on this topic, I will consider the necessity and usefulness of aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy in relation to only two tasks: strategic deterrence and repulsing aggression from sea and ocean directions. And regarding "ensuring the protection of the national interests of the Russian Federation and its allies in the World Ocean by military methods" I will express my private, and, of course, not claiming to be absolute truth.

Protection of Russian interests in the World Ocean


The modern world is a rather dangerous place, where hostilities with the participation of the US and NATO armed forces regularly break out. So, in the last decade of the twentieth century, two serious wars thundered - "Desert Storm" in Iraq, and "Allied Force" in Yugoslavia.

The twenty-first century "worthily" took over this sad baton. In 2001, another round of the war in Afghanistan began, which continues to this day. In 2003, US and British forces again invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein. In 2011, Americans and Europeans “noted” in the civil war in Libya, which ended with the death of Muammar Gaddafi and, in fact, the collapse of the country. In 2014, the US military entered Syria ...

The Russian Federation should be able to resist such "incursions" not only politically, but also by military force. Of course, as much as possible while avoiding direct confrontation with the armed forces of the United States and NATO, so as not to unleash a global nuclear conflict.

How can I do that?

To date, the Americans have mastered very well the strategy of indirect actions, perfectly demonstrated in the same Libya. Muammar Gaddafi's regime was not pleasing to the United States and Europe. But, in addition, part of the population of Libya itself was dissatisfied with their leader enough to take up arms.

A small remark - you should not look for the cause of the civil war in Libya solely in the person of M. Gaddafi. He has been gone for a long time, and military actions continue to this day. The peculiarities of many African and Asian countries, and not only them, if we recall the same Yugoslavia, are that large societies are forced to coexist within the same country, initially hostile to each other on territorial, national, religious or some other basis. ... Moreover, enmity can be rooted so deeply in historythat no reconciliation between them is possible. Unless there is such a force that will ensure the peaceful coexistence of such societies for centuries so that old grievances are still forgotten.

But back to the Libyan civil war. In short, the local protest against the detention of the human rights defender turned into mass demonstrations with victims among the participants in the demonstrations. And this, in turn, led to an armed mutiny, the transfer of part of the regular army to the side of the rebels and the beginning of full-scale hostilities. In which, however, the troops, who remained loyal to M. Gaddafi, quickly began to gain the upper hand. After initial setbacks, government forces regained control over the cities of Bin Javad, Ras Lanuf, Bregu and successfully advanced to the "heart" of the rebellion - Benghazi.

Alas, the restoration of Gaddafi's control over Libya was not included in the plans of the United States and European countries, and therefore they threw the strength of their air force and navy on the scales. The pro-government armed forces of Libya were not ready to confront such an enemy. In the course of Operation Odyssey Dawn, Gaddafi's supporters lost their air force and air defense, and the potential of the ground forces was seriously undermined.


Exactly aviation and the US fleet and its allies ensured the rebels' victory in Libya. Of course, the forces of special operations also played a significant role, but far from the main one. In fact, the British SAS appeared in Libya extremely quickly, they helped the rebels organize the "March on Tripoli". But this did not help the rebels either defeat the pro-government forces, or even stabilize the front. Despite all the skill of the British special forces (and these are very serious guys, whose professionalism I am not at all inclined to underestimate), the rebels clearly suffered a military defeat. Of course, until the US Air Force and Navy and NATO intervened.

All this was in reality, and now let's consider now a hypothetical conflict. Suppose that due to certain political and economic reasons (the latter, by the way, we certainly had), the Russian Federation would be extremely interested in preserving the regime of M. Gaddafi. What could we do in this case?

In theory, it was possible to act in the same way as in Syria. Agree with M. Gaddafi and deploy parts of our Aerospace Forces at one or two Libyan air bases, from where our aircraft would strike at the rebel forces. But the difficulty is that this is ... politics.

To begin with, it is fundamentally wrong to extinguish any fire with our aircrafts. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, excuse me, are not a world gendarme and not "a plug in every barrel." They are an extreme measure that should be used only when the country's interests are truly commensurate with the threat to the lives of our servicemen. And considerable financial expenses for the military operation. Therefore, while the pro-government forces of Libya kept the situation under control, our intervention was completely unnecessary. First of all, we ourselves.

And if you think about it, so will the Libyans. Let's not forget that a military contingent in Syria was deployed when Bashar al-Assad was on the verge of death. Would he have accepted our help earlier, when the conflict was just beginning and there were good chances to end it with the forces of the regular Syrian army? Great question. Generally speaking, the military bases of another, even an allied, power on your territory is an extreme measure. It is worth going to only when your country is threatened by an enemy that you are obviously unable to resist.

In other words, if the Russian Federation suddenly considered the preservation of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi to be of paramount importance and essential, then even in this case it would be clearly premature to flee to Libya with the Su-34 at the ready as soon as local unrest began.

But after the start of "Odyssey Dawn" - it's too late. How to transfer military contingents to Libya and deploy them at local airbases when these airbases are under attack by NATO aviation?


Demand the Americans to temporarily cease fire? And why should they listen to us if they have a UN Security Council resolution, and they are absolutely not obliged to show us such courtesies? And then what is left for us to do? Still trying to carry out the transfer of the Aerospace Forces, under the threat that they will fall under American missiles and bombs? Then we will have to either keep silent, which will be a huge loss of face and prestige on the world stage, or respond proportionately and ... Hello, World War III.

This is not to mention the fact that, unlike Syria, where the United States used its aviation on a very modest scale, in Libya they could simply bomb local air bases in such a state in which it is not that the Russian air regiment cannot base a couple of corn workers on them. work out. So we would not have been able to deploy any significant air force there either during Odyssey Dawn or after it ended. And if they had a suspicion that we want to intervene, would they, in general, stop this operation or would they continue it until the very victory of the rebels?

When we are told that the same Su-34s operating from the Khmeimim land airfield will cope with the task of countering the "barmaley" in Syria much better than any carrier-based aircraft - this is true, and I agree with that. But it is also true that not in every conflict, other "interested parties" will give us the opportunity to deploy the forces of our aerospace forces on land air bases. There is no doubt that the determination of the Russian Federation in Syria has been noticed and scrutinized. And our "sworn friends" in the future will plan their military operations in such a way as to make interventions of the Syrian type as difficult or impossible as possible.

In the same Libya, for example, they could well have succeeded - if we had a desire to intervene with "heavy forces", of course. And not only in Libya.

The strategy of indirect actions, when a rebellion or an “orange revolution” is arranged to overthrow an unwanted regime, and then, if the existing power is not immediately thrown off, the country's military potential is “multiplied by zero” through the operation of the Air Force and the Navy, is extremely effective. And it can be done in such a way that the allies of this very regime will simply not be given the opportunity to deploy their (that is, ours) aerospace forces at pro-government air bases.

How can we oppose such a strategy?


An effective multipurpose aircraft carrier group (AMG) - of course, if we had it, of course. In this case, with the beginning of an armed rebellion in Benghazi, we could send her to the Libyan shores. As long as the forces of M. Gaddafi remained victorious, she would have been there, but did not interfere in the confrontation. But in the case of the beginning of "Odyssey Dawn", she could give a "mirror" answer. Are the US and NATO planes successfully "zeroing" the military potential of M. Gaddafi? Well, our carrier-based aircraft could significantly reduce the potential of the Libyan rebels. At the same time, the risks of accidentally getting hit by NATO planes (and they - under our blow) in this case will be minimized.

One large aircraft carrier will have enough forces for this. The Americans and their allies used about 200 aircraft in their air operations, of which 109 were tactical aircraft combat aircraft, and 3 were strategic bombers. The rest are AWACS aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, tankers, etc. A nuclear aircraft carrier of 70-75 thousand tons would have three times fewer aircraft than the Europeans and Americans would use. But after all, the military potential of the rebels was much more modest than that of the troops that remained loyal to M. Gaddafi?

Such use of an aircraft carrier multipurpose group led the situation in Libya to a strategic impasse, when neither M. Gaddafi nor the rebels would have sufficient forces to decisively defeat the enemy. But then an interesting question arises - would the Americans have decided on their "Odyssey Dawn" if our AMG with a modern aircraft carrier was located off the coast of Libya? The United States and Europe sought to overthrow the regime of M. Gaddafi, yes. And, of course, they could well achieve this, even taking into account the impact of our AMG. But for this they would have to get their hands dirty themselves - to transfer their own large military contingents to Libya to conduct a large-scale ground operation.

Technically, of course, the United States is capable of doing other things. But it is very possible that such measures would be considered an excessive price to pay for the dubious pleasure of seeing the death throes of Muammar Gaddafi.

I will reduce all of the above to three short theses:

1. The cheapest and most effective way to infringe on Russia's interests in any country loyal to the Russian Federation is to arrange a regime change there by means of a military coup, reinforcing the latter, if necessary, with the influence of the NATO Navy and Air Force.

2. The most effective counter-insurgency measure in such a country would be to deploy a limited contingent of aerospace forces at land-based airfields, following the pattern and likeness of how it was done in Syria. But, unfortunately, if our opponents strongly want to make such a scenario impossible, then they may well succeed.

3. The presence of a combat-ready and effective AMG in the Russian Navy in the event of events under item 1 will allow us to effectively counter the strategy of "indirect actions". In this case, our geopolitical opponents will have a choice of either an almost bloodless “orange revolution”, or a full-scale war on the edge of geography with the involvement of their own large ground forces. Thus, the possibilities of opposing our political and economic interests will be significantly limited.

Peace enforcement


Very interesting is Operation Praying Mantis, which the US Navy conducted against Iran. During the infamous "tanker war" in the Persian Gulf, the Americans sent warships there to protect shipping. And it so happened that the frigate "Samuel B. Roberts" was blown up by a mine, which the Iranians were placing in neutral waters - in violation of all the rules of naval warfare.

The Americans decided to "strike back" and attacked two Iranian oil platforms, which, according to them, were used to coordinate sea attacks (an attack on the third platform was also planned, but it was canceled). Whether it really was, it doesn't matter to us. Subsequent events are interesting.

The Americans conducted a limited military operation, pushing two naval strike groups (KUG) to the platforms. Group "Bravo" - landing ship dock and two destroyers, group "Charlie" - missile cruiser and two frigates. The aircraft carrier Enterprise provided support from a sufficient distance from the scene.

The Iranians, on the other hand, did not pretend to be a submissive victim and counterattacked with planes and surface ships. At the same time, high-precision weapons were used: the Iranian corvette Joshan launched the Harpoon. But, besides this, the Iranians tried to give an "asymmetric" response, attacking several civilian ships in neutral waters with boats, and of the three ships that were damaged, one turned out to be American.

And here the US carrier-based aircraft proved to be very useful. It was she who attacked the light boats of the Iranians, destroyed one of them and forced the rest to flee - the American surface ships were too far away to intervene. Also, carrier-based aircraft discovered and played a key role in repelling the attack of the largest Iranian ships, the frigates Sahand and Sabalan. Moreover, the first was sunk, and the second was heavily damaged and lost its combat effectiveness.


Let's imagine that the Americans conducted this operation without an aircraft carrier. Without a doubt, they had superior forces, and their ships were superior to the Iranian, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Both oil platforms targeted by the American attack were destroyed. But it is worth noting the danger faced by the American battle groups. Both groups, naturally, "showed up" at the oil platforms, and even had contacts with Iranian aviation, as a result of which their location was known to the enemy. And if the Iranian frigates had not been detected in time and at the same time carried modern missile weapons, then their attack could well have been crowned with success. In addition, the American ships, concentrated for a specific task, could do nothing to help the neutral ships that were attacked, including one American.

In other words, even with a clear quantitative and qualitative superiority, the American KUGs could not solve all the problems that faced them, while the Iranians, having noticeably smaller forces, had a chance to seriously whack the Americans.

conclusions


They are obvious. The presence of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy will have significant political significance and limit the ability of the United States and NATO to "carry democracy" to other countries. At the same time, the absence of aircraft carriers will threaten our fleet with disproportionate losses, even when participating in limited conflicts against less developed countries.

But, I repeat, all of the above is not a justification for the need for aircraft carriers as part of the Russian Navy. This is just my point of view on world politics and the participation of the Russian Navy in it. And nothing more.

In my opinion, the need for the presence of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy stems from the need to solve completely different tasks: maintaining military-political stability at the global level and repelling aggression from oceanic areas. But in order to understand how true this is my assumption, it is necessary to concretize the threats that our Navy must fend off.

More about this in the next article.
Author:
348 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 April 30 2021 04: 58
    -6
    A lot, if only, there is a proposal to raise money for AMG on Channel One smile
    1. Serg4545
      Serg4545 April 30 2021 05: 21
      +5
      Quote: Pessimist22
      A lot, if only, there is a proposal to raise money for AMG on Channel One

      Well, the following seems to me incorrect:
      The author devoted quite a few letters to criticism of how goals for our Navy are spelled out in our country.
      They say these goals are somehow vaguely spelled out.
      But it would be correct if the author compared our official goals for the Navy, with the same official goals for the Navy, say, China and the United States. And he proved that their goals are clearly and unambiguously spelled out. And in our country, in comparison with them, it is vague.
      But I have a suspicion that in all countries, goals are prescribed like this. Vague.
      And the criticism of the author, our country is not justified.
      1. Pessimist22
        Pessimist22 April 30 2021 05: 35
        +9
        It is written that the presence of aircraft carriers will have significant political significance, but to start Russia needs to have significant economic significance.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 09: 17
          +17
          Quote: Pessimist22
          but to begin with, Russia needs to have significant economic importance.

          Alas, the world will not wait until we become stronger, but building an ocean-going fleet will allow us to become stronger, both politically and economically.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 30 2021 12: 58
            -3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            but the construction of an ocean-going fleet will allow us to become stronger, both politically and economically

            And how does such a costly event as building an aircraft carrier make us economically stronger? Did the arms race once imposed on us make the economy of the USSR stronger? Isn't it the other way around?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 30 2021 13: 09
              +17
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              And how does such a costly event as building an aircraft carrier make us economically stronger?

              You see, government orders, including the military, make the economy stronger - these are additional jobs, revenues from enterprises, etc. :)))) Franklin Delano Roosevelt could explain this mechanism to you in detail - if you look at how he fought the Great Depression
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Did the arms race once imposed on us make the economy of the USSR stronger?

              Definitely yes. The reasons for the collapse of the USSR economy, of course, are of an economic nature, but they are not at all in military spending.
              1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 30 2021 13: 25
                -5
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Franklin Delano Roosevelt could explain this mechanism to you in detail - if you look at how he fought the Great Depression

                Well, the 'military' component in the FDR's New Deal reform package was not dominant and only came into play in 1941. And she went to the previous events. In addition, the outbreak of war was in the background.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 30 2021 13: 40
                  +11
                  Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Well, the 'military' component in the FDR's New Deal reform package was not dominant and only came into play in 1941.

                  Do you think that his road construction brought the United States out of the Great Depression, because the Americans did not have enough roads? :)))))
                  I highly recommend reading Keynes's theory (and at least in the same "Economics"). The economy is healed by the appearance of orders, and not by what appears as a result of these orders :))))
                  1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 30 2021 13: 46
                    -7
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The economy is healed by the appearance of orders, and not by what appears as a result of these orders :))))

                    Wonderful. Indeed, all hope is only in the military-industrial complex. There is no sense in stimulating the civil sector. So, riding on defense orders and crawling into the era of prosperity. Plowing the world ocean with AUGs with Andreev's flags.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 30 2021 13: 56
                      +17
                      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                      Wonderful. Indeed, all hope is only in the military-industrial complex. There is no sense in stimulating the civil sector.

                      Before you write, think about it. At least a little.
                      We do not have a separate military nuclear industry. We have Rosatom, which fulfills orders in this area. And the order for a nuclear reactor for an aircraft carrier will most likely be executed by Atomflot, a completely civilian enterprise that makes reactors for icebreakers. And this order will help him become stronger.
                      We do not have a separate military metallurgy. The aircraft carrier is about 50-60 thousand tons of metal, which will be ordered to civilian metallurgists, and these orders will help them become stronger.
                      Etc. In everything, in any, even purely military products such as anti-aircraft missiles or guns, civilian enterprises are necessarily involved.
                      This is not to mention the fact that I did not suggest at all to abandon the stimulation of the civil sector of the economy - this is your personal idea.
                      1. cap830
                        cap830 13 May 2021 20: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        Wonderful. Indeed, all hope is only in the military-industrial complex. There is no sense in stimulating the civil sector.

                        Before you write, think about it. At least a little.
                        We do not have a separate military nuclear industry. We have Rosatom, which fulfills orders in this area. And the order for a nuclear reactor for an aircraft carrier will most likely be executed by Atomflot, a completely civilian enterprise that makes reactors for icebreakers. And this order will help him become stronger.
                        We do not have a separate military metallurgy. The aircraft carrier is about 50-60 thousand tons of metal, which will be ordered to civilian metallurgists, and these orders will help them become stronger.
                        Etc. In everything, in any, even purely military products such as anti-aircraft missiles or guns, civilian enterprises are necessarily involved.
                        This is not to mention the fact that I did not suggest at all to abandon the stimulation of the civil sector of the economy - this is your personal idea.

                        First you need to build a shipyard to build these aircraft carriers. There is no separate military industry, there is a separate military-industrial complex, but there are no such shipyards in the shipbuilding industry either. We need slipways, docks, depths, etc. to build ships of this displacement. The Montreux convention prohibits the "bay" in Kerch, the Baltic is shallow and surrounded by adversaries. To modernize Sevmash or Zvezda, the construction of nuclear submarines or tankers should be abandoned. The question remains rhetorical - where to build something?
                        And absolutely nonsense about "strong" metallurgists, etc. Or maybe these 50-60 thousand tons. use metal in the construction of bridges, roads, etc. And metallurgists will be stronger and good roads. Civilian enterprises are involved, but how is it necessary for the army to sew and bake underwear and bread. But there is no need for songs about rockets. As soon as a workshop for the production of military components appears at a civilian factory, then everything, this is the structure of the military-industrial complex - the regime, security, passes, salaries, and other features of the military enterprise. By the way, metallurgists will also have a military acceptance, control, a secret part (military materials are top secret), the cost will increase with the same amount.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        13 May 2021 20: 44
                        +2
                        Quote: cap830
                        First you need to build a shipyard to build these aircraft carriers.

                        Everything is. Both the shipyard and the specialists https://topwar.ru/181621-otvet-storonnikov-avianosnogo-lobbi-na-neudobnye-voprosy.html
                        Quote: cap830
                        And absolutely nonsense about "strong" metallurgists, etc. Or maybe these 50-60 thousand tons. use metal in the construction of bridges, roads, etc.

                        And metallurgists don't care where their metal goes. At least you could figure it out
                        Quote: cap830
                        But there is no need for songs about rockets. As soon as a workshop for the production of military components appears at a civilian factory, then everything, this is the structure of the military-industrial complex - the regime, security, passes, salaries, and other features of the military enterprise.

                        Don't talk nonsense, it hurts. I, unlike you, worked (and still work) at enterprises producing military products. In the position of financial director. So tell your horror stories to someone else :)))
                      3. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 10 June 2021 15: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Don't talk nonsense, it hurts. I, unlike you, worked (and still work) at enterprises producing military products. In the position of financial director. So tell your horror stories to someone else :)))

                        Well, if you work there, you must understand that the economy is developed not by investments in the military sphere, but by investments in the military-civilian sphere. For example, investment in the development of roads and bridges is beneficial for both the military and the civilian. You propose investing in a purely military sphere, and not in the military-civilian one. For example, if you offered to build a non-nuclear aircraft carrier with a civil-military power plant, then it would be an economic development, because the technological chain of production of such SU could be used for the production of civilian tankers / bulk carriers / ro-ro ships (as opposed to atomic). In your case, it is more profitable for the Russian nuclear fleet to either allocate a grant for technological re-equipment and / or order a nuclear power plant / icebreaker (which, by the way, we see in the form of new nuclear power plants in other countries and in the form of icebreakers and floating nuclear power plants on the Northern Sea Route).
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        10 June 2021 17: 21
                        -1
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Well, if you work there, you must understand that the economy is developed not by investments in the military sphere, but by investments in the military-civilian sphere.

                        Alas, this is not true. Any investment develops the economy, not just what you describe as a "military-civilian sphere".
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        For example, investment in the development of roads and bridges is beneficial for both the military and the civilian.

                        This is primarily beneficial for the road and bridge construction company - it will increase its volumes and receive additional profits. She will be able, for example, to expand her business in this or another area by reinvesting the profits and / or taking out a development loan that was previously unavailable to her. Secondly, it is beneficial for the suppliers of this firm - they will also increase their revenues and profits. In the third place, employees of all these firms will benefit from this - they will either earn more money (job workers, say), or new jobs will appear, that is, someone will get a job. Fourthly, small and medium-sized businesses will benefit from this, because the employees of all these firms, having earned more, will be able to spend more, which will have a positive effect on the revenue of stores, food manufacturers, clothing manufacturers, the entertainment industry, etc. etc.
                        Note that all this benefit will take place, even if a road with a bridge is built in some Himalayas, where not a single person will use it at all :))))
                        And, finally, if this road is built exactly where people and business need it, where it was lacking - yes, it will still create additional benefits for everyone who travels on it, as they will solve their logistical problems. (let's say, delivery of goods from A to B) at a lower cost than before.
                        Investments in purely military assets deprive us of only this last benefit. The rest remains in effect
                      5. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 10 June 2021 22: 09
                        0
                        You can just as well say that you need to invest in the number of conscripts for the production of fertilizers, this also "develops the economy." In general, I leave your absurdity and polemics and dwell on the fact that not all economic spheres are equally useful for the state, an example of which I showed earlier.
      2. vadsonen
        vadsonen April 30 2021 18: 12
        -2
        You see, government orders, including military ones, make the economy stronger - these are additional jobs, earnings from enterprises, and so on.

        According to your logic, all countries should build hundreds of aircraft carriers, because these are jobs, income for enterprises ... You can expand - you give a state order for any crap, so they raised the economy!

        In fact, military spending by itself always hurts the economy. It's another matter if you compensate for these expenses with military missions, i.e. grab someone's resource. But you yourself wrote that you are against this.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 19: 33
          +7
          Quote: vadsonen
          In fact, military spending by itself always hurts the economy.

          In fact, you do not understand the basics of economics. Which is not surprising, in general, such things are usually studied only in specialized higher education. I can only recommend once again that you familiarize yourself with at least "Economics".
          Quote: vadsonen
          According to your logic, all countries should build hundreds of aircraft carriers, because these are jobs, income for enterprises ... You can expand - you give a state order for any crap, so they raised the economy!

          Of course, any thought can be brought to the point of absurdity - and the result is absurdity. This is one of the classic methods of polemics.
      3. 3danimal
        3danimal 1 May 2021 11: 42
        -1
        Definitely yes.

        I do not agree. Redundant for defense The battleship ("Gorshkov Ocean Fleet") does not produce electricity, does not collect wheat, does not dig trenches.
        In the conditions of an ineffective economy, a decrease in the cost of oil and gas (against the background of increased dependence on their sale), huge military expenditures are a kind of anchor tied to the leg of an already tired man sailing in the sea.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 May 2021 10: 04
          +4
          Quote: 3danimal
          I do not agree.

          It is your right. This will not change the correctness of my thought.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 2 May 2021 11: 12
            +2
            Not the correctness of thought, but your opinion.
            Which has the right to be wrong.
            As well as mine. I gave some reasons.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              2 May 2021 12: 31
              +4
              Quote: 3danimal
              Not the correctness of thought, but your opinion.

              The only question is that my opinion is based on a completely classical economic education, and many years of work in the profession. And it is fully consistent with both economic theory (Keynesianism) and economic practice (the US exit from the Great Depression)
              Honestly, I already think that I need to write a separate article in which to sort out
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 2 May 2021 12: 39
                0
                The United States was recovering from the depression, including building roads, the Hoover Dam, which simplified transportation and provided a lot of affordable electricity.
                And the economy of the Union was not enough for her from the standpoint of classical ideas.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                2 May 2021 12: 40
                +1
                Quote: 3danimal
                The United States was recovering from the depression, including building roads, the Hoover Dam, which simplified transportation and provided a lot of affordable electricity.

                It just finally brought the United States out of the Great Depression of WWII :)
              3. 3danimal
                3danimal 2 May 2021 12: 50
                +1
                They started coming out even before her.
                The largest factory in the world, there is no destruction on the territory.
                But the war with Japan, and then in Europe, was very expensive. The economy is on a war footing, car factories are producing tanks.
                Lend Lease was free, but it allowed to speed up the end of the war, which was beneficial in all respects.
                Allied purchases of equipment did take place, but they were not that great.
                Another important point is that the United States produced more oil than other participants in the war combined.
          2. Liam
            Liam 2 May 2021 12: 40
            -3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Honestly, I already think that I need to write a separate article in which to sort out

            Better not
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 April 30 2021 19: 31
      +2
      Russia recently held exercises near Ukraine's borders and made itself stronger economically by collapsing the ruble.

      And where did the ruble collapse? lol
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey April 30 2021 12: 24
    -9
    But what did you personally do for this, besides balabolism?
  • Doctor
    Doctor April 30 2021 07: 03
    +3
    But it would be correct if the author compared our official goals for the Navy, with the same official goals for the Navy, say, China and the United States. And he proved that their goals are clearly and unambiguously spelled out.

    I write it down clearly.
    Fishing, beer, girls! laughing

    Or like this:
    1. Ensuring the activities of the fishing fleet of the Russian Federation far from native shores, including.
    2. Maintenance of the merchant fleet in the same place.
    3. Ensuring the activities of passenger transportation by sea, incl. tourism.

    Will the adversaries block the banana truck at the exit from Ecuador and do they boom? winked
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    April 30 2021 07: 15
    +12
    Quote: Serg4545
    But I have a suspicion that in all countries, goals are prescribed like this.

    This is not true. The same National Security Strategy gives much more information - both about the main opponents (today they are Russia and China), and about the main threats, and sets much more specific goals. For example, for the Middle East, the task is to achieve a situation where "no power hostile to the United States could dominate."
    1. Xscorpion
      Xscorpion April 30 2021 09: 59
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Quote: Serg4545
      But I have a suspicion that in all countries, goals are prescribed like this.

      This is not true. The same National Security Strategy gives much more information - both about the main opponents (today they are Russia and China), and about the main threats, and sets much more specific goals. For example, for the Middle East, the task is to achieve a situation where "no power hostile to the United States could dominate."

      These are different things. We also have a national security strategy, and for example, it also reflects the opposition of the United States. And you are too attached to words, because in your opinion they do not reveal the whole picture. They should not, they just reflect the general basic tasks, this is always the case and everywhere, and applies not only to the Navy, but in general to any organization in the world. And specific tasks are daily reported and clarified directly on the ground. And this is correct. And what did you want? That in the tasks of the fleet the opposition to the United States was openly indicated ? Or Great Britain? Or, for example, alleged military operations off the coast of Venezuela or Sudan? Or sabotage actions off the coast of Japan? This is placed in completely different documents that are not for public access, no matter how you would like it. So the beginning of the article is really spoiled by me. I would say hysterical on a non-existent problem.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        April 30 2021 10: 31
        +11
        Quote: Xscorpion
        These are different things. We also have a national security strategy, and for example, it also reflects the opposition of the United States.

        Our strategy says NOTHING to the point. This is an even more watery document than the Decree I quoted.
        Quote: Xscorpion
        What did you want? That in the missions of the fleet the opposition to the USA was openly indicated? Or Great Britain?

        Yes. The Americans are doing this, but what is stopping us?
        1. NIKN
          NIKN April 30 2021 11: 56
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yes. The Americans are doing this, but what is stopping us?

          Yes, nothing prevents us from being like the Americans, only we do not clearly threaten, unlike them. And in our own way. I do not see the point of a military strategy for a five-year plan, to paint for the population. Who needs to be informed, set tasks, etc.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            April 30 2021 11: 59
            +12
            Quote: NIKNN
            I do not see the point of a military strategy for a five-year plan, to paint for the population.

            I will not argue with you about this, I just do not see a subject for dispute.
            Simply put, if you think that there are tasks, they just have not been communicated to us, it means that the state has clear and clear tasks for the construction of the Russian ocean-going fleet. It's just that they have not been brought to us :))))) Accordingly, we need an ocean-going fleet. This is exactly what I think, so what should we argue about then?
            1. NIKN
              NIKN April 30 2021 12: 08
              +7
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              You think that there are tasks, they just have not been communicated to us, which means that the state has clear and clear tasks for the construction of the Russian ocean-going fleet. It's just that they have not been brought to us :))))) Accordingly, we need an ocean-going fleet. This is exactly what I think, so what should we argue about then?

              Absolutely right!!! hi
        2. Xscorpion
          Xscorpion April 30 2021 13: 42
          -2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: Xscorpion
          These are different things. We also have a national security strategy, and for example, it also reflects the opposition of the United States.

          Our strategy says NOTHING to the point. This is an even more watery document than the Decree I quoted.
          Quote: Xscorpion
          What did you want? That in the missions of the fleet the opposition to the USA was openly indicated? Or Great Britain?

          Yes. The Americans are doing this, but what is stopping us?

          US Naval Strategy:
          1.Nuclear deterrence and intimidation with conventional high-precision weapons (creating conditions for the useless use of any types of weapons by a potential enemy)
          2. Permanent presence of naval forces in advanced areas to prevent crises and immediate response to them (Northern Sea Zone in the Atlantic and the Barents and adjacent seas: 2-3 nuclear submarines, 1-2 sonar reconnaissance ships; In the Mediterranean Sea from the 6th fleet: Aviation multi-purpose group, landing squad, 4-5 nuclear submarines; In the Persian and Oman gulfs from the 5th fleet: AMG, landing squad, 1-2 nuclear submarines; In the western part of the Pacific Ocean and the seas adjacent to Russia from 7 fleets: AMG , 3-4 nuclear submarines, 1-2 GAR ships, in addition to one squadron of aircraft / UAVs in each of the indicated areas)
          3. Joint operations of the Navy jointly with other types of the Armed Forces and the armed forces of the Allied countries (in the event of an armed conflict, conducting hostilities against the enemy's naval forces and gaining dominance at sea and in coastal areas, as well as ensuring the actions of their navies against the coast from sea directions)

          As you can see, nothing specific is indicated by the US Navy, especially against Russia. Everything is dry and compressed - containment, presence and response to threats. Perhaps only a little indicated the forces and means in some areas. And the enemy is potential, like ours.
          1. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman April 30 2021 18: 16
            +5
            Quote: Xscorpion
            2-3 nuclear-powered submarines, 1-2 hydroacoustic reconnaissance ships; In the Mediterranean Sea from the 6th fleet: Aviation multi-purpose group, landing squad, 4-5 nuclear submarines; In the Persian and Oman gulfs from the 5th fleet: AMG, landing squad , 1-2 nuclear submarines; In the western part of the Pacific Ocean and the seas adjacent to Russia from 7 fleets: AMG, 3-4 nuclear submarines,

            Quote: Xscorpion
            2-3 nuclear-powered submarines, 1-2 hydroacoustic reconnaissance ships; In the Mediterranean Sea from the 6th fleet: Aviation multi-purpose group, landing squad, 4-5 nuclear submarines; In the Persian and Oman gulfs from the 5th fleet: AMG, landing squad , 1-2 nuclear submarines; In the western part of the Pacific Ocean and the seas adjacent to Russia from 7 fleets: AMG, 3-4 nuclear submarines,

            It's very specific.
            1. Xscorpion
              Xscorpion 4 May 2021 08: 07
              0
              Quote: Senior Sailor
              Quote: Xscorpion
              2-3 nuclear-powered submarines, 1-2 hydroacoustic reconnaissance ships; In the Mediterranean Sea from the 6th fleet: Aviation multi-purpose group, landing squad, 4-5 nuclear submarines; In the Persian and Oman gulfs from the 5th fleet: AMG, landing squad , 1-2 nuclear submarines; In the western part of the Pacific Ocean and the seas adjacent to Russia from 7 fleets: AMG, 3-4 nuclear submarines,

              Quote: Xscorpion
              2-3 nuclear-powered submarines, 1-2 hydroacoustic reconnaissance ships; In the Mediterranean Sea from the 6th fleet: Aviation multi-purpose group, landing squad, 4-5 nuclear submarines; In the Persian and Oman gulfs from the 5th fleet: AMG, landing squad , 1-2 nuclear submarines; In the western part of the Pacific Ocean and the seas adjacent to Russia from 7 fleets: AMG, 3-4 nuclear submarines,

              It's very specific.

              Only in the same regions there are still China and the DPRK, and the link to Russia is simply geographic, so as not to list all the seas separately.
              1. Senior seaman
                Senior seaman 4 May 2021 10: 48
                +1
                I'm talking about it
                Quote: Xscorpion
                As you can see, nothing specific is indicated by the US Navy.

                Well, what is not only against us, then let's be objective, after all, we are not the biggest pain in the hegemon's ass, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise.
  • NIKN
    NIKN April 30 2021 11: 51
    -1
    Quote: Serg4545
    The author devoted quite a few letters to criticism of how goals for our Navy are spelled out in our country.
    They say these goals are somehow vaguely spelled out.

    I agree. It would be strange to read in these documents something like "Build an aircraft carrier and send it to the shores of Syria in 20xx year."
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 12: 00
      +9
      Quote: NIKNN
      It would be strange to read in these documents something like "Build an aircraft carrier

      Nevertheless, you will laugh, there is an indication of the construction of an aircraft carrier there :)))
      1. NIKN
        NIKN April 30 2021 12: 06
        +1
        No Andrey, I won't. I mean, there is no point in prescribing the details in the form in which you require, well, let's say for 2025 something I would like and should be taken into account, but what specific tasks can be set now, perhaps to announce the construction of an aircraft carrier, but the goals are specific to him it is pointless to put it because it does not exist yet. publish staff documents with details?
  • soul
    soul April 30 2021 06: 18
    +20
    Quote: Pessimist22
    there is a proposal to raise money for AMG on Channel One

    Will not work. On the same Channel One, the President will explain to the population why the funds raised were transferred, for example, to Arkady Rotenberg, for the execution of, say, "May decrees" or "June tasks"
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 April 30 2021 06: 24
      0
      Well, it means to collect and transfer to Rotenberg for execution smile
      1. soul
        soul April 30 2021 06: 29
        +20
        Quote: Pessimist22
        Well, it means to collect and transfer to Rotenberg for execution

        laughing Good idea. He then needs to entrust the entire GPV - 2027
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 30 2021 12: 27
      -6
      Are you ready to vouch for this or as usual?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    April 30 2021 07: 03
    +13
    Quote: Pessimist22
    there is a proposal to raise money for AMG on Channel One

    You are here
    https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
    There is already money for the construction of a powerful navy
  • bayard
    bayard April 30 2021 09: 17
    +9
    Quote: Pessimist22
    there is a proposal to raise money for AMG on Channel One

    How about operations for children abroad?
    No, there is a counter-proposal - to oblige each oligarch to finance the construction of several aircraft carriers and their escort ships. According to legend, Peter the Great collected funds for the construction of ships in this way.
    And also to oblige the leading state corporations - exporters of resources, also to fork out for the construction of ships. "Russia's property" should work for Russia and its defense capabilities.
    In any case, this is much more useful than building empty pipelines that will not pay off even in 50 years.
    And walking with a hat, robbing the poor population ... it's not at all good. For this, and health can damage - grateful citizens.
    1. FIR FIR
      FIR FIR April 30 2021 10: 35
      +4
      Quote: bayard
      According to legend, Peter the Great collected funds for the construction of ships in this way.

      In Peter I, most of the boyars did not go as bosom friends.
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 10 June 2021 17: 08
      0
      It is possible, and even necessary, but not for the "construction of AUG", but for "refinancing excess profits in related industries in projects with an increased risk of non-return on investment and / or in projects with minimal rent and / or in projects with long-term return on investment. "with a listing of these industries in the form of port, transport, logistics infrastructure, as well as the ship-manufacturing industry.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 30 2021 20: 29
    +1
    laughing everything is simpler ... an aircraft carrier is a useful and expensive thing, therefore its appearance in the Russian fleet should become the apogee of the development of the fleet ... Simply put, first we solve the problems of BMZ and DMZ, we create a scheme for the construction of MPK / corvettes / frigates / destroyers and BDK / UDC and As a result, we are quickly building a series of aircraft carriers. In the meantime, the essence and the matter can be worked out technologies, such as a ship nuclear power plant, BIUS, radar, air defense, ship fighter / bomber, ship helicopter and UAV AWACS ... For example, the emergence of anti-submarine cruisers with a large fleet of anti-submarine helicopters and anti-submarine weapons may become an intermediate option
    1. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst 5 May 2021 16: 44
      0
      I almost agree. But, built at the apogee of anti-submarine cruisers will have to be used as aircraft carriers. By destroying submarines, we will not be able to solve a single strategic or political problem. And the fleet will be huge and useless in peacetime.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 5 May 2021 16: 52
        -4
        1) if the ASW problem is solved by other means, then maybe, like the aircraft carriers, if the VTOL aircraft are finished, but taking into account the current forces and means, there will be nothing to decide in the next 30 years ... And yes ... the deployment of missile carriers is in itself very a great strategic and political task + such a cruiser will be able to drive enemy submarines with great pleasure in various sea zones
  • jonht
    jonht April 30 2021 05: 16
    +10
    Andrey, I fully support it. Indeed, to begin with, we need a clear strategy for the use of the Navy, and already proceeding from it and build a fleet. And what will be there? Aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers or Karakurt will show specific goals and objectives. Thank you for the article.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 09: 22
      +10
      Thanks for the kind words! hi
      Quote: jonht
      Indeed, to begin with, we need a clear strategy for the use of the Navy, and already proceeding from it and build a fleet.

      I totally agree
  • antivirus
    antivirus April 30 2021 05: 38
    -19%
    Citizens! join the ranks of the aircraft carrier fleet supporters. all and always use their leverage. - and what they are preparing for - and that is what they get.
    built Av - they use them. build nuclear submarines - they work.
    building RTOs - forward to mines on RTOs.
    uhry rubber boats will use and will not get steamy.
    - !!!!!!! how to protect Chelyaba from southern friends if they run for humanitarian purposes?
    - Will the South Urals receive 2 million African-Afghans-Arabs and other neighbors in Eurasia?
    -or is it easier to "resolve issues" in the depths of Eurasia?
    How many Avs do you need to protect Chelyaba? and Krasnoyarsk?
    and Volgograd and Orenburg?
    -see the map of Russia
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. April 30 2021 05: 50
    -4
    The only thing I didn’t like in the article was the fear of facing directly with the United States. We fought with them in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and where is the third world war? In Syria, if we now strike at American PMCs, what’s immediately a world war? Yes, I’m for aircraft carriers. , and it is clear that in this Mediterranean viper, an adequate AUG is needed. Free world trade routes for Russia are one of the top priorities for the Russian Navy.
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 April 30 2021 06: 24
      +14
      Quote: V.
      The only thing I didn’t like in the article was the fear of facing directly with the United States. We fought with them in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia.

      They fought, but not "directly".
      Even the mighty USSR did not want to go into direct confrontation with the United States ... Why is this much weaker Russia. Boxing is not only fists, but also a head ...
    2. soul
      soul April 30 2021 06: 25
      +28
      Quote: V.
      In Syria, if we now strike at American PMCs, what would be a world war at once?

      Do you want families of "servants of the people" not to be allowed abroad at all? And where will they rest? In Vorkuta?
      1. Serpet
        Serpet April 30 2021 06: 46
        +26
        Quote: alma
        where will they rest? In Vorkuta?

        Then in Magadan. Or direct to BAM-2 at once.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 07: 18
      +11
      Quote: V.
      The only thing I didn't like about the article was the fear of facing directly with the United States.

      Forgive me, why do you need a global nuclear missile conflict? :))))
      Quote: V.
      We fought with them in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and where is the third world war?

      We did not fight directly with them in any of these countries.
      Quote: V.
      In Syria, if we now strike at American PMCs, what would be a world war at once?

      If an accidental strike - perhaps not, but if it will be systematic military action - then yes.
      1. Soldatov V.
        Soldatov V. April 30 2021 10: 04
        -2
        When reporting from Syria, one should understand that when they write about the two hundred killed ISIS members of our aviation, at least ten percent of them are American, British, Israeli PMCs, various advisers and instructors. Systematic military actions are underway. They hide so as not to disturb the public, but about the third world no one even thinks. Ours, too, how many died. There is a quiet local war.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 10: 29
          +11
          Quote: V.
          When reporting from Syria, one must understand that when they write about the two hundred killed ISIS members of our aviation, at least ten percent of them are American, British, Israeli PMCs, various advisers and instructors

          Which provide UNOFFICIAL help, and, in fact, have no right to be there at all. Therefore, no one will ever stand up for them, and such actions do not threaten Armageddon
          1. Soldatov V.
            Soldatov V. April 30 2021 10: 44
            0
            In principle, what happens as long as we (with the Americans) provide official and unofficial assistance on the territory of third countries, there will be no nuclear war. In that case, shouldn't we open a land humanitarian corridor to Kaliningrad? Thanks for communication.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 30 2021 11: 28
              +6
              Quote: V.
              In that case, shouldn't we open a land humanitarian corridor to Kaliningrad?

              What for? Are there people dying of hunger, what urgent need to crush the "limitrophes"?
              1. Soldatov V.
                Soldatov V. April 30 2021 12: 34
                -1
                It's not about hunger, but about unity with the country, about the logistics of movement of production, goods, the railway from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad. Geography and economy, and finally, spiritual, blood relationship requires this. If Lithuania blocks the path, hunger is not excluded. You see what the "limitrophes" are doing, for example in the Czech Republic. Lithuania is still a Nazi. That will block the message to the glorious winners on May 9 that we will again express concern. By the way, do they let citizens with the St. George ribbon across the border from Russia to Russia?
              2. max702
                max702 1 May 2021 08: 24
                0
                And why did we have to save Libya and for this to create AUG and everything connected with it? Would the salvation of Libya have paid for us all this, or, on the contrary, would it provoke a much larger crisis with completely different costs?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  1 May 2021 08: 57
                  +3
                  Quote: max702
                  And why did we have to save Libya and for this to create AUG and everything connected with it?

                  Who told you such nonsense? :)))
                  1. max702
                    max702 1 May 2021 09: 46
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Quote: max702
                    And why did we have to save Libya and for this to create AUG and everything connected with it?

                    Who told you such nonsense? :)))

                    Uh ... Duc like you wrote that if our AUG were there, then Gaddafi would have resisted, since WE would have bombed the rebels that rocked the regime .. Or are you on the question of whether we need Gaddafi?
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 10 June 2021 17: 24
                      0
                      you do not understand the essence, this essence is not in Libya with Gaddafi, the essence is that we do not have "an instrument for providing militarized support for our partners far from the territory of the Russian Federation", which is why our opponents deprive us of benefits through the use of militarized forces against pro-Russian forces. in short:
                      4.15) The Russian Federation needs a fleet capable of providing military support to pro-Russian forces far from the territory of the Russian Federation in the geo-political and economic interests of the Russian Federation.
                2. Soldatov V.
                  Soldatov V. 1 May 2021 09: 46
                  -1
                  We must take the example of the United States - it twists military dances away from its territory, because it understands that without doing this, others will twist military dances and dances around the shores of America. And it is better for us to keep part of the fleet and troops in the enemy's rear, they have already entered the rear of Kaliningrad and are reaching Leningrad with "Katyushas".
                  1. max702
                    max702 1 May 2021 12: 22
                    0
                    We cannot, as the United States, we do not have 700 bases and allies around the world ... to create a fleet that will be on equal terms with the combined fleet of the USA, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Japan, Greece, Turkey, Sweden, Denmark , South Caucasus, Norway and even the devil knows whom we cannot in any way under any calculations! We still cannot lag behind in space, in aviation, in nuclear weapons, in the ground forces with the longest land border, and many other things .. Therefore, we will not be able to play any boat games! One hope is that we will trample those who trample on land (and this is much more real than drowning the enemy far in the ocean), and let us use a nuclear club at the decision-making places along the way annihilating everyone they sent .. The rest of the resources will not be enough! No way! They can destroy us even now, and the fleet in Kaliningrad, or else where the picture will not change, as we are, and just as without any fleet! It is this understanding of this that guarantees peace for many decades, and not what kind of fleet we have .. There are no tasks to use this expensive solution ..
                    1. Soldatov V.
                      Soldatov V. 1 May 2021 13: 39
                      -2
                      As a discussion. Before the collapse of the USSR, Americans came to our region, and economists from both sides calculated the cost of the region using their methods. It turned out to be a dollar to twenty kopecks. Each resident of the region, including babies, could receive three million dollars annually from a profit. The modern dollar exchange rate is a financial diversion. It's about resources. About the bases. We need to determine equidistant or equidistant points to the probable enemy and place bases there, if possible. Three or four will be enough for us. We already have Syria. We want to do it in Sudan, and God himself orders us to make a base in Cuba. Oceania among the aborigines. The base is like a policeman in his neighborhood. Something like that. soldier
                      1. max702
                        max702 2 May 2021 10: 32
                        0
                        That is, based on your words, we should not act like the Americans and 3-4 bases will be enough for us? Well, it is clear that the Americans are right ... and 700 bases and the allies listed above are out of stupidity .. You understand that our fleet will always be monitored in such a case with the most accurate indication of coordinates in real time, and therefore at gunpoint, and by means of destruction, again, it will always be superior to 5-6 times that is, it will always be destroyed in any real DB .. So the question is, why is all this to us? Why aren't our ships being sunk on the same Syrian Express now? Because their fleet is guarding? Hell no! Because the Strategic Missile Forces! It is this factor that guarantees the inviolability of our ANY fleet, and the ships of the Navy are so sure that any gopota does not climb (from her and what is enough) a serious enemy is not kept on a leash by the fleet, but by strategic nuclear forces ..
                        In relation to the dollar and the ruble, you are pretty bent, but drugs are evil, tie it up ...
                      2. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 2 May 2021 12: 47
                        0
                        Quote: V.
                        well, God himself orders to make a base in Cuba

                        God may and commands, but the Cubans do not order. Why do they need such a headache?
                      3. Soldatov V.
                        Soldatov V. 2 May 2021 18: 16
                        -1
                        They had a headache when we removed everything. They will always accept us with open arms. They understand that no one but us will protect them.
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 30 2021 13: 09
    +2
    Quote: V.
    I did not like in the article this fear of facing directly with the United States. We fought with them in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia

    What a brave warrior. laughing .. 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning' ©?
    Or is a Geiger counter crackling preferable?
    1. Soldatov V.
      Soldatov V. April 30 2021 18: 36
      0
      If you had listened to the operational report before taking up combat duty in the airborne forces, you wouldn’t be so jerky, but I don’t need butter shouting, make rockets. People who survived the occupation after the war said we would give up everything if only there was no hell. You can’t meet the war with plywood planes. If the General Staff thinks an aircraft carrier is needed, blood from the nose is done.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 30 2021 18: 59
        0
        Quote: V.
        If you had listened to the operational report before going on alert in the airborne forces, you wouldn’t be so jerky, but I don’t need to shout butter, make rockets. ...

        I wonder what it is about these reports that can cause an attack of paranoia?
        Quote: V.
        If the General Staff thinks an aircraft carrier is needed, bleed from the nose but do it.

        Pepper is clear. And he won't explain anything to anyone. We'll figure it out here, downstairs, with the help of TV butts and network "experts-in-everything". laughing In any case, there will be concrete arguments - why do they need, or, on the contrary, why Russia does not need aircraft carriers. And all these mind games, which are arranged by aircraft carrier adepts and dissidents, are about nothing. But as a pass-through reading - norms. At least, it is much more interesting than the empty staff of "historians" such as Frolova.
        1. Soldatov V.
          Soldatov V. April 30 2021 19: 03
          -1
          What is wrong with your head.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 30 2021 19: 38
            0
            Quote: V.
            What is wrong with your head.

            It is strange to hear this from a man who is going to pull America's mustache and who prefers rockets to oil. laughing
            But no, it’s not strange. Atavistic perception of the world. Are you 60+, I suppose?
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 30 2021 06: 33
    +13
    Thanks to Andrey for the article.
    To begin with, we do not have clearly defined goals of the state.

    This is the most important thing.
    The USSR walked across the world with the aim of supporting socialism. For what purpose is Russia walking around the World? What are Russia's global goals? Where are we going?
    Western "democracies" represented by transnational corporations have robbed and continue to rob everyone who is weaker. And how do domestic corporations today differ from overseas? And how "domestic" they are ...
    Here are how many questions. And when there are answers to them, then the purpose of the presence of Russian ships in the world's oceans will become clear.
    1. Soldatov V.
      Soldatov V. April 30 2021 06: 51
      +2
      It is good that you talk as a communist about the world oligarchy, in this I support you.
    2. Niko
      Niko April 30 2021 08: 14
      +11
      Quote: Doccor18
      Thanks to Andrey for the article.
      To begin with, we do not have clearly defined goals of the state.

      This is the most important thing.
      The USSR walked across the world with the aim of supporting socialism. For what purpose is Russia walking around the World? What are Russia's global goals? Where are we going?
      Western "democracies" represented by transnational corporations have robbed and continue to rob everyone who is weaker. And how do domestic corporations today differ from overseas? And how "domestic" they are ...
      Here are how many questions. And when there are answers to them, then the purpose of the presence of Russian ships in the world's oceans will become clear.

      "How do domestic corporations differ from overseas ones?" - so far only their own citizens can be robbed, but they want it all over the world (hence the envy of the states, they want it but cannot)
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 April 30 2021 08: 22
        +5
        Quote: Niko
        ... the fact that so far only their own citizens are able to rob, but they want it all over the world (hence the envy of the states, they want it but they cannot)

        I agree, but attempts are already in full swing in the states of Central Asia and in Africa. However, to their sadness, all the richest chunks are already occupied by other "investors" ...
    3. Alex_Bora
      Alex_Bora April 30 2021 08: 25
      +11
      To begin with, we do not have clearly defined goals of the state.

      All this is so, because there are specific goals for specific people who our state and you and I HAVE.
      One of their goals is to preserve our state with the existing order of things.
      Hence the resistance to "containment" from the outside, presented as "patriotism", the struggle for sovereignty, etc., on the one hand. On the other hand, indistinctness, "chronic concern" and at the same time a constant readiness to "be friends", albeit with reservations.
      Too many "eggs" by the elite have been piled into baskets controlled by the West (assets, alternate airfields, children, wives, residence permits ...). They all remember 1917 ... Suddenly it will repeat itself ... So they let Uncle Sam pinch their balls.
      It hurts for the fleet ... But the rest is not much fun either ...
      Alas, it may be possible to reverse the situation ... Only the price can become very bloody ...

      Something covered with pessimism)))
      We will live ... Do what you must ...
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 April 30 2021 08: 30
        +3
        Quote: Alex_Bora
        Something covered with pessimism)))
        We will live ... Do what you must ...

        And come what may ...
        And the truth has covered yes
        Nothing, there are still caring people, although not at the top of power, but there are. So we will flounder while we have strength.
    4. Serg65
      Serg65 April 30 2021 09: 57
      -2
      Quote: Doccor18
      The USSR walked across the world in order to support socialism

      Moreover, the points of application of support for socialism in a strange way coincided with the points of economic interest of the USSR! what And what has changed since then?
      1. Avior
        Avior April 30 2021 11: 23
        +5
        and what economic interest was there in Cuba or Vietnam?
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 30 2021 12: 11
          0
          Quote: Avior
          what economic interest was in Cuba

          In Cuba, I agree, no ... except for Khrushchev's Wishlist to have a needle closer to the American sit-down .......
          Quote: Avior
          or in Vietnam?

          And here, my friend, is the control of the Singapore Strait ... ... and you thought that for the supply of pioneer ties to the Vietnamese pioneers?
          1. Avior
            Avior April 30 2021 12: 15
            +7
            with points of economic interest of the USSR

            control of the Singapore Strait

            Did you plan to collect money for the passage through the strait? or just pirate those waters? somehow other ways of monetizing the presence of Vietnam are not very much and close to the strait are not visible.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 April 30 2021 13: 44
              0
              Quote: Avior
              somehow other ways of monetizing the presence of Vietnam are not very much and close to the strait are not visible.

              what Well ... When the "philanthropist" Rothschild began to actively buy up land unsuitable for life in Palestine, everyone considered him crazy ..... what kind of monetization did the baron want? Could it be control over Suez and the oil pipeline to Haifa?
              Quote: Avior
              finding Vietnam is not very close to the strait

              But the width of the South China Sea in the Cam Ranh region is only 600 km and all Japanese-Korean-Chinese traffic goes by Cam Ranh!
              1. Avior
                Avior April 30 2021 14: 15
                +4
                So what goes 600 km? What was the economic profit for the USSR from this?
                No ...
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 3 May 2021 08: 39
                  0
                  Quote: Avior
                  No ...

                  Well, from what? Cam Ranh made good advertising for the USSR in southeast Asia, which in turn increased trade not only with Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, but also with Indonesia and the Philippines.
        2. ecolog
          ecolog April 30 2021 12: 13
          0
          Cuba - location. If you want, place the missiles; if you want, conduct reconnaissance. After Cuba, the US launched missiles from Turkey. Vietnam - right according to the precepts of the Anglo-Saxons. Engage the enemy in a protracted, expensive conflict on the side, which will bring him nothing but hemorrhoids, and he will not have time for you.
          1. Avior
            Avior April 30 2021 14: 16
            +5
            It was about economic benefits
            1. ecolog
              ecolog April 30 2021 16: 11
              0
              and what is the economic benefit from the army in general? A million healthy young men do not produce anything useful, but you have to dress them, put shoes on, feed them. Plus the defense industry. Instead of schools, hospitals, housing, etc., rivet tanks and guns. But the trouble is that there is no other way.
              1. Avior
                Avior April 30 2021 22: 25
                +2
                Sorry, this was a specific question.
      2. Doccor18
        Doccor18 April 30 2021 12: 10
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        Moreover, the points of application of support for socialism in a strange way coincided with the points of economic interest of the USSR!

        The problem is that they did not match. And ideally, they should have coincided ... For the USSR, this support carried continuous losses, and very significant ...
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 30 2021 12: 18
          +1
          Quote: Doccor18
          That's the problem, they didn't match.

          From what? Cam Ranh, Berbera, Aden, Dahlak, Tartus ...... what's next to them? Well, also Luanda ... is a base for ships to guard Argentine wheat traffic and fishing areas with the participation of ships of the USSR Ministry of Fisheries.
    5. nerd.su
      nerd.su April 30 2021 11: 39
      +2
      Quote: Doccor18
      And how do domestic corporations today differ from overseas?

      nothing. they are as capitalist predators as the American, French or British.

      Quote: Doccor18
      And how "domestic" they are ...

      they are domestic, although many of them are either registered in offshores to avoid taxes, or have their own "daughters" there.

      Quote: Doccor18
      And when there are answers to them, then the purpose of the presence of Russian ships in the world's oceans will become clear.

      Well, I have answered your questions. Is the goal, or rather one of the goals of the presence of the Russian ships clear to you now? Does Russia need an ocean-going fleet for such a purpose? Or will we shyly say, no, we are not like that, we will not defend our economic interests?
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 April 30 2021 12: 26
        +4
        Quote: bot.su
        ... they are domestic, although ...

        The main problem with the word "though" ...
        And then arbitration cases are examined, then the High Court of one Saxon country, then the court of another - overseas ... but yes, domestic ...
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su April 30 2021 16: 46
          -1
          Quote: Doccor18
          And then arbitration cases are examined, then the High Court of one Saxon country, then the court of another - overseas ... but yes, domestic ...

          Is that all right?
    6. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 30 2021 13: 37
      -3
      Quote: Doccor18
      This is the most important thing.

      Yes figs with him, business-it is - we will build aircraft carriers, and then come up with a doctrine for them. Right there, at VO. We took to imitate America - so we will be consistent to the end. Status show-off is wonderful, isn't it?
      Quote: Doccor18
      The USSR walked across the world in order to support socialism

      'I walked around the world' is a funny passage laughing Well, now, it turns out, there is a need for the support of beggars 'friendly' to us, such as the Venezuelan bus driver with Sechin's business interests. If, of course, they are still there.
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su April 30 2021 16: 51
        +2
        To what extent do Sechin's business interests differ from those of the state? Or so, what is the dependence of the incomes of Sechin and Rosneft?
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra April 30 2021 07: 43
    -16%
    Author ... Aren't you tired of it? Didn't they tell you - REALITY? Ondrusha is not where the Innocent One drinks kefir as a space pirate.
    It seems that there is nothing complicated here. Any state has goals

    Nothing complicated, except how to ask - how did you not become a homeless person, "nothing folded" - there are a lot of wishlist, but who will pay for your Wishlist?

    Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    am Give you all the loot - I will not be - and just YOU will stick to rejection - for
    your courage WITH YOUR GREAT PIECES !!!! The shore is bare. He is stupidly defenseless, waterfowl. Booty up you have to get up, no? Or will the hunchbacks save ?!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 07: 55
      +8
      But with hard drugs, you obviously need to tie it up :) However, thanks for the demonstration of the intellectual level of the opponents of the ocean and aircraft carrier fleets
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra April 30 2021 08: 03
        -15%
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But with hard drugs, you obviously need to tie it up :)


        Show me how they tie up with hard drugs. Ondre, so that you generally understand - an ambulance. for a long time, in the 90s, and I took off drugs, and even with sour.
        That's not the point, sorry - about the topic. There is a brain, but? I suppose, nobody told you anything EXCEPT ME? And you're rushing ... Trump-pam
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 08: 14
          +7
          Quote: Cowbra
          That's not the point, sorry - about the topic.

          And on the topic, the only thing that is at least a little like the thought in your comments is
          Quote: Cowbra
          who will pay for your Wishlist?

          The answer has long been given here https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
          A powerful fleet is within our power with today's spending :)
          1. Cowbra
            Cowbra April 30 2021 08: 29
            -9
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            A powerful fleet is within our power with today's spending :)

            I read ... Andrei - they were not convinced, at all. You understand. like me - to have a strong fleet to hell with him. if they sing "Eh. balalaika, sailor's soul, calls for will" - we'll figure it out. But if they bury the whole cart, such as the budget ... What the hell is it when the one who can go to the Northern Fleet - an air carrier, where do you say it? And in general, you also clicked such a thing then. Aviaki. Themselves - flying. Will they take a brisk lope? And even if so - how much is the air wing and the provision - for the money? And what kind of air wing do you need in Black Thai or Baltic? What is there, what is there. such amphibians are aquatic - they can bite and die
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 30 2021 09: 09
              +9
              Quote: Cowbra
              I read ... Andrey - they were not convinced, absolutely

              I have never set such a super task for myself :)))) I have no task to convince you and your kind, simply because you cannot be convinced of anything. Your conviction is based on faith, not on arguments, and questions of religion are sacred to me :)))
              My task is much more modest. Present to the readers' judgment such arguments that you cannot refute. And now I have completely achieved it.
              1. Artyom Karagodin
                Artyom Karagodin April 30 2021 13: 04
                +8
                You cannot be convinced of anything. Your conviction is based on faith, not on arguments, and questions of religion are sacred to me :)))

                It's not about religion, because sectarianism is not a religion)))). And in religion there is a place to be both experience and arguments. True, this is not about our AVid dissidents.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 30 2021 13: 13
                  +7
                  Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                  Sectarianism is not a religion)))).

                  laughing
                  Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                  For example, I believe in the possibilities of Russia, because my experience suggests that there is every reason for such a belief.

                  Unlike religion, your faith in Russia (like mine, by the way) is rational in nature, since it is based on understandable and measurable premises and reliable historical facts.
                  Religious belief is irrational by definition. There is no evidence of the existence of God; one must either believe in him or not believe in him.
                  1. Artyom Karagodin
                    Artyom Karagodin April 30 2021 13: 16
                    -1
                    Religious belief is irrational by definition. There is no evidence of the existence of God; one must either believe in him or not believe in him.

                    I can argue on this issue, and strongly. True, this does not apply to the aircraft carrier debate. Therefore, does it make sense to start objecting in general and specifically - in the comments under the article about the aircraft carrier? If there is, ready. Including through personal correspondence.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 30 2021 13: 18
                      +4
                      Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                      I can object on this issue, and strongly

                      I will read it with pleasure, but - as you rightly noted, it is better in personal correspondence
  • Arkon
    Arkon April 30 2021 08: 07
    -1
    The author already has a ready-made solution - aircraft carriers are needed - and he is trying to justify it. I cannot explain similar reasoning to anything else:
    In other words, if the Russian Federation suddenly considered the preservation of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi to be of paramount importance and essential, then even in this case it would be clearly premature to flee to Libya with the Su-34 at the ready as soon as local unrest began.

    But after the start of "Odyssey Dawn" - it's too late. How to transfer military contingents to Libya and deploy them at local airbases when these airbases are under attack by NATO aviation?


    Strategic interests do not arise suddenly and from scratch. If we had strategic interests in Libya, we would prepare a base for their protection in advance, and if they are not there, or we did not notice them in time, then “suddenly” the aircraft carrier and start “suddenly” countering third countries in a foreign theater of operations is extremely stupid, criminally stupid idea.
    We must wipe ourselves off and continue to be more circumspect. And start cooking following - already after the lost current one - the battle.

    By the way, here at Zapolskis I recently read about a change in the strategic vision of the US aircraft carrier fleet - the transition to drones and a radical reduction in displacement. This has already been decided by the "aircraft carrier" for itself, and we are discussing all the concepts the day before last.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 08: 12
      +9
      Quote: Arkon
      Strategic interests do not arise suddenly and from scratch. If we had strategic interests in Libya, we would prepare a base for their protection in advance

      Uh-huh. As in Syria. As soon as the situation became catastrophic, they immediately began to prepare the base. And before that, we had no bases or agreements with the Syrians. And I don’t remember the bases of the United States or England there in Kuwait, when Saddam pushed there
      Quote: Arkon
      We must wipe ourselves off and continue to be more circumspect.

      Thanks for your point of view
      Quote: Arkon
      By the way, here at Zapolskis I recently read about a change in the strategic vision of the US aircraft carrier fleet

      What you have read has nothing to do with the real US shipbuilding programs.
      Quote: Arkon
      This is already the "carrier power" itself decided

      Yes, yes, for half a century they have been telling fairy tales to everyone who is ready to believe in them. And about the "sea control ships" - non-nuclear aircraft carriers of 30-40 thousand tons with VTOL aircraft and so on and so forth. Only now, for some reason, they themselves continue to build atomic ABs of 100 tons.
      1. Arkon
        Arkon April 30 2021 08: 18
        -9
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Uh-huh. As in Syria. As soon as the situation became catastrophic, they immediately began to prepare the base. And before that, we had no bases or agreements with the Syrians.


        In Syria, there was no direct attack by third countries on the legitimate authority. If it were the same in Libya, then nothing prevented the preparation of the base there, if desired. And you don't need an aircraft carrier for that.
        But if a war of third countries begins with the government of the country of our interest, then entering it with an aircraft carrier ship, while declaring war on third countries, is somewhat imprudent, from my point of view. wink
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 08: 24
          +9
          Quote: Arkon
          In Syria, there was no direct attack by third countries on the legitimate authority.

          So what? Were our interests there? There were, otherwise they would not have climbed to help. Were the bases deployed in advance? There was no :) Therefore, according to your logic, "we wipe off and wait for the next"? :)
          Quote: Arkon
          But if a war of third countries begins with the government of the country of our interest, then enter it with an aircraft carrier ship, while declaring war on third countries

          What for? An attack by the rebels in Libya, for example, is not a declaration of war on the countries that attacked Gaddafi's forces.
          1. Arkon
            Arkon April 30 2021 08: 26
            -3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            What for? An attack by the rebels in Libya, for example, is not a declaration of war on the countries that attacked Gaddafi's forces.


            What "rebels", the no-fly zone in Libya was provided by the NATO countries.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 30 2021 08: 30
              +5
              Quote: Arkon
              What "rebels", the no-fly zone in Libya was provided by the NATO countries.

              No one would dare to declare a no-fly zone in Libya if our air forces were present. This time. Second, we could easily have violated it by notifying the United States and NATO in advance that this is not a problem or a declaration of war.
              1. Arkon
                Arkon April 30 2021 08: 49
                -3
                But after the start of "Odyssey Dawn" - it's too late. How to transfer military contingents to Libya and deploy them at local airbases when these airbases are under attack by NATO aviation?


                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                No one would dare to declare a no-fly zone in Libya if our air forces were present.


                Well, you really decide: would you risk it or not. Otherwise, in one place you write about "NATO air strikes" that will completely "risk" carrying them out, and in another - they will not.
                smile
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 30 2021 08: 59
                  +7
                  Quote: Arkon
                  Well, you really decide: would you risk it or not. Otherwise, in one place you write about "NATO air strikes" that will completely "risk" carrying them out, and in another - they will not.

                  Andrey, do you see the difference? :)))))
                  It's one thing to try to deploy aerospace forces at air bases that are under attack by coalition forces. This has nothing to do with the no-fly zone. Look at how many resources were used to provide the same Khmeimim. They drove the military-technical cooperation there, and the ships were used to deliver the necessary supplies to Syria, and then to transport it to Khmeimim. To carry out such a thing in a country under attack by NATO aviation is extremely cranky.
                  It is another matter to ignore the no-fly zone in terms of the flight of our aircraft to carry out combat missions.
                  1. Arkon
                    Arkon April 30 2021 10: 10
                    -1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Look at how many resources were used to provide the same Khmeimim. They drove the military-technical cooperation there, and the ships were used to deliver the necessary supplies to Syria, and then to transport it to Khmeimim. To carry out such a thing in a country under attack by NATO aviation is extremely cranky.


                    You may not be aware, but Syria, by the time the Russian troops entered, had been under the attacks of NATO aviation for a year already. The only difference with Libya is that the NATO operation was officially carried out "against ISIS," and not against the Syrian government. This allowed Russia to engage in hostilities.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      April 30 2021 10: 27
                      +7
                      Quote: Arkon
                      You may not be aware, but Syria, by the time the Russian troops entered, had been under the attacks of NATO aviation for a year already.

                      Was not found :)))
                      Quote: Arkon
                      The only difference with Libya is that the NATO operation was officially carried out "against ISIS," and not against the Syrian government.

                      That's it
                      Quote: Arkon
                      This allowed Russia to engage in hostilities.

                      The question is that the presence of an aircraft carrier would allow us to engage in hostilities even if the NATO operation was officially carried out against the government of Syria. What I wrote about in the article. But the absence of AB, yes, would not have allowed us to engage in these very actions
                      1. Arkon
                        Arkon April 30 2021 11: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Was not found :)))


                        Since September 23, 2014, the United States, with the support of a number of allied countries, began to air strikes against IS * positions in Syria. The American campaign in Syria was largely supported by military aircraft based in Qatar and other countries in the Middle East.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 30 2021 11: 29
                        +5
                        Quote: Arkon
                        On September 23, 2014, the United States, with the support of a number of allied countries, began to inflict on the positions of IS

                        That's it. Not the state of Syria, but IS
                      3. Arkon
                        Arkon April 30 2021 11: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That's it. Not the state of Syria, but IS


                        Are you really talking to me?

                        This is what I wrote a few comments ago:

                        In Syria, there was no direct attack by third countries on the legitimate authority. If it were the same in Libya, then nothing prevented the preparation of the base there, if desired. And you don't need an aircraft carrier for that.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 30 2021 12: 06
                        +4
                        Quote: Arkon
                        Are you really talking to me?

                        Yes, I'm with you, but you ...
                        Quote: Arkon
                        This is what I wrote a few comments ago:

                        And I write that AB is necessary precisely when THERE IS a direct attack on the legitimate authority. Including to prevent this attack from taking place.
                      5. Arkon
                        Arkon April 30 2021 12: 17
                        -4
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And I write that AB is necessary precisely when THERE IS a direct attack on the legitimate authority


                        So I already wrote about this:
                        But if a war of third countries begins with the government of the country of our interest, then entering it with an aircraft carrier ship, while declaring war on third countries, is somewhat imprudent, from my point of view. wink


                        If there is already a direct attack, then why the arguement:

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        No one would dare to declare a no-fly zone in Libya if our air forces were present.


                        Here either nothing has yet begun and then there is an opportunity to build a base, even to drive ships, or it has begun and then neither the base nor the aircraft carrier is needed.

                        In any case, the aircraft carrier is like a fifth wheel in a cart.
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 30 2021 12: 29
                        +3
                        Quote: Arkon
                        So I already wrote about this:

                        They wrote. And here on this fragment
                        Quote: Arkon
                        But if a war of third countries begins with the government of the country of our interest, then it is somewhat imprudent to enter into it with an aircraft carrier, while declaring war on third countries.

                        I answered. And the answer was that in this case, no war was declared on third countries. For example, in the case of Libya, we would simply support the legitimate Libyan government, who should we declare war on?
                        About the same, my second example - the Americans conducted their "Praying Mantis" against Iran without any declaration of war on the latter
                        Quote: Arkon
                        If there is already a direct attack, then why the arguement:

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        No one would dare to declare a no-fly zone in Libya if our air forces were present.

                        see my Libyan example. It was impossible to place a videoconferencing in Libya after the start, it was possible to support it with AV.
                        Quote: Arkon
                        Here either nothing has yet begun and then there is an opportunity to build a base, even to drive ships, or it has begun and then neither the base nor the aircraft carrier is needed.

                        You have an error here. An aircraft carrier can support when the Aerospace Forces cannot
                      7. Arkon
                        Arkon April 30 2021 13: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I answered. And the answer was that in this case, no war was declared on third countries. For example, in the case of Libya, we would simply support the legitimate Libyan government, who should we declare war on?


                        "Just to maintain the legitimate government" in a country at war is a declaration of war on those with whom this government is at war. Didn't you know?
                      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 30 2021 13: 19
                        +5
                        Quote: Arkon
                        "Just to maintain the legitimate government" in a country at war is a declaration of war on those with whom this government is at war. Didn't you know?

                        Declaration of war is a legal, diplomatic procedure in international law and international politics, which consists in the official, in accordance with the established procedure, warning by one state to another about the end of peace between them and the transition to a state of war.
                        We do not declare war on insurgents and terrorists, because they do not have a state (self-proclaimed and unrecognized ones do not count)
                      9. Arkon
                        Arkon April 30 2021 13: 22
                        -1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        We do not declare war on insurgents and terrorists, because they do not have a state (self-proclaimed and unrecognized ones do not count)


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And I write that AB is necessary precisely when THERE IS a direct attack on the legitimate authority. Including to prevent this attack from taking place.


                        Clear.
                      10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 30 2021 13: 41
                        +4
                        Quote: Arkon
                        Clear.

                        I'm glad if that's the case. But why did you quote my two statements? Do you really think that they contradict each other in some way? :)
                      11. Arkon
                        Arkon April 30 2021 13: 51
                        -1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But why did you quote my two statements?


                        To the fact that before that you spoke about the attack on the legitimate government of Libya by NATO countries. And it was about the war with them that we talked about before.
                        The passage about the "legal procedure" was also impressive. smile
                      12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        April 30 2021 19: 37
                        +1
                        Quote: Arkon
                        To the fact that before that you spoke about the attack on the legitimate government of Libya by NATO countries. And it was about the war with them that we talked about before.

                        With NATO countries? !!!! Yes, you are joking, my dear. I've never said anything like that
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 10: 36
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    ignore the no-fly zone in terms of the flight of our aircraft to carry out combat missions.

    but you do not think that such an ignore will quite officially end with a blow to the ground
  • 2 Level Advisor
    2 Level Advisor April 30 2021 08: 44
    +3
    "Uh-huh. As in Syria. As soon as the situation became catastrophic, they immediately began to prepare the base. And before that, we had no bases or agreements with the Syrians."
    To be fair, Andrei - Tartus has existed in Syria since 1971 and I think by agreement ..
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 08: 56
      +5
      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
      To be fair, Andrei - Tartus has existed in Syria since 1971 and I think by agreement ..

      That's right, I should have made it concrete - there were no bases for the Aerospace Forces for operations like the Syrian :)
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 April 30 2021 12: 04
      +3
      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
      Tartus has existed in Syria since 1971 and I think by agreement ..

      The Tartus of those times and the current Tartus are two big differences!
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 30 2021 13: 30
        +4
        Garrison of Tartus in 1999 - 11 people. Here!
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 April 30 2021 13: 46
          +5
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Garrison of Tartus in 1999 - 11 people. Here!

          I'm generally surprised that this PMTO was saved
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 30 2021 14: 00
            +3
            I'm surprised too.
  • Niko
    Niko April 30 2021 09: 36
    +7
    [quote = Arkon] The author already has a ready-made solution - aircraft carriers are needed - and he is trying to justify it. I cannot explain similar reasoning to anything else:
    [quote]. Have you ever thought that this is generally a normal course of events for any person? A person collects information, ponders, comes to conclusions, shares not only conclusions but also the course of reasoning if it is interesting to others. What do you see bad in this? (I'm not talking about whether the author is right or not)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 09: 38
      +7
      Nuuu, here I am reproached for adjusting the parameter :))) That my primary desire is to get AV into the Navy, and for it I adjust the argumentation :)))))
      1. Niko
        Niko April 30 2021 10: 07
        +7
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Nuuu, here I am reproached for adjusting the parameter :))) That my primary desire is to get AV into the Navy, and for it I adjust the argumentation :)))))

        Well, Yes, and the desire came naturally in a dream. laughing
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 11: 17
          +6
          Quote: Niko
          And desire came naturally in a dream

          And yak zhezh differently :))))))
          Incidentally, I had a disgust for aircraft carriers since childhood. Well, a battleship is a ship, a cruiser is a ship, a submarine is also, but what is this strange idea - a floating airfield? laughing
          Then, when I began to study the history of the Navy, I realized :)))))
          1. Silhouette
            Silhouette April 30 2021 15: 33
            -2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Then, when I began to study the history of the Navy, I realized :)))))

            And if he also served on an aircraft carrier, then the disgust for him became justified for life.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 30 2021 19: 38
              +1
              Quote: Silhouette
              And if he also served on an aircraft carrier, then the disgust for him became justified for life.

              Well, if you take Kuznetsov, especially in the 90s, then it is of course.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 10: 14
        -6
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        My primary desire is to get AB into the Navy, and I adjust the argumentation for it

        So tell us how to us, why are you doing this and we will listen?
      3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 30 2021 15: 03
        -2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Nuuu, here I am reproached for adjusting the parameter :))) That my primary desire is to get AV into the Navy, and for it I adjust the argumentation :)))))

        Isn’t that so?
    2. Arkon
      Arkon April 30 2021 11: 43
      -2
      Quote: Niko
      Have you ever thought that this is generally a normal course of events for any person?


      Perhaps this is the case for a certain part of people. However, I have always believed that fitting a solution to an already formulated result is a bad practice.
      1. Niko
        Niko April 30 2021 13: 10
        +1
        Quote: Arkon
        Quote: Niko
        Have you ever thought that this is generally a normal course of events for any person?


        Perhaps this is the case for a certain part of people. However, I have always believed that fitting a solution to an already formulated result is a bad practice.

        Try reading something. For example, about cause-and-effect relationships. Or at least something. Sooner or later, volume can turn into quality.
        1. Arkon
          Arkon April 30 2021 13: 13
          -2
          Quote: Niko
          Try reading something. For example, about cause-and-effect relationships. Or at least something. Sooner or later, volume can turn into quality.


          Well, that's why you are immediately drawn to rudeness? Where is it from? Don't you want a quiet life?
          1. Niko
            Niko April 30 2021 13: 17
            +3
            Quote: Arkon
            Quote: Niko
            Try reading something. For example, about cause-and-effect relationships. Or at least something. Sooner or later, volume can turn into quality.


            Well, that's why you are immediately drawn to rudeness? Where is it from? Don't you want a quiet life?

            I have a quiet life, fortunately, above the roof. I did not want to be rude, sorry. It's just that in most cases here on VO this is a normal tone, you get used to it unfortunately.
            1. Arkon
              Arkon April 30 2021 13: 20
              +2
              Quote: Niko
              I didn't want to be rude, sorry.


              drinks
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 09: 47
    -4
    Quote: Arkon
    Strategic interests do not arise suddenly and from scratch. If we had strategic interests in Libya, we would prepare a base for their protection in advance, and if they are not there, or we did not notice them in time, then “suddenly” the aircraft carrier and start “suddenly” countering third countries in a foreign theater of operations is extremely stupid, criminally stupid idea.

    I fully support, in general, the arguments of aircraft carriers have long been known, these are either obvious traitors who want, on the advice of Churchill, "If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser" to inflict a devastating blow on the Army and the Navy
    or these are pink ponies hovering in the clouds of their dreams like the first adherent of this sect, Admiral Christmas coward and a traitor, who believed that if he was great only came, then all the Japs would scatter, and he went to the enemy ships in a marching column ... in tsushima ... and killed the sailors and officers ... So Andrey wants to "project strength", "stay and stand" .... and all "cowardly Americans will all scatter like hares", not at all, my life experience shows that if he pulled out a revolver, then how at least be ready to apply ... and do not forget to calculate the answer ... and your combat stability, and if you are not able, then do not go to the arrow ... and these members of the sect all hover in the clouds of the century before last and do not see drones , no missiles, no satellites, trying to revive gunboat diplomacy, why gunboats? because the gunboats went inside the port, they stood there, try to attack the port, and after all, AV, constrained by the draft, will not even enter the port,
    1. Scaffold
      Scaffold 2 May 2021 21: 19
      -1
      There is an unmistakable indicator of the level of development of the interlocutor in the naval area. If you called Admiral Rozhdestvensky Rozhdestvensky - everything is clear, on the way out.
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 30 2021 10: 54
    +5
    = Yes, by the way, here at Zapolskis I recently read about a change in the strategic vision of the US aircraft carrier fleet =
    Could immediately refer to Ren-TV. Zapolskis and Tolkien are brothers forever.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 April 30 2021 12: 01
    +6
    Quote: Arkon
    If we had strategic interests in Libya, we would prepare a base for their protection in advance,

    Who else would have given it to you in advance? The USSR has been courting the elder Assad for 20 years in order to get a full-fledged base with an airfield ... and only when the rooster began to peck the younger Assad on the forehead, then you are welcome to expand Tartus and Hmeimim! Nasser at one time gave both a port for a naval base and two airfields. It only ended with the killing of Nasser and posters "Russian go hom".
    Quote: Arkon
    and if they are not there, or we did not notice them in time, then “suddenly” the aircraft carrier and start “suddenly” countering third countries in a foreign theater of operations is an extremely stupid, criminally stupid idea.

    Twice the ships of the Soviet 5th OpEsk rescued Muammar Gaddafi from death ... in 1969 and 1986!
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa April 30 2021 13: 30
    +5
    By the way, here at Zapolskis I recently read about a change in the strategic vision of the US aircraft carrier fleet - the transition to drones and a radical reduction in displacement. This has already been decided by the "aircraft carrier" for itself, and we are discussing all the concepts the day before last.


    Well, firstly, this is stupidly untrue 100%, and secondly, Zapolskis is still an expert in naval issues.
    1. Arkon
      Arkon April 30 2021 18: 19
      -2
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      Well, first of all, this is stupidly not true 100%,


      What exactly "this" is "stupidly untrue" in your opinion?
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 30 2021 19: 43
        +1
        Everything is complete. And not in my opinion, but in principle.
        1. Arkon
          Arkon April 30 2021 20: 00
          -1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Everything is complete. And not in my opinion, but in principle.


          Aaaaa .... Well then you are a fake too. Basically.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 30 2021 20: 12
            +2
            Weak. Unlike Zapolskis, I READ the American conceptual documents.
            And what can he know about what they are planning there about the aircraft carriers?
            The discussion on light aircraft carriers there really went on at the suggestion of McCain, but the results were not at all the same as you wrote.
            1. Arkon
              Arkon April 30 2021 20: 19
              -1
              Well, that's already something. That is, you say that this is:
              The Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, General John Hayten, announced the beginning of the preparation of the most important document defining all military construction and modernization of the country's national security mechanism - "US Military Doctrine - 2030".

              Although the final form of the document will be submitted for the approval procedure only in November of this year, the results of the interim works that have appeared in open sources make it possible to judge its content quite fully even now.
              ......
              In the field of the navy, it is considered necessary to radically change the approach to the design and purpose of warships. In particular, the overwhelming majority of the aircraft carrier component is supposed to be transferred to unmanned strike and reconnaissance systems, ideally controlled by artificial intelligence, according to the X-wing concept - that is, combining high-speed and maneuverable jet flight with vertical takeoff and landing in the entire altitude range.

              Thus, a fundamentally different type of aircraft carrier should appear, instead of extended flight and hangar decks, which is a carrier of a large number of densely packed individual transport and launch cells for drones. Due to this, its physical size should be reduced by three times, and the number of the crew - 15 times.
              from here: https://russtrat.ru/analytics/28-aprelya-2021-0010-4010

              Is this all "not true"?
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 30 2021 20: 35
                +1
                Try to find US Military Doctrine 2030 in English. Or a mention of a document with that name.
                1. Arkon
                  Arkon April 30 2021 20: 37
                  -1
                  I repeat:
                  General John Hayten, Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces announced the start of preparation of the most important document, which determines all military construction and modernization of the mechanism for ensuring the country's national security - "US Military Doctrine - 2030".
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 30 2021 20: 46
                    +1
                    It's a lie. Hayten didn't say anything like that.
                    Repeat at least.
                    1. Arkon
                      Arkon April 30 2021 20: 54
                      0
                      This is already a clear statement. Let's check.
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 30 2021 21: 00
                      +1
                      Yes, at least check it out. The document is called Joint force 2030, it is not a "US military doctrine", it is a framework document for the development of all types of armed forces for a ten-year period, there may be such things as "artificial intelligence", "an increase in the number of unmanned and unmanned vehicles", etc. But specifics like:

                      "In particular, the overwhelming majority of the aircraft carrier component is supposed to be transferred to unmanned strike and reconnaissance systems, ideally controlled by artificial intelligence, according to the X-wing concept, that is, combining high-speed and maneuverable jet flight with vertical takeoff and landing in the entire altitude range. . "


                      in the document of the OKNSh there can be no way, this is the prerogative of the types of the Armed Forces.

                      That is, only the fleet can decide what to do with the "aircraft carrier component".
                    3. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 30 2021 21: 01
                      +1
                      And yes - google what the X-wing is laughing
                  2. Arkon
                    Arkon April 30 2021 22: 07
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    It's a lie. Hayten didn't say anything like that.


                    Is that also a lie ?:

                    MOSCOW, September 3 - RIA Novosti, Andrey Kots. To fight in a new way and forget everything that was taught before - the US Department of Defense is changing the concept of warfare. According to the deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Hayten, the main goal is to confront Russia and China in the 2030s, 2040s and beyond. The program should be prepared by the end of this year.
                  3. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 30 2021 23: 23
                    +1
                    Let's first deal with Zapolskis and your interpretations of his writings.
                    Otherwise, you can throw up questions to me endlessly.
                  4. Arkon
                    Arkon 1 May 2021 09: 12
                    -1
                    So, what are we dealing with? The above quote is a rebuttal to what you said about Zapolskis' lies regarding Hayten's claims.
                  5. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 1 May 2021 12: 46
                    +1
                    No, this is not a denial.
                    Find me Hayten's talk in English. In the US, all public speeches are published, just give a link what's the problem?
                    And Zapolskis is a professional liar, this is not the only example of how he works.
                  6. Arkon
                    Arkon 1 May 2021 16: 23
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Find me Hayten's talk in English.


                    Well, for example: "Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten recently announced a new US Department of Defense joint war-fighting concept will summarize capabilities needed for future all-domain operations and eliminate artificial lines on the battlefield used to deconflict US operations in the past. "

                    Translation: "Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hayten recently announced a new US Department of Defense Joint Warfare Concept that will summarize the capabilities needed for future operations in all areas and eliminate artificial battlefield lines used to resolve conflicts. in US operations in the past. "

                    From here: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/22/a-consensus-driven-joint-concept-for-all-domain-warfare-will-fall-short/
                  7. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 1 May 2021 20: 05
                    +1
                    Well, this is the Joint force about which I wrote. This is NOT what Zapolskis lied about.
                  8. Arkon
                    Arkon 1 May 2021 20: 50
                    0
                    Aaaaa ... Well, it's clear - you start to cling to the words. So-and-so "military doctrine" is a set of views on the conduct of hostilities. Do you think that if it is called "The Concept of Warfare", something will change in essence?
                    It's nothing.
                    The main thing is that a new concept is being prepared in the United States and that Hayten said about it.

                    There was a better opinion of you.
                    All the best.
                  9. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 1 May 2021 21: 46
                    +1
                    This is not a military doctrine.
                    This is a document on how the KNSh sees the adaptation of troops to the tasks of the thirties.
                    This document is not a military doctrine similar to ours.
                    And it does not contain what your deceitful guru Zapolskis wrote.
                    By the way, he simply despises his adherents, all his writings are written specifically in such a way that it is not easy to deceive hamsters, but to deceive them demonstratively, with truly insulting impudence.
                    Then, probably to his friends he shows and brags, "Look how I am with them, haha. But they still believe me!"

                    There was a better opinion of you.


                    Am I already starting to cry?
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su April 30 2021 18: 26
    +2
    Quote: Arkon
    Strategic interests do not arise suddenly and from scratch. If we had strategic interests in Libya, we would prepare a base for their protection in advance

    We had economic interests in Libya. If in every country in which we have economic interests, we begin to prepare bases, then the cost of aircraft carriers will seem like pampering.

    Quote: Arkon
    We must wipe off and continue to be more circumspect

    Once you wipe yourself, the second time, then you prudently stop taking risks, banned in your closet. And what are your prospects in society after that?

    Quote: Arkon
    And start preparing the next - after the current lost - battle.

    Well, one of the preparation options is the creation of aircraft carriers. Or are we going to build bases all the same? The article contains a picture of the economic presence in Africa, so calculate how much it costs to create a base in each country, taking into account the annual rent, accompanying agreements, such as soft loans and social programs.
    1. Arkon
      Arkon April 30 2021 20: 35
      0
      Quote: bot.su
      Well, one of the preparation options is the creation of aircraft carriers. Or are we going to build bases all the same? The article contains a picture of the economic presence in Africa, so calculate how much it costs to create a base in each country, taking into account the annual rent, accompanying agreements, such as soft loans and social programs.



      I did not understand the idea. Do you think that we should "cover" every economic agreement with military force? Like "to be afraid"? You have a strange idea of ​​how the economy works.

      And further. Economic interests and strategic ones are not identical. For example, Russia has no economic interests in the Kuril Islands. And in the Arctic, the main interests are by no means economic. And in Ukraine. And in the Crimea. Etc.
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su April 30 2021 22: 37
        +1
        Quote: Arkon
        I did not understand the idea. Do you think that we should "cover" every economic agreement with military force?

        They should not cover up every agreement, but should have the opportunity in every economic agreement, if it is expedient for economic, political or other reasons, to provide either forceful support to the legitimate government, or to put pressure on an unfriendly regime. This cannot be ensured by the construction of a military base in every country with which we have economic projects, which you confirm. Moreover, in many cases, especially those related to the development of mineral resources, the value of projects can change over time - reserves have been depleted or not confirmed, prices have fallen, etc. Try to guess here where you need a base, and where not, if you rely only on the economy. But the instrument of projection of force, which is the fleet, can be both supported and pressed, and it is not necessary to bring about military actions. Demonstration of the flag by a naval group capable of supporting friendly local armed forces from the air and certain forces on land, or capable of locally crushing the local air force and air defense and conducting limited ground operations is often enough to make business partners want to find a compromise.
        1. Arkon
          Arkon April 30 2021 22: 47
          0
          Quote: bot.su
          They should not cover up every agreement, but should have the opportunity in every economic agreement, if it is expedient for economic, political or other reasons, to provide either forceful support to the legitimate government, or to put pressure on an unfriendly regime.


          Well, the Czech Republic is unfriendly to us. And Lithuania. How will we "exert pressure"?
          1. nerd.su
            nerd.su April 30 2021 23: 04
            0
            Quote: Arkon
            Well, the Czech Republic is unfriendly to us. And Lithuania. How will we "exert pressure"?

            Symmetrical at first. Then you can close the embassies, leave the consuls a little bit and goodbye.
            And if the situation requires a force option, then the aircraft carriers or their absence is not critical. All the power of the Armed Forces is at our service! Another announcement of mobilization and the evacuation of large cities to begin. Let's see who has stronger cores and larger caliber. laughing But, I hope, everything will be limited to diplomats. Well, with certain economic losses, Rosatom flies by. However, in this case, the presence or absence of aircraft carriers does not matter. Look at Africa, South America, or Southeast Asia. They need aircraft carriers and UDC.
            1. Arkon
              Arkon 1 May 2021 09: 35
              +1
              Quote: bot.su
              Symmetrical at first. Then you can close the embassies, leave the consuls a little bit and goodbye.
              And if the situation requires a force option, then the aircraft carriers or their absence is not critical. All the power of the Armed Forces is at our service!


              Here I am about it. "If the situation calls for it." If the situation begins to require the intervention of the Armed Forces, then several unique factors must come together:
              1. All other rich set of stimuli should not work
              2. The point of intervention should be of strategic importance for Russia (because the use of the armed forces outside the borders of the state is always a global strategy)
              3. At the point of impact, direct military confrontation with the superpowers (USA, China) must be ruled out.
              4. The result of the use of the Armed Forces should be achieved with small forces (a repetition of Afghanistan or an operation like "Desert Storm" is not for us).
              5. The result should have an extremely high probability of achieving in a short time (up to 1 year)
              6. The result should have an economic benefit for Russia, that is, outweigh the costs of the very fact of using the aircraft
              7. And for an aircraft carrier, it should also be a coastal area (because if not coastal, then you need to add a few more limiting points).

              Now, if everything is knocked out, then the points on Earth where the use of an aircraft carrier connection may be required becomes vanishingly small.
              The game just isn't worth the trouble.
              1. nerd.su
                nerd.su 1 May 2021 14: 27
                0
                Quote: Arkon
                2. The point of intervention should be of strategic importance for Russia (because the use of the armed forces outside the borders of the state is always a global strategy)

                The sooner you realize that money is the main reason for war, the faster you realize modern global causes. Now we have no obvious rivals with ideological differences, so everything is about money and the possibility of earning it further.
                Quote: Arkon
                At the point of impact, direct military confrontation with superpowers (USA, China) should be excluded

                Considering that the main cause of conflicts in the absence of ideology is money (economy), at the points of influence we will always have a confrontation with the superpowers, while with the United States and Europe. In general, this reason is the absence of confrontation with the United States, the opponents of the aircraft carriers introduce artificially, precisely in order to substantiate that we do not need aircraft carriers, because the Americans have more of them. But the number of points of sharp confrontation is simultaneously limited. And we don't need as many aircraft carriers and UDCs as the Americans do. The Americans do not dare to strike at our AUG, as we do to them. Therefore, they will not push five of their aircraft carriers against one of ours, because it turns out that five of them cannot hold back one Russian. Therefore, our ships will fulfill their task.
                Quote: Arkon
                5. The result should have an extremely high probability of achieving in a short time (up to 1 year)

                it is unlikely that the Americans will never let us finish so quickly anywhere.
                Quote: Arkon
                Now, if everything is knocked out, then the points on Earth where the use of an aircraft carrier connection may be required becomes vanishingly small.

                The length of the coastline around the world is 356000 km. Well, just a vanishingly small value!
                Quote: Arkon
                The game is just not worth the candle

                Look to the future more optimistically.
                1. Arkon
                  Arkon 1 May 2021 16: 31
                  0
                  Quote: bot.su
                  The sooner you realize that money is the main reason for war, the faster you realize modern global causes. Now we have no obvious rivals with ideological differences, so everything is about money and the possibility of earning it further.


                  The sooner you realize that it is extremely shortsighted to take a mentoring position in a conversation with a stranger, if not to say "stupid", the faster you will be able to correctly assess the world around you. wink
                  1. nerd.su
                    nerd.su 1 May 2021 18: 14
                    +1
                    Quote: Arkon
                    the faster you can correctly assess the world around you

                    Amen!

                    It did not even occur to me to teach an adult, if my words look like this from the outside, then the form of expression of thought was chosen by me incorrectly. But in essence I do not refuse my words.
                    1. Arkon
                      Arkon 1 May 2021 19: 23
                      0
                      It's nice to talk to an adult. smile Correct dialogue is now rare.
                      If it's about money, then it has never been the main thing. The main thing is always development. Spatial, material, mental, volitional (control and management). We are constantly brought back to "money" because they want to distract us from much more important topics.
                    2. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 2 May 2021 13: 02
                      +1
                      Quote: Arkon
                      If it's about money, then it has never been the main thing. The main thing is always development. Spatial, material, mental, volitional (control and management)

                      I, in principle, about the same, but simplified, according to the people. After all, money can to some extent measure the results of development. If monetary incomes increase and the opportunities to receive these incomes persist and, even more so, expand, then there is development. If on the contrary, then either there is no development, or degradation is taking place.
                      Quote: Arkon
                      We are constantly brought back to "money" because they want to distract us from much more important topics.

                      For example?
                    3. Arkon
                      Arkon 2 May 2021 16: 26
                      0
                      Quote: bot.su
                      For example?


                      So I have partially listed them. Both states (peoples) and people live for the realization of certain goals. These goals differ for both states and individuals. And the achievement of these goals, or even the path to them, gives us a feeling of happiness.
                      Your salary can grow and happiness diminish. So it is with the peoples. Nations are also unhappy if they understand that they are not moving along their own path. And the peoples are seized with inspiration when the goals set by the head of state coincide with some kind of internal compass. And the level of GDP has nothing to do with it.

                      This fulfillment of the ideological mission is the most important thing. But they don't talk about this, right? And if someone mentions where, then he will immediately be recorded in the "dreamers". Well, like me here, for example. wink
                    4. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 2 May 2021 22: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Arkon
                      This fulfillment of the ideological mission is the most important thing.

                      And what is the ideological mission of the people of Russia in your opinion?

                      Quote: Arkon
                      But they don't talk about this, right?

                      Maybe because they don't know?

                      Quote: Arkon
                      And if someone mentions where, then he will immediately be recorded in the "dreamers". Well, like me here, for example.

                      I would write you as an idealist, not a dreamer.
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su April 30 2021 22: 54
    +1
    Quote: Arkon
    And further. Economic interests and strategic ones are not identical. For example, Russia has no economic interests in the Kuril Islands. And in the Arctic, the main interests are by no means economic. And in Ukraine. And in Crimea

    On the one hand, yes, I agree. On the other hand, capitalism is always about money in the end. Yes, the Kuril Islands are important to us so that the Pacific Fleet can go out to the Pacific Ocean itself all year round. However, it depends on whose islands are where the borders of the territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone pass. The Arctic is extremely important because here the Americans and I will exchange the largest tonnage of our nuclear potentials. Therefore, it is important to control the northern sea route, so that NATO surface missile carriers and combat aircraft do not roam there, and the underwater space, so that enemy submarines are less naughty and that the adversary does not lay all kinds of cables with reconnaissance systems. To do all this legally, it is best to move the border of the exclusive economic zone further away. But after all, the mineral and biological resources that we will get in this zone are a very pleasant bonus! And so everywhere - capitalism is money and nothing more!
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette April 30 2021 08: 09
    -1
    Disappointed with Andrey's article. The first part of the article is a weak abstract overview of the national interests of Russia and the maritime strategy arising from them. Narrow, scanty, indistinct. It is clear that the author does not understand anything. Understanding the situation and the causes of events in Libya at the school level. Not a word about the previous "Arab spring" of the former USSR allies in Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, where our warships freely went to rest and replenishment of food and water supplies, not a word about the role of France and British special forces in the armed rebellion against Gaddafi. I even forgot about the no-fly zone. Further, the author tries to talk about protecting Russia's interests in the World Ocean, but getting confused in the reasoning, makes an unexpected conclusion: "All of the above is not a justification for the need for aircraft carriers as part of the Russian Navy." We have arrived .... Why then to fence the garden? ... I cannot clearly substantiate it, but I really want to. Either aircraft carriers or pressed caviar.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 08: 18
      +4
      Judging by the abundance
      Quote: Silhouette
      Narrow, scanty, indistinct. It is clear that the author does not understand anything.

      With a complete absence of argumentation, this is the very situation when one would like to object to the theses of the article, but, disgusting, it does not work out. Is not it?:)
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 30 2021 08: 25
        -3
        Not this way. You have no theses. There are contradictory and confused discussions on free topics of national interests, the situation in Libya and around Iran. And a conclusion that makes further discussion about the need for aircraft carriers for Russia meaningless. Klimov stumbled over the problem of basing aircraft carriers and shut up, while you could immediately dwell on the topic of national interests for which aircraft carriers are needed. But we went further, leaving them out of parentheses. And it turns out: there are no national interests, but aircraft carriers are still needed! That is, turn the problem upside down. But then we will come to the conclusion that it is not national interests that give rise to aircraft carriers, but aircraft carriers give rise to national interests. There will be aircraft carriers - we will come up with national interests to justify their use.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 08: 54
          +7
          Quote: Silhouette
          Not this way. You have no theses.

          That's right, since the theses cannot be challenged, it is necessary to declare that they do not exist. Very polemical :))))
          in fact, there are more than enough theses, and they are formulated more than clearly:
          1) The regulations of the Russian Federation establish that the ocean fleet is needed, but the tasks for it have not been formulated;
          2) Since the dispute about the ocean-going fleet rests on the tasks that this fleet must solve, and they have not been formulated, it makes no sense to justify the need for AV by the tasks of the ocean-going fleet. Not because the ocean-going fleet is not needed, but because the discussion will come to a standstill;
          3) Accordingly, the usefulness of aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy should be justified by the tasks of strategic deterrence at the global level and repelling aggression from sea areas, which I was going to do in further articles
          And then, already outside the framework of the aircraft carrier discussion, I expressed my point of view on the role of aircraft carriers in the Russian oceanic fleet, describing their tasks as I see them. They boil down to:
          1) Preventing Libyan-style coups in countries where we are interested in this
          2) Conducting police operations, a la American "Praying Mantis" against individual countries
          Objections on the merits?
          1. Silhouette
            Silhouette April 30 2021 09: 49
            -4
            Do you want objections? I have them.
            First, about the theses.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            1) The regulations of the Russian Federation establish that the ocean fleet is needed, but the tasks for it have not been formulated;

            If there are no tasks, then there is nothing to solve. This is logic. It is necessary to proceed from it. The proclamation of the need for an ocean-going fleet is already a policy (for domestic consumption in the main. To satisfy the pride of those who serve and served, as well as the illusion of amateurs that "we still can"). In the absence of clearly formulated tasks for the ocean-going fleet, an endless field for aircraft carrier fantasies opens up, as evidenced by the discussion unfolding in the AO.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            2) Since the dispute about the ocean-going fleet rests on the tasks that this fleet must solve, and they have not been formulated, it makes no sense to justify the need for AV by the tasks of the ocean-going fleet. Not because the ocean-going fleet is not needed, but because the discussion will come to a standstill;

            Here I completely agree with you. I just want to clarify that in the absence of formulated tasks, the discussion about the need for aircraft carriers is simply meaningless. Therefore, only stubborn supporters of aircraft carriers who are trying to prove their necessity based on mythical national interests run into a dead end. In general, I do not like the wording "national interests". I prefer "state interests" because it is not clear what nationality of Russia interests are in question. The opponents of aircraft carriers are based on a simple logical thesis: "no interests, no missions, no aircraft carriers."
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            3) Accordingly, the usefulness of aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy should be justified by the tasks of strategic deterrence at the global level and repulsing aggression from sea areas,

            The train of your thought is clear to me. Since national interests outside the borders of Russia are no longer needed (why then all these discussions about Libya and Iran ?!), let's grab the "tasks of strategic deterrence at the global level" ......
            Andrei, who are you going to restrain at the global level? .... Isn't it the USA? How interesting? I ask for more details here. I would like to note that the very term "containment" was invented by US analysts, which means weakening of influence and they apply it mainly to Russia.
            Deterring the US globally with one aircraft carrier is ridiculous, but with 10 it is ruinous. The USSR could not afford this either, and Russia - even more so. With a bare ass, globalizing at a strategic level is not even funny. Here in Sevastopol, on Dekabristov Street, they decided to carry out the sewage system recently - yes! And then the cesspools have been used to this day.
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette April 30 2021 09: 54
              -6
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And then, already outside the framework of the aircraft carrier discussion, I expressed my point of view on the role of aircraft carriers in the Russian oceanic fleet, describing their tasks as I see them. They boil down to:
              1) Preventing Libyan-style coups in countries where we are interested in this
              2) Conducting police operations, a la American "Praying Mantis" against individual countries

              Here I just do not want to discuss your fantasies. Fantasy is not a topic for discussion or discussion. Sorry.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                April 30 2021 10: 19
                +8
                Quote: Silhouette
                Here I just do not want to discuss your fantasies.

                If you do not want to - do not discuss. It is your right. Only now there is a difference between "no theses", as you wrote it to me, and "there are theses, but I do not want to discuss them"
                1. Silhouette
                  Silhouette April 30 2021 10: 32
                  -6
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Only now there is a difference between "no theses", as you wrote it to me, and "there are theses, but I do not want to discuss them"

                  On your theses, I have presented my objections. Fantasies and theses are not the same thing. It is pointless to discuss fantasies.
                  The same applies to the picture illustrating the alleged economic interests of Russia in Africa, which you thoughtlessly ripped off from Timokhin. Who is the author of this picture? A PR service of one of the companies that confuses its wool with the state?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    April 30 2021 11: 14
                    +7
                    Quote: Silhouette
                    On your theses, I have presented my objections. Fantasies and theses are not the same thing. It is pointless to discuss fantasies.

                    What did you write to me about
                    Quote: Silhouette
                    you should not use words whose meaning is not clear to you.

                    A thesis is a statement that summarizes one of the main thoughts, in this case, an article. Thus, theses can easily be present even in an article devoted to, say, Tolkien's fantasy. They are also present in the part of my article that you think is fantastic.
                    I repeat, if you don’t want to discuss my theses, you don’t need to. But you shouldn't write that I don't have them.
                  2. nerd.su
                    nerd.su April 30 2021 12: 20
                    +1
                    Quote: Silhouette
                    A PR service of one of the companies that confuses its wool with the state?

                    We have capitalism, so no company confuses its own wool with the state one.
                    (if anything, I do not consider it fair, but this is the reality given to us in sensations). The state interests of Russia in these conditions are inextricably linked with the interests of these companies. Why else do they pay taxes?
                    1. Silhouette
                      Silhouette April 30 2021 12: 46
                      0
                      I am not sure if the interests of any private corporation are related to public interests. With 51% state participation - probably - yes. The fact that in Syria we are not letting Qatari gas through its territory to Europe - yes, we are acting in the interests of Gazprom. In other cases, you need to figure it out.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 30 2021 10: 14
              +7
              Quote: Silhouette
              Do you want objections? I have them.

              Well, let's watch your objections
              Quote: Silhouette
              If there are no tasks, then there is nothing to solve. This is logic. It is necessary to proceed from it.

              Not "no tasks", but "tasks are not spelled out in the normative documents." I am absolutely sure that you have a head on your shoulders, but the regulatory documents of the Russian Federation do not say anything about this. So what, would you like to consider you headless? :))))
              Quote: Silhouette
              I just want to clarify that in the absence of formulated tasks, the discussion about the need for aircraft carriers is simply meaningless.

              By itself. Here is a consensus
              Quote: Silhouette
              The train of your thought is clear to me. Since national interests outside the borders of Russia are no longer needed (why then all these discussions about Libya and Iran ?!), let's grab the "tasks of strategic deterrence at the global level" ......

              Forgive me, but I'm not going to drag anyone anywhere. The Russian Navy is clearly assigned 3 tasks:
              1) Protection of national interests in the World Ocean;
              2) Maintaining military-political stability at the global and regional levels
              3) Reflection of aggression from sea and ocean directions.
              I'm talking about the fact that justifying the need for AB with the first task will not work, due to the uncertainty of these very interests. But there are other 2 much more clearly formulated tasks, and within the framework of their implementation, I am going to justify the need for AB in subsequent articles.
              Quote: Silhouette
              Andrei, who are you going to restrain at the global level? .... Isn't it the USA? How interesting? I ask for more details here.

              Actually, I was going to write about this in the following articles, which is stated directly
              In my opinion, the need for the presence of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy stems from the need to solve completely different tasks: maintaining military-political stability at the global level and repelling aggression from oceanic areas. But in order to understand how true this is my assumption, it is necessary to concretize the threats that our Navy must fend off.

              More about this in the next article.

              Quote: Silhouette
              Deterring the US globally with one aircraft carrier is ridiculous, but with 10 it is ruinous

              in fact, the Libyan example shows that even ONE aircraft carrier can have a deterrent effect in local conflicts. So no, not funny.
              But in terms of global containment, of course, we will talk about something completely different.
              1. Silhouette
                Silhouette April 30 2021 10: 42
                -3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Not "no tasks", but "tasks are not spelled out in the normative documents." I am absolutely sure that you have a head on your shoulders, but the regulatory documents of the Russian Federation do not say anything about this. So what, would you like to consider you headless? :))))

                You first need to figure out what "normative documents" are, and then use this concept in your messages. you should not use words whose meaning is not clear to you. Otherwise, the conversation goes on in different languages. An example with a head on his shoulders and a normative document is inappropriate, because it replaces the concept of an obvious fact (a head in this case) with an unobvious subjective interpretation of a certain normative document in relation to the topic of discussion (national interests).
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 30 2021 10: 56
                  +8
                  Quote: Silhouette
                  First you need to figure out what "regulatory documents" are.

                  You should finally move on to the substantive objections. And so, for reference, the concept of "normative document" also includes "normative legal acts", which, among other things, are presidential decrees. And by no means only on the Federal Law on standardization, as you seem to think.
                  Quote: Silhouette
                  you should not use words whose meaning is not clear to you. Otherwise, the conversation goes on in different languages.

                  Only your desire to teach me life is inappropriate here. Better help financially :))))))))
                  Quote: Silhouette
                  An example with a head on your shoulders and a regulatory document is inappropriate, because it replaces the concept of an obvious fact (head in this case) with an unobvious subjective interpretation of a certain regulatory document

                  You start with a concept like "logic". My logical chain is not in the "non-obvious subjective interpretation", but in the fact that there is a huge amount of things in the world that are not taken into account in regulatory documents. Your reasoning "since this is not in the presidential decrees, then this does not exist in nature", which you applied in relation to the tasks of the ocean fleet is false and illogical, and an example with a head is an excellent illustration of this
              2. Silhouette
                Silhouette April 30 2021 10: 55
                -2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But there are other 2 much more clearly formulated tasks, and within the framework of their implementation, I am going to justify the need for AB in subsequent articles.

                I do not advise.
                Maintaining military-political stability at the global and regional levels with the help of aircraft carriers will ruin a country like the Star Wars program, into which the United States tried to draw us in in the 80s.
                On the second task, "repelling aggression from oceanic directions" - if you start digging deeply, then you will quickly run up against its insolubility by aircraft carriers or aircraft carrier formations both in peacetime (prevention) and in wartime (destruction) time. Not a single US aircraft carrier will prevent our SSBNs from being discharged. Likewise, ours will be powerless against NATO missile nuclear submarines.
                Maybe you will understand that no one is going to attack us exclusively from sea directions while we have a nuclear club in our hands.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  April 30 2021 10: 57
                  +4
                  Quote: Silhouette
                  I do not advise.

                  Thanks for the advice, but I won't use it.
                2. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 30 2021 14: 10
                  +3
                  Maybe you will understand that no one is going to attack us exclusively from sea directions while we have a nuclear club in our hands.


                  Here is this yaponimayu - a naval officer wrote! You were not told anything about the use of SSBNs in the first strike, right?
                  1. Silhouette
                    Silhouette April 30 2021 15: 01
                    -2
                    You missed the word "exclusively".
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa April 30 2021 19: 43
                      +1
                      No, I didn't. The fact is that although the nuclear attack as a whole is certainly not carried out EXCLUSIVELY from the sea, the first strike on the command post, the decision-maker and the Strategic Missile Forces positions is almost completely carried out by the SSBN. But then "not exclusively" begins.
                      1. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 30 2021 21: 01
                        -4
                        what by the way ... and I have an idea here ... why not do everything gradually? first start building UDCs, then build anti-submarine cruisers on their base, which by the way is very simple to do, and then after filling your hand you can build aircraft carriers ... even more so that the conditional 11780 with a displacement of 25 thousand tons was supposed to carry 12 helicopters in the amphibious version, and already 25 in the anti-submarine one .. Place there anti-aircraft defense from 4 shells, bomb throwers, 4 packages-NK, 100 mm guns and for every fireman 16 UVP and voila ... we have a ship that Russia can build after mastering the UDC, which will be able to carry out anti-submarine functions, AWACS functions and be the headquarters ..
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 30 2021 21: 03
                        +2
                        And what is an anti-submarine cruiser today?

                        It is necessary to go from tasks. Supremacy at sea and in the air, then landing.
                        On the contrary, it is impossible.
                      3. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 30 2021 21: 12
                        -2
                        and what tasks? to provide the PLO connection with information security ... if we say those UDCs that are being built will have, if not 40 thousand, but at least 30, then this will allow not only the list of weapons to be added, but also to place, say, 18-20 ka-27PL, 4 ka-32 and 6 shock ka-52, just like that, for every firefighter ... the Ka-27PL has a radius of 200 km, which means that protection from boats will be provided within a radius of 200 km ... and even more with Murena ... It's just that it is expensive, difficult and time-consuming to build aircraft carriers, but to make UDC a la "anti-submarine cruiser" much easier .. you can even not put verticals on it, they will be on other ships and you can only do with a package, bomb throwers, shells and a 100 mm rapid-fire arrow ... and yes .. if you cannot understand what needs to be done to solve problems, then you need an approach to style that CAN be done ... In fact, the same Karakurt appeared on this principle ...
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa April 30 2021 21: 14
                        +3
                        I do not object to the use of the UDC in this capacity, just first it will be necessary to destroy the enemy's surface forces and close the sky for his aviation.
                      5. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 30 2021 21: 18
                        -4
                        everything has its time, but the aircraft carrier in fact will in any case carry a maximum of 12-16 helicopters, and the rest is UAVs and fighters + AWACS ... that is. the possibilities for anti-submarine functions are dubious ... and personally I believe that if you find a sensible leader and allocate the necessary funds, then Russia will be able to produce similar UDC / PLO cruisers as the Americans bake the Wasps for 5 years on a ship .. laughing in general, you can promote the idea .. If the topic burns out, then I agree to a medal soldier
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 April 30 2021 14: 13
      +2
      Quote: Silhouette
      in Sevastopol, on Dekabristov Street, they decided to carry out the sewage system recently - yes! And then the cesspools have been used to this day.

      There, from time immemorial, they used a direct drain until they began to build up the beam. Those. residents of st. Until recently, the Decembrists did not have "national" interests in the central sewerage system, but times have changed and residents are faced with a fact!
      Quote: Silhouette
      The train of your thought is clear to me. Since national interests outside the borders of Russia are no longer needed (why then all these discussions about Libya and Iran ?!), let's grab the "tasks of strategic deterrence at the global level" ......

      laughing You and Andrey are spinning around one and also with the desire to be the first to mount the white horse!
      National or State, without a difference, will disappear when Russia shrinks to the limits of the near Moscow region! Occupying territory in one part of the world, Russia will always have interests in the near and far abroad! The fleet, including aircraft carriers, is a power mechanism to support the interests of the state, and it has always been! And it's not like some kind of military, without force support diplomacy has scanty successes!
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 30 2021 15: 46
        -2
        Quote: Serg65
        There, from time immemorial, they used a direct drain

        Technology in the hands of a savage is a piece of iron. Users of cesspools, or chums, getting on an aircraft carrier, begin to twist the lighting shades and light bulbs in the ship's corridors. And pitch darkness falls. And you there can easily be robbed and undressed or taken hostage. You haven’t heard of the checkpoints at Kuznetsov?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 19: 40
          +1
          Quote: Silhouette
          Technology in the hands of a savage is a piece of iron. Users of cesspools, or plagues, getting on an aircraft carrier

          Ummm, have you ever been to American ghetto areas?
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 3 May 2021 08: 05
          +2
          Quote: Silhouette
          You haven’t heard of the checkpoints at Kuznetsovo?

          Not only heard but also saw that rabble, which for some reason was called the crew! But "Kuznetsov" still reached Severomorsk!
          Quote: Silhouette
          Users of cesspools, or chums, getting on an aircraft carrier, begin to twist the shades of lighting and bulbs in the corridors of the ship.

          Uh, my friend, on the very first day of Bogdashin's "Moscow" uniform trousers were stolen from the cabin! And two weeks later, the cruiser began to get out in the honors!
          Quote: Silhouette
          And you there can easily be robbed and undressed or taken hostage.

          This is how you behave! I have never been a hostage and always found a common language with the sailors ... sometimes with a carrot, and sometimes with a whip! But no, they took me hostage ... two girlfriends in the Ocean !!! wassat laughing
          1. Silhouette
            Silhouette 3 May 2021 08: 13
            +1
            You understand me, colleague!
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 10: 01
    -3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Preventing Libyan-style coups in countries where we are interested in this
    2) Conducting police operations, a la American "Praying Mantis" against individual countries
    Objections on the merits?

    who is "we are interested"? oligarchs? sailors? housewives? pensioners? and how do you understand, in the light of international law, interests outside their borders? and why on earth are we going to carry out POLICE operations like a praying mantis AGAINST individual countries .... we are the world's gendarme? and why are we AGAINST? we are for world peace, we do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries ... did you know? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKtN-qOMDLo
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 10: 23
    -5
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Since the dispute about the ocean-going fleet rests on the tasks that this fleet must solve, and they have not been formulated, it makes no sense to justify the need for AV by the tasks of the ocean-going fleet. Not because the ocean-going fleet is not needed, but because the discussion will come to a standstill;

    read it again, ... thanks for the truth, there are no problems .... well, finally! Q.E.D! but it turns out that since there are no tasks for AV, we will not discuss (so as not to inflict moral trauma on the broken-to-dust sect of avanarnikov) and therefore, in order not to go to a dead end, but we will close our eyes to the absence of tasks for AV ... otherwise dead end.
  • vvvjak
    vvvjak April 30 2021 08: 42
    +6
    And I liked the article. First of all, it is specific examples of the possible use of the RF AV and the absence of non-constructive criticism of the position of the AV opponents (simply "sracha"). I will wait for the continuation.
  • 2 Level Advisor
    2 Level Advisor April 30 2021 08: 56
    -5
    From the article I realized that, in the author's opinion, we need aircraft carriers to interfere with the United States and NATO around the world, they were going to bomb someone, and then our Avik and they were just like that ... okay) .. cited the author of an example - Libya .. well, let's think .. all NATO is against Gaddaffe and we are with the aircraft carrier for him .. on whose side will the force be? and .. they are under a UN mandate, but we are like scared and will not bomb? In real life, in such a situation, AV simply will not be sent there, so that it does not work out, that he came and watched how everyone was bombed and left, and they will do the right thing .. to climb into conflict with the whole world because of some "Somalia"? exactly what we need and can do? I do not understand such a task - they constantly climb into conflicts with half the world .. The USSR understood it would be to support socialism, the Russian Federation does not understand the meaning of this ..
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 09: 15
      +6
      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
      From the article I realized that, according to the author, we need aircraft carriers to interfere with the United States and NATO around the world, they were going to bomb someone, and then immediately our Avik

      Nikolay, re-read the article, please. It seems to be written in Russian in white
      To begin with, it is fundamentally wrong to extinguish any fire with our aircrafts. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, excuse me, are not a world gendarme and not "a plug in every barrel." They are an extreme measure that should be used only when the country's interests are truly commensurate with the threat to the lives of our servicemen. And considerable financial expenses for the military operation.

      Not mastered?
      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
      cited the author of the example, Libya .. well, let's think .. all NATO is against Gaddaffe and we are with the aircraft carrier for him .. on whose side will the force be? and .. they are under a UN mandate, but we are like scared and will not bomb?

      Forgive me, who are you arguing with now? With an article? It says so clearly
      Are the US and NATO planes successfully "zeroing" the military potential of M. Gaddafi? Well, our carrier-based aircraft could significantly reduce the potential of the Libyan rebels ... ... Such use of an aircraft carrier multipurpose group led the situation in Libya to a strategic dead end, when neither M. Gaddafi nor the rebels would have sufficient forces for a decisive victory over the enemy. But then an interesting question arises - would the Americans have decided on their "Odyssey Dawn" if our AMG with a modern aircraft carrier was located off the coast of Libya? The United States and Europe sought to overthrow the regime of M. Gaddafi, yes. And, of course, they could well achieve this, even taking into account the impact of our AMG. But for this they would have to get their hands dirty themselves - to transfer their own large military contingents to Libya to conduct a large-scale ground operation.
      Technically, of course, the United States is capable of doing other things. But it is very possible that such measures would be considered an excessive price to pay for the dubious pleasure of seeing the death throes of Muammar Gaddafi.

      What exactly is not clear to you in this fragment of the article? :)))) Where is there even a word about the fact that the United States "will, like, be afraid of us"?
      In general, do a favor - if you really undertake to argue, so argue with the theses that the author puts forward, and not with the theses with which you are comfortable to argue :)))
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor April 30 2021 11: 31
        -4
        Okay, I'll try to reveal the idea more broadly .. smile
        well, let not any fire in the world, I exaggerate, I mean the essence of "extinguishing" .. I just said about Libya, because you cited her as an example, Andrey .. let it be specifically about Odyssey Dawn ..
        You say: "Would the Americans have dared to launch their Odyssey Dawn if our AMG with a modern aircraft carrier were located off the coast of Libya?"
        And why should they not decide then? The no-fly zone is declared, they do not attack the Russian Federation, they have a UN mandate .. We are not attacked by the forces of the international coalition, but we are attacking them at the same time or what? Or, accordingly, violating the no-fly zone, they "accidentally knock down" our guys with full legal basis for the international community .. and then what are we? we will start a war with countries acting under a UN mandate - i.e. let's go against the UN i.e. almost against the whole world for the sake of some kind of "Somalia, Budunstan, etc."?
        Even the striped outlaws first received a UN mandate, a coalition gathered and only then began the operation .. and no one in the world will take our side if we stupidly substitute our planes in the no-fly zone - even the USSR with its power did not do that - never did the USSR Armed Forces entered the battle after WW2, although there was enough where to expose their own Armed Forces .. and the same minke whales and others like them, for example, in Syria, when we declared a no-fly zone, they did not violate it ..
        And most likely it would be, as I wrote - "In real life, in such a situation, AV simply will not be sent there, so that it does not work out, that he came and looked how everyone was bombed and left, and they will do the right thing .."
        otherwise, you can be liquidly disgraced - by sailing and doing nothing ..
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 11: 39
          +4
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          And why should they not decide then?

          Because the task of overthrowing Gaddafi in this case was not solved. Just because they could have bombed Gaddafi into the stone age, and we could have done the same with the opposition
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          And why should they not decide then? A no-fly zone has been declared - they do not attack the Russian Federation, they have a UN mandate ..

          You forgot one simple thing :)))
          The drafters of the Charter of the United Nations considered that the five countries - China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) [which the Russian Federation became the legal successor in 1991], the United Kingdom and the United States - will, by virtue of their key role in the creation of the United Nations, continue to play an important role in the maintenance of international peace and security.
          They were granted the special status of permanent members of the Security Council, as well as a special right to vote, known as the “veto power”. If one of the permanent members votes against, the draft resolution being voted on is not adopted..

          In 2011, the Russian Federation abstained. But if she spoke out "against", there would be no no-fly zone by the decision of the UN Security Council. Well, we could ignore local decisions of the same USA
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 10 June 2021 20: 27
            0
            Well, let's take it as an axiom that it is 2011, we have AUG in the Mediterranean, and our AUG is identical (in terms of its capabilities) to the US AUG. Why would our UN representative block the US desire to attack Libya? how will we (RF) benefit from our choice?
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 10: 09
      -2
      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
      and .. they are under a UN mandate, but we are like scared and will not bomb? In real life, in such a situation, AV simply will not be sent there, so that it does not work out, that he came and watched how everyone was bombed and left, and they will do the right thing .. to climb into conflict with the whole world because of some "Somalia"? exactly what we need and can do? I do not understand such a task - they constantly climb into conflicts with half the world .. The USSR understood it would be to support socialism, the Russian Federation does not understand the meaning of this ..

      I fully support everything to the point, this is exactly how Andrey from Ch thinks, and it was you who brought him out into the open ... "come to stand, and everyone will scatter" "project force" all aircraft carriers reason this way and this is their cliché
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 09: 05
    -1
    the long-awaited answer turned out to be nothing ... (WE SUPPOSE that we need to protect ANY friendly regime) everything you have "seems" "as if", "imagine" "suppose" fictional incredible situations of fantasy ... we must speak clearly, a typical spherical horse in a vacuum , and the logic is weak, well, you bring your rusty Kuzya to Libya, and the Americans bring their Ford or three .... so what? you will hang out in the raid, and the Americans will start bombing and you will go to Kuza in your own way under the hooting of all of Europe .... and what kind of friendly regimes are these? Let me remind you of the quotes of the great peacemaker tsar, respected and loved by me, “All the Balkans are not worth the life of one Russian soldier.” - Alexander III

    “We have only two reliable friends: the Russian army and the Russian fleet!” - Alexander III
    and now you want to sacrifice a real friend to fictitious "friends", namely the army and the navy, because the construction of an aircraft carrier is a blow to the army and navy by stopping funding for them

    Source: https://ru.citaty.net/avtory/aleksandr-iii/

    so who are these friends? Andrei from Ch writes about Libya ... Is Gaddafi our friend? the one who mocked our planes and didn't buy them? but when it felt like it, intervene Russia came to the slaughter,

    When we have trouble above our heads
    That we are glad to pray
    Who decides to intervene for us;
    But only off the shoulders trouble down
    That to the deliverer from us is often bad:
    Everybody on the run appreciates him
    And if it’s not our fault,
    So this is a miracle!

    an example of Bender's Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Bulgaria which we saved from genocide or fascism, and they hate us for it
    What are you noisy about, folk-like?
    Why anathema threaten you Russia?
    What angered you? unrest in Lithuania?
    Leave: this is a dispute between the Slavs,
    Home, old dispute, weighted by fate,
    A question that you will not solve.

    For a long time among themselves
    These tribes are at war;
    More than once bowed under a thunderstorm
    Theirs, then our side.
    Who will stand in an unequal dispute:
    Puffy Lyakh, il true Ross?
    Will Slavic streams merge in the Russian sea?
    Will it run dry? here is the question.

    Leave us: you have not read
    These bloody tablets;
    It’s incomprehensible to you, alien to you
    This is a family feud;
    The Kremlin and Prague are silent for you;
    Pointlessly seduces you
    Fights of desperate courage -
    And you hate us ...

    339
    For what? answer: for whether
    What is on the ruins of flaming Moscow
    We did not recognize the brazen will
    Who were you trembling under?
    For the fact that they plunged into the abyss
    We are idol over kingdoms
    And redeemed with our blood
    Europe, freedom, honor and peace? ..

    You are formidable in words - try it in practice!
    Or the old hero, deceased on his bed,
    Unable to screw up your Izmail bayonet?
    Is the Russian tsar already powerless to speak?
    Or should we argue with Europe new?
    Il Russian weaned from victories?
    Or a little of us? Or from Perm to Tauris,
    From the Finnish cold rocks to the flaming Colchis,
    From the shocked Kremlin
    To the walls of immobile China,
    Shiny bristles,
    Will not the Russian land rise? ..
    So send us to us, Vitia,
    His angry sons:
    There is a place for them in the fields of Russia,
    Among the coffins that are not theirs.






    an old friend is better than two new ones, which is why we have Crimea and what about Assad in Syria? because there were our bases on a PERMANENT basis, and that friend (Syria) who resorted to and to Stalin with a request for help, and for more than half a century was faithful, did not betray, he is worthy of our support, and therefore Assad was not shot and killed like Gaddafi, or Hussein. ... and if we have love with interest, then we have a rookery there (in the form of a ground air base), and if this "friend" did not even give us a base, then a fake friend = radish = a bad person, ... will betray at the first opportunity.
  • Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock April 30 2021 09: 20
    +3
    As for the Navy, it seems to me that the whole problem is in the wrong concept of the development of the fleet in the late 70s and early 80s. If the leadership of the fleet did not begin to build many different projects, but focused on the analogues of Arleigh berk or Ticonderoga, now we would have ships with great firepower, of course they would have to be modernized, but we would have had a large number of them.

    Of course, this situation was not only in the Navy, in the same ground forces with tanks a similar situation, instead of creating a completely new tank according to a new concept, we modernized the existing ones, the same T-64, T-72, T-80, according to the concept is the same T-62 tank. In the United States, they began to build a new Abrams tank, rather than modernize the M60. As a result, for the United States, the Abrams tank became the same breakthrough tank as the armata for Russia. And what is most important, the USSR could produce weapons quickly and in large quantities.
    The same is with shells for tanks, now BOPSs do not fit into the autoloader, the question is why did the Soviet designers not foresee that in the future they would have to increase the length of the BOPS to increase penetration and did not make the turret and space anymore? The impression is that they did not work for the future at all then, the main thing is to do here and now, leaving practically no reserve for modernization.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 09: 29
      +3
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      If the leadership of the fleet did not begin to build many different projects, but focused on the analogues of Arlie Burke or Ticonderoga, now we would have ships with great firepower, of course they would have to be modernized, but we would have had a large number of them.

      There really was a patchwork in the projects, you can't argue with that. But we still wouldn't have more ships than now. We were not even able to leave in service such ships that the fleet absolutely needed, such as 949A Antey and Shchuka-B, BOD project 1135, etc. in full. That is, out of the 12 built BODs of project 1135, only 7 remained, etc. Here, alas, there are issues of economics (or rather, its absence in the late 20th - early 21st centuries, and not issues of ship design
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock April 30 2021 10: 05
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        There really was a patchwork in the projects, you can't argue with that. But we still wouldn't have more ships than now. We were not even able to leave in service such ships that the fleet absolutely needed, such as 949A Antey and Shchuka-B, BOD project 1135, etc. in full. That is, out of the 12 built BODs of project 1135, only 7 remained, etc. Here, alas, there are issues of economics (or rather, its absence in the late 20th - early 21st centuries, and not issues of ship design

        There would be more powerful ships. How many ships do we have comparable in capabilities to Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga? Only project 1144 cruisers (4 built) and 1164 projects (3 built) come to mind. And then instead of 7 BODs that have limited use (in fact, only against submarines), there would be 7 full-fledged destroyers with decent air defense / anti-ship missiles / PLUR, etc.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 10: 41
          +6
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          How many ships do we have comparable in capabilities to Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga? Only project 1144 cruisers (4 built) and 1164 projects (3 built) come to mind. And then instead of 7 BODs that have limited use (in fact, only against submarines), there would be 7 full-fledged destroyers with decent air defense / anti-ship missiles / PLUR, etc.

          You are in vain absolutizing Burke and Ticonderogi. In fact, these ships are specialized air defense ships of aircraft carrier formations, with the ability to be used as arsenals for impact on ground targets (Tomahawk). At the same time, their PLO and strike capabilities against the fleet are very moderate. The same BOD project 1135 in the capabilities of PLO and protection against anti-ship missiles covers the sheep "Arlie Burke" like a bull. And for our tasks (ensuring the stability of the NSNF), the BOD is much more necessary than the analogue of the Arleigh Burke.
          As for 1164 and 1144, the Americans simply do not have analogs for these ships.
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich April 30 2021 09: 30
    -4
    For the examples given by the author of the use of aviation far from their shores, the carriers of the UDC type, which are laid in Kerch, are quite enough. It is up to the appropriate aircraft.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 09: 38
      +4
      Quote: S. Viktorovich
      For the examples given by the author of the use of aviation far from their shores, UDC-type carriers are quite enough

      ... which cannot receive airplanes at all. Curtain.
      1. S. Viktorovich
        S. Viktorovich April 30 2021 14: 12
        -4
        All these fairy tales require flying machines. They are also needed for the UDC, according to their tasks. Curtain.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 22: 31
          +1
          Quote: S. Viktorovich
          All these fairy tales require flying machines.

          Well yes. The only question is that UDC needs a VTOL, which is no longer needed for anything, which is a palliative, and which we do not have. And for AB, we need a conventional modification of a land aircraft, which we have already made a carriage and a small bogie, and which is orders of magnitude cheaper than the development of a VTOL aircraft, despite the fact that such an aircraft will obviously surpass VTOL aircraft in terms of capabilities.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 10 June 2021 20: 47
            0
            Which is better?
            1) more expensive ships with cheaper aircraft
            2) cheaper ships with more expensive aircraft

            this dispute is extremely holistic and strongly tied to the peculiarities of the country, industry and geopolitical wishes. Personally, in my opinion, since we are a land power and the fleet is financed on a leftover basis, the second option is better. Moreover, in the voiced version with Libya, not VTOL fighters are needed, but military transport VTOL \ VVPZ \ VTOL, which are just the same needed in other departments, starting with the MTR, continuing the Airborne Forces and ending with the Ministry of Emergency Situations and the police.
  • moreman78
    moreman78 April 30 2021 10: 53
    +2
    The author began writing about Libya.
    In this case, with the beginning of an armed rebellion in Benghazi, we could send her to the Libyan shores. As long as the forces of M. Gaddafi remained victorious, she would have been there, but did not interfere in the confrontation. But in the case of the beginning of "Odyssey Dawn", she could give a "mirror" answer. Are the US and NATO planes successfully "zeroing" the military potential of M. Gaddafi? Well, our carrier-based aircraft could significantly reduce the potential of the Libyan rebels. At the same time, the risks of accidentally getting hit by NATO planes (and they - under our blow) in this case will be minimized.

    But then I will remind you that in 1986 - the same Libya was NOT IN ANY WAY SAVED FROM US BOMBARDS (Operation Prairie Fire) even by the presence of the whole 5th operational squadron of the USSR Navy in Mediterranean! Yes, the Americans then did not set themselves the goal of overthrowing the Gaddafi regime, but punished them. By the way, following the results of this operation, the USSR Navy took great care of electronic warfare means!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 11: 08
      +2
      Quote: moreman78
      But then I will remind you that in 1986 - the same Libya was NOT IN ANY WAY SAVED FROM US BOMBARDS (Operation Prairie Fire) even by the presence of the whole 5th operational squadron of the USSR Navy in Mediterranean!

      You write and immediately say
      Quote: moreman78
      Yes, the Americans then did not set themselves the goal of overthrowing the Gaddafi regime, but punished them.

      Now let's remember, firstly, what caused these bombings. And secondly, was the USSR going to defend Gaddafi then? The answer to the second question is - "no", the USSR condemned only in words, so what does 5 OPESK have to do with it? And that is why the USSR did not consider it obliged to help Gaddafi - see the reasons for the bombing. Libya then showed itself ... in a very peculiar way
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets April 30 2021 11: 50
    +6
    Thank you, Andrew!
    Write well, but avoid sharp corners. All you have is Syria, Libya ...
    Well, at the very worst - the Persian Gulf.
    But we are talking about what the fleet will do when they go to derban the remnants of the USSR!
    The rest is our rearguard battles in the zones of former influence.
    As the experience of past wars shows, the most effective weapon of the Anglo-Saxons is blocking the enemy, exhausting him and destroying him with full control of the initiative.
    At the same time, the fleet plays the role of a long arm, making it possible to deflect the threat of waging war on its own territory and to ensure the logistics of the blocking troops. At the same time, classic multipurpose aircraft carriers play the role of centers of power, ensuring the concentration of aviation for strike and cover. So in the planned war, the US, NATO and Japanese fleets will have to blockade Russia and China, as well as ensure the logistics of the attacking groups.
    You don't have to be Nostradamus to predict at the very beginning of the conflict the complete elimination of both the existing overseas bases of Russia and China, and the neutralization of potential possible bases. There is really nothing to oppose to this.
    The sad experience of raiding communications remains, which, as you know, is a deliberately losing option.
    The way out of this situation can be ONLY a preemptive strike and the elimination of potential footholds of concentration, cover bases and strike groups of the enemy.
    Oddly enough, there is a similar region. This is the Pacific theater of operations. Seventy-five years ago, Japan tried to act in this vein. It should be borne in mind that Japan acted alone against half of the world economy (the real sector!), And today the alignment is different, and if you side with China (that's right), then the occupation of Japan and Alaska with the subsequent annexation will put an end to the domination of the United States ...
    Naturally, the attempts of our diplomatic diplomats with their policy of the cat Leopold and the incantation of the oligarchy "if only there was no war!" lead not to the preparation of a decisive battle for their right to life, but to surrender, which will inevitably lead to their destruction, but it is more comfortable to think so.
  • ecolog
    ecolog April 30 2021 12: 38
    +3
    I do not quite understand why we need to invest in Africa, etc., when our own territory has not been developed. What is the use of this to the population?
    Russia is a land country, and therefore the land army is more important for her than the fleet, it has always been so. 80% for the army 20% for the fleet. The USA, England can afford a modest army and an immodest fleet - they still have to swim to them. And we have a land border and "friends" from all sides.
    Isolation of maritime theaters. Where to keep these AUGs and how to transfer them? How is the Baltic Fleet under Tsushima? Or in the Baltic, in the Black Sea, in the Pacific Ocean and in the Northern Fleet to have an aircraft soldier?
    We will not be able to afford an oceanic fleet capable of withstanding the US Navy for economic reasons, even without taking into account the NATO allies.
    I am not against boats, good and different, but I would like to understand why they are real and whether we can afford it.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 13: 17
      +5
      Quote: ecolog
      I am not against boats, good and different, but I would like to understand why they are real and whether we can afford it.

      That is why I will justify the need for AV by defensive tasks - protecting against attacks from the sea and maintaining global stability.
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov April 30 2021 22: 26
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        zero: is an aircraft carrier really that much more expensive than upgrading several A / Bs abroad? And is the defense of ground bases on foreign territory much cheaper than the work of the AUG from the 100-150-mile zone?

        Precisely because Timokhin hastily gave an extremely unfortunate example (according to KLimov).

        And now all your brothers are trying to hush up and drain the topic.
        As if there were no kilometers of his arguments "about the duty of an aircraft carrier next to Sudan.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 22: 56
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Precisely because Timokhin hastily gave an extremely unfortunate example (according to KLimov).
          And now all your brothers are trying to hush up and drain the topic.

          Sorry, but this is nonsense. First, we are not "brothers", but people who adhere to one point of view on many issues of the fleet. Secondly, there is absolutely nothing to "mince and drain" here, to your "irresistible" argument about 20 billion of African trade and 50 billion of Ukraine's turnover, I answered below. And I, unlike Klimov, do not consider Timokhin's arguments extremely unsuccessful.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 1 May 2021 09: 21
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Sorry, but this is nonsense. Firstly, we are not "brothers", but people who adhere to one point of view on many issues of the fleet.

            First, you are brothers.
            transl., colloquial. people united by a common cause, profession, belonging to the same social environment, brothers in some business

            Secondly, there is something to mince and merge - a deliberately losing and invented reason to build AB.
            the argument about 20 billion in trade in Africa and 50 billion in Ukraine, I answered below.

            You did not answer, but began to engage in cheating again by pulling an owl onto the globe.
            Quite rude and clumsy.
            See the answer to your "answer".
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              1 May 2021 09: 32
              +2
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              You did not answer, but began to engage in cheating again by pulling an owl onto the globe.
              Quite rude and clumsy.
              See the answer to your "answer".

              I looked. He laughed. Answered
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 April 30 2021 12: 47
    +2
    I don’t understand why we need to defend African residents? repeat
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 13: 15
      +3
      Quote: Falcon5555
      I don’t understand why we need to defend African residents?

      Don't you understand the military presence in Syria either?
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov April 30 2021 22: 45
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Falcon5555
        I don’t understand why we need to defend African residents?

        Don't you understand the military presence in Syria either?

        Don't you understand the need for military transport aviation for a full-fledged military presence?
        Remind you how the S-400 was delivered to the region?
        The best and most advanced S-400 air defense system in the world was delivered to Syria by Russian military transport aircraft and, after unloading, took up combat duty.

        And what about the difference in "flight time" which "can be critical" (aka Timokhin) between the barge and the BTA aircraft?
        Comments will be?
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash April 30 2021 12: 56
    -1
    The theme, such an impression, is inexhaustible, although it has long been beaten up and down. For a long time everything is clear - aircraft carriers (AUG with all the attributes) are a cool thing for the projection of force and in general for "if that". Also, it seems like it is known that AUG (2-3 or more) is worth a lot of money that only the United States and China will pull. As I understand it, the meaning of the article is "And talk?" Also an option.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 13: 15
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      Also, it seems like it is known that AUG (2-3 or more) is worth a lot of money, which will be pulled only by the United States and China.

      https://topwar.ru/181285-o-stoimosti-flota-kotoryj-nam-nuzhen.html
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash April 30 2021 13: 52
        +2
        Yes, I read it in due time, it is interesting. However, I read that the Americans are thinking about reducing the number of aircraft carriers and AUG, since this is becoming one of the main spending on the Navy. In 1985, the maintenance of one AUG cost 6 billion dollars, after 35 years, of course, more. In addition to the Americans and the Chinese (in the future), no one has aircraft carriers and AUGs similar to those of the American, both in quality and quantity. In general, I mean that the cost that you calculated is unlikely to correspond to reality. With all due respect. Either something was not taken into account (the same R&D, infrastructure, cut too), or the numbers are higher.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 30 2021 13: 58
          +3
          Quote: sevtrash
          However, I read that the Americans are thinking about reducing the number of aircraft carriers and AUG

          And they plan to lay 2035 pieces of EMNIP by 7, two of which have already been ordered
          Quote: sevtrash
          In general, I mean that the cost that you calculated is unlikely to correspond to reality.

          yes, it is rather overpriced
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash April 30 2021 14: 08
            0
            ... the Pentagon is discussing the possibility of reducing the aircraft carrier fleet. The reason is trivial - budget savings ...
            ... Now another aircraft carrier, George Washington, is undergoing a similar service: four-year work will cost about four billion dollars. Next up on the slipway will be "John C. Stennis" ...
            ... Seeing off Harry Truman for an early retirement and abandoning its further operation, according to preliminary calculations by the Pentagon, will save the budget about $ 30 billion ...
            ... Since the presidency of Barack Obama, limited funds have been allocated for the restoration and overhaul of aircraft carriers, despite the fact that this is a very expensive task ...
            https://ria.ru/20190309/1551600571.html

            The plan for the optimization of the American fleet developed by the internal office of the US Secretary of Defense assumes the use of 9 aircraft carriers instead of 11 existing ones, the limitation of the number of cruisers and destroyers to the current values ​​(80 units) and the introduction of 55-70 small unmanned or low-crew ships into the Navy.
            These plans echo the recent statements of the head of the Pentagon Mark Esper, writes Defense News. The Defense Department, the minister said, intends to shift the focus away from aircraft carriers as the central element of the projection of the United States' power and pay more attention to unmanned technologies that allow solving tasks at a lower cost.
            https://rg.ru/2020/04/22/pentagon-predlozhil-spisat-avianoscy.html
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 30 2021 19: 51
              +1
              Well, here are the real plans for the construction of the US Navy
              https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4209280.html
              On December 9, 2020, the US Department of Defense presented to the US Congress a new 30-year long-term plan for military shipbuilding, calculated until fiscal year 2051 (text of the plan). The plan calls for the achievement of the US Navy's naval strength of 355 by the early 2030s and 406 by 2051 (including auxiliary vessels and excluding unmanned units) ... ... The plan calls for maintaining the number of US Navy aircraft carriers at 10-11 units - within 30 years, it is planned to commission seven new aircraft carriers (two of which have already been funded).
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash April 30 2021 23: 08
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The plan calls for maintaining the number of aircraft carriers in the US Navy at the level of 10-11 units - within 30 years, it is planned to commission seven new aircraft carriers (two of which have already been funded).

                Yes, that is what calls for and new aircraft carriers are being introduced to replace the old ones, for 2051 it is planned to have 10 aircraft carriers in the operating fleet. But, on page 9 (English) 8-10 aircraft carriers are indicated, the reduction to 8 is still planned due to the introduction of the so-called light aircraft carriers.
                In general, they are going to largely concentrate on the construction of the Columbia nuclear submarine, this is the primary goal, as the creation of a more "lethal" fleet, as well as on support, equipment, training.
                But this is all the American fleet, not the Russian one. Chirkov's 30-year plan also focuses on SSBNs, specifies the need for rapid reaction forces, the core of which should be aircraft carrier ships. A declaration, as it were, which should be supported by a financial component, the ability to design, create, maintain both the AUG components and infrastructure. And with this all the problems.
  • BAI
    BAI April 30 2021 14: 16
    +3
    1. The author himself admits that there are no official intelligible tasks for the fleet. Everything else is fantasy, not worth a damn. And under these fantasies, it is proposed to carry out specific impressive costs. Already now, without a guarantee that they will ever be in demand.
    2.
    The Decree clearly states that Russia needs a powerful ocean-going fleet to protect its national interests.

    And who and where said (or even better - proved) that the ocean-going fleet requires aircraft carriers? An ocean-going fleet is not required to solve specific tactical tasks. It is needed for strategic tasks, not for hunting boats.
    3.
    But it is also true that not in every conflict, other "interested parties" will give us the opportunity to deploy the forces of our aerospace forces at ground air bases.

    This is a direct military conflict. After that, the fleet will not be needed at all (except for the underwater strategists). As well as foreign military bases.
    4. Supporters of aircraft carriers stubbornly refuse to understand that Russia does not have the financial ability to repeat the American (or Chinese) way of developing the fleet. Russia can only give an asymmetrical answer - using other weapons to neutralize aircraft carriers. Whether it is there or not, and what it will be are separate questions. Only one thing can be said with certainty - it will (or already exist) less costly than aircraft carriers.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 30 2021 14: 41
      0
      Quote: BAI
      And who and where said (or even better - proved) that the ocean-going fleet requires aircraft carriers?

      that's right, we have and will have an ocean-going fleet this is an SSBN nuclear submarine, a long arm, and we don't need an aircraft carrier, it's as clear as God's day
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 20: 02
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      1. The author himself admits that there are no official intelligible tasks for the fleet. Everything else is fantasy, not worth a damn.

      Already wrong. There are no official missions for the OCEAN fleet. For the rest, there are tasks.
      Quote: BAI
      Supporters of aircraft carriers stubbornly refuse to understand that Russia does not have the financial ability to repeat the American (or Chinese) way of developing the fleet.

      Opponents of AB cannot understand that we do not need to repeat someone else's path of development, since we have our own. And on this path, we really need 2-3 AMG, despite the fact that we can quite afford them financially
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 10: 09
        -1
        AB supporters cannot understand that we do not need to repeat someone's path of development, since we have our own. And on this path, we do not need 2-3 AMG, despite the fact that we cannot afford them financially at all
  • lelik613
    lelik613 April 30 2021 19: 29
    0
    "But then an interesting question arises - would the Americans have decided on their" Odyssey Dawn "if our AMG with a modern aircraft carrier was located off the coast of Libya?" Are you laughing?
    Also to me, binomial of Newton! (C) Well-known
    The Israelis thresh our wards in Syria in the tail and in the mane, so that our astronauts arrive. Yes, and Turkey regularly sticks knives in the back ... Anyone who does not dare to strike back with a blow will not be helped by either a modern aircraft carrier, or the Death Star, or imperial walkers.
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 30 2021 20: 49
      -1
      well, as it were, in an article about this it is said that even if they decided, ours themselves would grind all the rebels in a couple of weeks ... and the remnants would have finished off Gaddafi's troops ... Given that Russia is gradually establishing economic relations with different countries , then we need to learn how to protect our investments and the situation when we do not have an airfield or the enemy is so close that they can destroy it, not so illusory .. Let me remind you that in Syria, our people were going to fight in the beginning surrounded by no access even to drinking water ..Therefore, an aircraft carrier as a solution to such problems is a necessary thing, but here it is important, as in any situation, the correct approach, first to ensure the construction of corvettes / frigates, and then avics ... You can start, for example, with anti-submarine cruisers and make them based on those same UDC ...
  • dranthqu
    dranthqu April 30 2021 20: 35
    0
    I don’t understand: the estimated cost of an operation in Syria is $ 1-2 billion a year (https://www.bbc.com/russian/business/2015/10/151006_russia_syria_military_costs). The intensity of the action is comparable to that of an aircraft carrier. I suspect that such operations, whether conducted from the sea, or when modernizing a local airfield and conducting them from land, cost about the same. The scale of operations is also the same. What is in Syria, what is a hypothetical operation in Libya. But at the same time, the aircraft carrier is incomparably more flexible, and the funds invested in it do not remain tied to the ground.

    Who would have figured out: is an aircraft carrier really that much more expensive than upgrading several A / Bs abroad? And is the defense of ground bases on foreign territory much cheaper than the work of the AUG from the 100-150-mile zone?
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 30 2021 21: 10
      +1
      The "integral" aircraft carrier is the cheapest.
      And the cost of delivering kg of explosives to the enemy from an aircraft carrier is also cheaper.
      It's just that the base is sometimes needed politically - to stake out the territory.
      1. dranthqu
        dranthqu April 30 2021 21: 31
        +1
        By naivety, I think that the base "to stake out the territory" and a full-fledged operating A / B for several dozen L / A, capable, according to statements in the news, also accept everything up to the Tu-160 - after all, somewhat different in scale and cost projects. Moreover, in the same Syria there is Tartus. Or is it not enough for posting?
      2. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov April 30 2021 22: 20
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The "integral" aircraft carrier is the cheapest.

        Calculations in the studio.
        1. dranthqu
          dranthqu 1 May 2021 13: 40
          +1
          I don’t presume to defend one side or the other in terms of price, but see my answer below - it turns out that the cost of AUG is quite comparable to land-based A / B in a foreign country, or even cheaper. To be honest, when I found the numbers myself, I was surprised :)
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 10: 05
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The "integral" aircraft carrier is the cheapest.
        And the cost of delivering kg of explosives to the enemy from an aircraft carrier is also cheaper.

        in your cheating, you have exceeded all acceptable standards of decency, calling the most expensive and inconvenient weapon cheap
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 10: 07
      -1
      Quote: dranthqu
      The intensity of the action is comparable to that of an aircraft carrier.

      it exceeds the capabilities of an aircraft carrier dozens of times, and is also dozens of times cheaper than an aircraft carrier
      1. dranthqu
        dranthqu 1 May 2021 13: 32
        +1
        I open the unloved Wikipedia (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_group_VKS_Russia_in_Syria) and see:
        - The composition of aviation - about 24 fighters (Su-35, Su-30SM), about 24 bombers (Su-24, Su-34 equally), about 20-30 helicopters. That is, with the exception of helicopters, and taking into account the potential capabilities of the Su-30SM as a multipurpose aircraft, the approximate composition of the air group of a typical aircraft carrier comes out. This is 30 percent more than on the French Charles De Gaulle, but half of that on Nimitz.
        - The intensity of use with A / B Khmeimim was more than 100 flights per day, a record - 139. Nimitz is able to provide 100 flights per day under normal conditions and up to 180 during operations (https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/ 2020/08/05 / ten-performance-gains-the-ford-class-carrier-will-deliver-that-a-nimitz-never-can /)
        - The cost of the operation in Syria in the first couple of years was 2,5-4 million dollars per day, excluding capital construction and base security (see the link to the BBC above and the links given in Wikipedia), as well as the CBG, which included the same 1164 According to the estimates of experts like you and me, the American AUG, including aircraft, escort ships, etc., costs a total of about $ 6 million per day (https://www.quora.com/What-is -the-approximate-cost-of-operating-a-carrier-battle-group-per-day).

        Thus, it turns out that in terms of the main parameters - the composition of the air group (with the exception of the VTA), the number of sorties per day and the cost of operating the A / B Khmeimim together with the permanent operational formation of the Navy in the Mediterranean Sea are more or less equivalent to the aircraft carrier ship group.

        I would be glad if you provide more reliable sources and more detailed calculations!
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 15: 01
          0
          Quote: dranthqu
          I would be glad if you provide more reliable sources and more detailed calculations!

          thank you, when assessing the cost of AUG, you missed the depreciation of the materiel, you counted Khmeimim along with its construction, but did not count the depreciation ... with the cost of building the AV itself and its AUG (about four to five annual budget of the Ministry of Defense) decomposed into the number of days of its combat operation in Syria (or the days of the Syrian operation), then the cost of the entire operation in Syria will have to be neglected as very scanty (Depreciation (fr.amortir - to weaken, soften, damp) in accounting is the process of transferring parts of the cost of fixed assets and intangible assets as their physical or moral wear and tear on the cost of manufactured products (works, services) .... You also neglected the Helicopters and did not take into account the reality of Kuzi capable of producing carrier-based fighters with an incomplete load, 4 times less than coastal aircraft, you did not take into account weather restrictions and increased the accident rate of an aircraft carrier caused by the complexity and imperfection of its design (meek and narrow deck, niches, etc.) two planes sank, as well as the vulnerability of a ship capable of sinking
          1. dranthqu
            dranthqu 1 May 2021 16: 03
            +1
            I considered the cost of building Khmeimim because during an operation in another place, these costs would have to be repeated, while the costs of ships would have to be repeated much less often, unless, of course, the latter serve 40-50-60 years, and are not written off after 15-20. Moreover, if within the next, say, 40 years, Russia carries out 4 such operations, then it will have to maintain not one, but 4 bases abroad.

            I will add that capex, capital expenditures - for construction, AUG are estimated at 10-30 billion dollars. With a service life of 40-50 years, approximately $ 0.25-0.75 billion per year comes out, that is, less than a third of the operating cost, or $ 2.0 million per day at a price of $ 30 billion and a minimum service life of 40 years. The operating cost was indicated above - 6 million per day.

            Yes, I wrote all this keeping in my head not Kuzya, but the classic nuclear-powered CATOBAR aircraft carrier for about 50-60 L / A of which 10-15 are helicopters. Regarding helicopters, they are on aircraft carriers, and nothing prevents, in addition to rescue, PLO and transport, to add drums. Yes, it is possible to place 30 instead of 10 would be a problem. However, I do not consider this to be a critical flaw. Moreover, the construction of a pair of UDCs seems to be announced, which can just add the missing 10-20 helicopters and the corresponding L / S. Actually, this will already be the AUG, which supports the landing operation or the Special Forces operation.

            Kuzyu, in its current state, as it seems to me from the couch, should be used only as a training ship in order not to lose competence until the actual aircraft carrier is put into operation. I'm not sure about the decrease in take-off mass by exactly 4 times - I did not see it in the sources - but somewhere I came across that the average mass taken in Syria was about 2 tons. About a short narrow deck and torn aerofinishers (the latter is more a question for the crew's training, as far as I heard) - these are precisely the shortcomings of a particular project, which is not a classic strike aircraft carrier. Since I compare approaches, I rely on the characteristics of several projects, and do not judge only by Kuza, whose fate is undeniably difficult.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 19: 14
              -1
              Quote: dranthqu
              while the costs of ships will have to be repeated much less often, unless, of course, the last ones serve 40-50-60 years, and are not written off after 15-20. Moreover, if within the next, say, 40 years, Russia carries out 4 such operations, then it will have to maintain not one, but 4 bases abroad.

              however, you don’t drive a car in your 40s? I have two cars that are 60 years old and I understand that their restoration is more expensive than a new car ... so every 10 years you need to do a complete repair of the ship, and possibly its modernization because it becomes obsolete, and there are also unforeseen repairs due to equipment failure , so it will not be possible to stretch its depreciation for 50 years, during this period the repair costs will be comparable to the construction of two new ships (which is why they are written off sometimes 15 years after the construction, especially unique and large ones, the repair of Nakhimov and the write-off of Lazarev are examples of the enormous costs. for repairs) you also think every 10 years there will be another Syria, meanwhile, from 1905 to 2021 there were only three conflicts when the airfield could be useful, Vietnam Cuba and Syria ... it turns out on average once every 40 years so that the airfield in another country (or your AUG) will come in handy no more than once every 40 years ...
              1. dranthqu
                dranthqu 1 May 2021 20: 53
                +2
                40 years is the estimated service life of the ship. Cars, after all, are not designed for such a period. The ships are quite. Similarly, for example, airplanes - take the same Airbus 320 - are designed for 25-30 years of operation. So if we talk in terms of the expected service life, then for a car 60 years is about 3-4 terms, which very lot. For a ship or an airplane, which are designed for, conventionally, 30 years - 30 years will be just. Because, in fact, they are being built specifically for such a period. Moreover, the link shows the construction cost and cost operation throughout the entire life cycle... That is, in your example with two 60-year-old cars - in total how much you have invested in 60 years divided by 60 years. And yes, the total cost of operation is several times higher than the cost of construction - I wrote about the same: the cost of construction will be equivalent to $ 0,75 million per day for 40 years, and the cost of operation - $ 6,0 million in day, that is, 8 times more.

                Obsolescence is also a relative thing. Diesel locomotives of the early 90s, albeit decrepit, carry trains. Airplanes also sometimes come across - although they are already 30 years old. What is the obsolescence of a floating A / B? When will it not be able to receive new planes? Or when B / C will not be able to carry?

                Finally, about the operations. Purely amateur assessment where one could apply:
                - War in Yugoslavia
                - "Color" revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East (Lebanon 2005, Tunisia 2011, Egypt 2011, Algeria 2019)
                - Conflict in Sudan
                - War in Somalia
                - Potentially support for Venezuela
                - War in Yemen

                Note, I am not talking about direct intervention, the opening of the front, the landing of a tank army and the rolling of these countries into the glass desert. Only that the presence of AUG on the horizon can tilt these conflicts in the right direction - by blocking ports, closing the airspace, pinpoint strikes against terrorists / dictators (emphasize the necessary) without the need for the receiving side to have the airfield under control.

                And you can, for example, conduct exercises in the Kuril Islands exactly at the moment when the Japanese are occupied by the Senkaku Islands. Or not far from Britain or France, when they sent their fleet to where Russia is not profitable. And all this, taken together, in addition to the operation in Syria for about the same money ...
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 21: 39
                  -1
                  Why should we drive a Zis 5 car? what is outdated there? body wheel engine what else do you need? the engine of an airplane or ship is no better than a car in 50 years, you will have to replace it more than once, the electronics and electrical wiring must be replaced, dampness, hull ... airplanes do not rust, processing the hull is expensive, remove old fragile coatings, do not apply one layer of new very expensive paints, for this you need docking, with a car an order of magnitude easier and cheaper .. but economically the car for some reason is unprofitable to operate for 50 years
  • Rlptrt
    Rlptrt April 30 2021 20: 39
    +1
    Unfortunately, this Caudla has only one interest from the authorities: to cash in more. And the National Guard should protect their interests. The fleet is up to them. However, like many other things. It's a shame for the state.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 30 2021 21: 32
    0
    It was the aircraft and navy of the United States and its allies that ensured the victory of the rebels in Libya.


    Author, are you aware that there are a bunch of ground air bases across the Mediterranean puddle?
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov April 30 2021 22: 18
    +1
    But nevertheless, many people believe that today we should not promote any political and economic interests in distant countries. That we should focus on putting things in order in our country, limiting external influences to our neighboring states. I disagree with this point of view. But she, no doubt, has the right to life.

    Andrey, that's why you distort the information so much to the point of lying?
    Or specifically takes some specific comments "easier"?


    You should focus on putting things in order in your country - not in their own country, but in Ukraine. (although in your own country it is also necessary)
    And not putting things in order but on the WAR.
    We are at war with us.
    And it's not cold. It's hot. Shooting and killing.
    And not theoretically or hypothetically, but real.

    All of you with your Harp are "dissenting".
    Given that you have already been given a link to normal economic information, and not to Timokhin's childish drawing, and explained that trade with Ukraine was 50 lard.
    And with all of Africa it is 20 lard.
    What do you not understand here? That 50 lard is more important than 20 and you will "disagree" here too?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 30 2021 22: 51
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      Andrey, that's why you distort the information so much to the point of lying?

      Osspad, what information have I distorted? :))))
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      You should focus on putting things in order in your country - not in your own country, but in Ukraine. (although it is also necessary in your country)

      Hover. What's the problem?
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      Given that you have already been given a link to normal economic information, and not to Timokhin's childish drawing, and explained that trade with Ukraine was 50 lard.
      And with all of Africa it is 20 lard.
      What do you not understand here? That 50 lard is more important than 20 and you will "disagree" here too?

      Alexander, you have mixed in a bunch of "ponies, people, and volleys of a thousand guns." I don't even understand how to unwind this "bundle of consciousness".
      First. What you are writing here about Ukraine does not contradict my words in any way
      But nevertheless, many people believe that today we should not promote any political and economic interests in distant countries. That we should focus on putting things in order in our country, limiting external influences to our neighboring states.

      Second. Yes, the trade between the Russian Federation and Ukraine in 2011 really "reached" up to 50 billion, but since that time it has been falling - 45 billion in 2012 and 39 - in 2013. Well, then it was 2014 and it collapsed below the baseboard and continues to decline. Today it falls short of 10 billion.
      But who told you that this is bad for us?
      In 2011, we bought from Ukraine for $ 3,9 billion of ferrous metals and products from them, and in 2017 - only 1,3 billion.In 2011, we bought from them boilers, power machines, transport, locomotives and other complex by 6,5 billion, and in 2017 - also somewhere in 1,3 billion. And the rest we have learned to produce ourselves. And what do you propose today? To conquer Ukraine by force of arms, and then close down Russian enterprises so that Ukrainians can continue to sell their products to us? Seriously?:)))))
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov April 30 2021 23: 05
        -1
        Hover. What's the problem?

        The fact that all this requires money.
        And the weapons compete with each other for funding.


        Alexander, you have mixed in a bunch of "ponies, people, and volleys of a thousand guns." I don't even understand how to unwind this "bundle of consciousness".
        First. What you are writing here about Ukraine does not contradict my words in any way

        Contradicts, because we are talking about a REALLY GOING WAR.
        War Alexey.
        w o y n e
        not putting things in order.
        and not in their own country.

        A WAR. which goes on our border.


        Second. Yes, the trade between the Russian Federation and Ukraine in 2011 really "reached" up to 50 billion, but since that time it has been falling - 45 billion in 2012 and 39 - in 2013. Well, then it was 2014 and it collapsed below the baseboard and continues to decline. Today it falls short of 10 billion.
        But who told you that this is bad for us?

        Common sense.

        Now you will build tricky multi-pass combinations "proving" that the loss of the whole Africa in terms of the turnover, but in fact two is very good.

        And what do you propose today? To conquer Ukraine by force of arms, and then close down Russian enterprises so that Ukrainians can continue to sell their products to us? Seriously?:)))))

        Do not write nonsense.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 May 2021 06: 56
          0
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Do not write nonsense.

          Well, tell us how you are going to put things in order with Ukraine :)))
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Contradicts, because we are talking about a REALLY GOING WAR.

          Still, today's skirmishes do not pull the war
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          War Alexey.

          Who are you, forgive me? My name, if anything, is Andrey :)
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Now you will build tricky multi-pass combinations "proving" that the loss of the whole Africa in terms of the turnover, but in fact two is very good.

          Yes, there is nothing tricky, I will answer below
      2. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov April 30 2021 23: 16
        -3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Second. Yes, the trade between the Russian Federation and Ukraine in 2011 really "reached" up to 50 billion, but since that time it has been falling - 45 billion in 2012 and 39 - in 2013. Well, then it was 2014 and it collapsed below the baseboard and continues to decline. Today it falls short of 10 billion.
        But who told you that this is bad for us?
        In 2011, we bought from Ukraine for $ 3,9 billion of ferrous metals and products from them, and in 2017 - only 1,3 billion.In 2011, we bought from them boilers, power machines, transport, locomotives and other complex by 6,5 billion, and in 2017 - also somewhere around 1,3 billion.

        Again, you write like a schuller.

        Where are you exporting from Russia?
        Where to? Again, tactfully kept silent?
        Here is the export ... FROM Russia.

        But import from Ukraine to Russia



        Those. we supplied them MORE than them to us.
        Those. our companies have lost more.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 May 2021 07: 21
          +2
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov

          Again, you write like a schuller.

          Well, the sharper is still written with one "l", but that's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't throw such accusations around. If you do not understand something, this does not mean that you are being deceived.
          Exports from Russia to Ukraine .... only slightly decreased in comparison with 2011, when the trade turnover between our countries amounted to $ 50 billion.
          I explain it on my fingers. In 2011, when the trade turnover was 50 billion, Russia supplied Ukraine with goods worth $ 30,5 billion.But here's the thing - 20,5 billion of these exports were gas and oil, but mostly gas :))) Others export - 10 billion
          In 2020, when exports fell to $ 10 billion, energy supplies amounted to only $ 2,3 billion, that is, other exports amounted to $ 7,7 billion. Thus, we see that exports fell due to energy supplies to Ukraine, primarily gas.
          Attention, question. And what does Ukraine replace Russian gas with? Believe it or not - with European gas. The second question is, where do the Europeans get their gas from? The answer is they buy from Russia!
          That is, the drop in exports from Russia to Ukraine, which impressed you so much, is purely imaginary, we, in fact, supply as many products there. Well, almost - after all, a drop from 10 to 7,7 billion in other exports is taking place. But the main article of Russian export - gas - now goes "bypassing" through European countries :)))))
          Perhaps these lines will explain to you the need for elementary politeness, and in the future you will learn to first ask for clarifications on questions you do not understand, and then only accuse your opponents of lying and cheating. Or perhaps not.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 1 May 2021 08: 59
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, the sharper is still written with one "l",

            You know better))

            If you do not understand something, this does not mean that you are being deceived.

            No need to change cards again and wishful thinking.
            And you are deceiving not me, but the readers.

            Thus, we see that exports fell due to the supply of energy resources to Ukraine, primarily gas.

            Basically due to this and "only" due to this, they are not identical concepts.
            Cheating again.

            Believe it or not - with European gas. The second question is, where do the Europeans get their gas from? The answer is they buy from Russia!

            Another cheating and lies.
            Not ONLY in Russia.
            Rystad Energy analytical company notes a record level of gas exports to Europe from both countries in 2017. Russia last year sent 194 billion cubic meters to Europe (including Turkey). m of gas (+ 15 billion cubic meters compared to 2016), and Norway - 122 billion cubic meters. meters of gas (+9 billion cubic meters per year). The two main gas exporters to Europe are consistently increasing their supplies to European countries. But how long and to what extent will they be able to increase exports?

            And this is only Norway.

            With regard to general indicators, then
            Russian gas in 2020 yielded its positions in Europe due to sharply intensified competition. By the end of the year, the total share of Gazprom's supplies in gas consumption in Europe decreased from 36% to 33%

            And why the competition has intensified, remind you?
            Including the fact that we could safely supply gas to the EU THROUGH Ukraine.
            Because Ukraine is valuable for us not only as a consumer, but also as an element of infrastructure.

            And since there is unstable - the Europeans are forced to distribute risks and buy more gas from other suppliers (including for this reason).
            Those. the harm to us is all-round.


            That is, the drop in exports from Russia to Ukraine that impressed you so much - purely imaginary,

            I was "impressed" by ALL the consequences of losing the war for Ukraine, not just Import or Export.

            Regarding "imaginary"

            Well, yes, such an imaginary drawdown in economic growth rates every 10 years.
            Can you also tell us how it is useful for us?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              1 May 2021 09: 25
              +1
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              You know better))

              Sure. I'm still at odds with the Russian language :)
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              And you are deceiving not me, but the readers.

              Well, let the readers decide for themselves which of us is deceiving them.
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Another cheating and lies.
              Not ONLY in Russia.

              Of course, not only :)))) But here's the thing - gas consumption in Europe in general is not a constant value. Therefore, my friend Alexander, you are engaged in cheating here. I don’t know, consciously or not, but it’s a fact.
              Tell me, why do you give data on gas supplies from Norway? What do you want to prove by this? That Russia began to supply less gas to Europe, and Norway - more? So for this it was necessary to show the dynamics of RUSSIAN gas exports. And to prove - just look - while they were supplying gas to Ukraine, they supplied a lot of it, they stopped supplying - gas exports fell.
              And yes, if you could provide such statistics, you would be right. But you cannot.
              Because the gas export statistics confirm MY point of view.
              Natural gas exports from Russia by years, 2011 - 2020 (in billion cubic meters), data from the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation and Rosstat:
              2011 - 189,7
              2012 - 178,7
              2013 - 196,4
              2014 - 174,3
              2015 - 185,5
              2016 - 198,7
              2017 - 213,0
              2018 - 223,0
              2019 - 220,6
              2020 - 199,2
              After the "divorce" with Ukraine, Russia has been constantly INCREASING its gas supplies to Europe, and the share of Russian gas in Europe's consumption has been GROWING FOR MANY YEARS


              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              With regard to general indicators, then
              Russian gas in 2020 yielded its positions in Europe due to sharply intensified competition. By the end of the year, the total share of Gazprom's supplies in gas consumption in Europe decreased from 36% to 33%

              The whole question is that these are local events of 2020, which only a completely illiterate person, or a notorious sharper, can associate with the drop in Russian gas exports to Ukraine. In our country, the collapse of gas exports to the independent country occurred in 2014-2015, and at that time gas supplies to Europe ROSLI, and they grew even further, the downward trend was only outlined in the 20th. But at the same time - a surprise! The total gas sales by Russia are all the same, even in 2020 it is much higher than in 2011 - at the peak of trade turnover with Ukraine
              So, Alexander, I don't even know what to advise you. Or teach materiel, if everything I said above is news to you. Or stop doing what you constantly reproach me for, i.e. cheat :))))
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 09: 30
                -3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Well, let the readers decide for themselves which of us is deceiving them.

                as an objective and uninterested reader, I see that Alexander is completely right, and Andrey from Ch is cringing
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  1 May 2021 09: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  as an objective and uninterested reader, I see that Alexander is completely right, and Andrey from Ch is cringing

                  Thank you Vladimir! The best way to confirm my innocence in the eyes of readers you could not
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 09: 32
                -2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Our collapse occurred in 2014-2015, and at this time gas supplies

                the reason for the collapse was the "tax maneuver" and "increased tax collection" which led to the ruin of everyone and everything.
              3. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 1 May 2021 12: 05
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Tell me, why do you give data on gas supplies from Norway? What do you want to prove by this? That Russia began to supply less gas to Europe, and Norway - more?

                I explain. On fingers.
                We have lost 100 conventional units of gas in supplies to Ukraine.
                You claim that these losses are "imaginary".
                Because Ukraine buys these 100 units of gas anyway, it just buys not from us, but from Europe.
                And we sell to Europe.
                Those. for us, as if nothing had changed, we all the same sold that gas (as it were, it is assumed that the same volume, the same 100 units)

                Here is your quote.

                And what does Ukraine replace Russian gas with? Believe it or not - with European gas. The second question is, where do the Europeans get their gas from? The answer is they buy from Russia!


                This would work in full only if Europe received 100% of its gas from Russia. But this is not the case.
                We have lost 100 conventional units. But since Europe buys 60% of gas not from us, then it will not be ours to sell gas to Ukraine in proportion.

                Those. roughly we can only say that the IMAGINARY mechanism you mentioned compensates for only 30% of our losses in Ukraine.

                All the rest of you "written" in general has nothing to do with the question.
                For example
                Russia after the "divorce" with Ukraine constantly INCREASED

                Iii? Someone argued that the consumption of Europe grew and grows? Other countries are also increasing.
                But only if there was peace and quiet in Ukraine, we would already have much better opportunities to increase this volume. And Gazprom would not have conceded 3% to other companies, but, on the contrary, would have taken their 3%.
                But this is another question - by touching on it you divert attention from the fact that you have nothing to answer for the example of a 30% share of Russia in gas supplies to Ukraine.

                The whole question is that these are local events of 2020, which only a completely illiterate person, or a notorious sharper, can associate with the drop in Russian gas exports to Ukraine. We have a collapse in gas exports to the Square occurred in 2014-2015,

                Andryusha, when big uncles decide who to buy gas from, they think about the risks.
                What will happen if, for example, the next jingoistic patriots in Ukraine begin to engage in adventures and play with the crane?
                As a result, we can provide the required volume, but we cannot guarantee its delivery.

                Thus, "unstable Ukraine" is like a bone in our throat, which limits our entire potential.

                Uncles in Europe are forced to put eggs in different baskets.
                And if there was our government in Ukraine ... and it would be quiet and calm there ... our gas detectors in a European basket would be MORE.
                And in 2015 and 2020 and in 2030 ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  1 May 2021 12: 19
                  +3
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  This would work in full only if Europe received 100% of its gas from Russia. But this is not the case.
                  We have lost 100 conventional units. But since Europe buys 60% of gas not from us, then it will not be ours to sell gas to Ukraine in proportion.

                  Alexander, there is no need to explain what you do not understand.
                  If you were right, and we, selling gas to Europe instead of Ukraine
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  Those. roughly we can only say that the IMAGINARY mechanism you mentioned compensates for only 30% of our losses in Ukraine.

                  THEN in this case, our TOTAL sales to Ukraine and Europe would fall. Roughly speaking, they sold 100 conventional units of gas in total in 2011, from the bottom 90 conventional units to Europe, and 10 to Ukraine. If after the disappearance of Ukraine, we would sell not $ 100, but $ 93. to Europe, then you would be right. But, disgusting, we sell MUCH more to Europe than the recommended 100 units. Therefore, your logic is wrong.
                  1. Alexander Vorontsov
                    Alexander Vorontsov 1 May 2021 13: 11
                    -2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    But, disgusting, we sell MUCH more to Europe than the recommended 100 units. Therefore, your logic is wrong.

                    And what happens to our market share Andrey?
                    The share of Russian gas in the European market fell to 2020% in the second quarter of 27,8, Gazprom said in its RAS report.
                    This is almost a quarter less than in 2018, when Gazprom occupied 36,6% of the European market, pumping a record 200,8 billion cubic meters.


                    Let's. Do not hesitate, come up with another expert opinion why losing% of the market is a positive result for us.

                    And it's all in the background
                    The share of the United States soared almost 9 times. If in 2018 American gas accounted for only 0,7% of the European market with deliveries of 3,7 billion cubic meters, then in 2020 it is already 6,2%, and in the first half of the year alone, 17,4 billion cubic meters were supplied.


                    In other words, the European market is developing rapidly.
                    They put us on the bandwagon with Ukraine, and now Gazprom is being deprived of its share.
                    What the latter directly states in his reports
                    Since 2018, European countries have sharply increased their gas purchases in Qatar and the United States - only these two countries have been able to increase their share over the past three years, Gazprom notes in the report.


                    Let's explain how awesome it is for us)))
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      1 May 2021 14: 47
                      +2
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      And what happens to our market share Andrey?

                      Alexander, do you have vision problems again? Our market share is ROSLA from 2011 to 2019 I have already attached a picture for those who are incapable of tsiferki, but everything is not for you :)))
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      The share of Russian gas in the European market fell to 2020% in the second quarter of 27,8, Gazprom said in its RAS report.
                      This is almost a quarter less than in 2018, when Gazprom occupied 36,6% of the European market, pumping a record 200,8 billion cubic meters.


                      Let's. Do not hesitate, come up with another expert opinion why losing% of the market is a positive result for us.

                      Drop in 2020 g our market share is NOT connected in any way with a break with Ukraine :))))))
                      Alexander, you don't have to be like a woodpecker, gouging the same, long-disproved argument.
                      In 2011, when we gave the maximum gas to Ukraine, the entire Russian Federation exported 189,7 billion cubic meters of gas
                      In 2016, when gas exports from the Russian Federation to Ukraine fell almost 13 times, from $ 20,5 billion to $ 1,6 billion, the total gas exports from the Russian Federation amounted to 198,7 billion cubic meters.

                      The loss of Ukraine's exports has crippled domestic gas workers so much that in 2019. they issued for export as much as 220,6 billion cubic meters, that is, by more than 11 percent :)))
                      And it was only in 2020 that Russian gas exports fell. In 2020, Gazprom sold 177,315 bcm of natural gas to Europe under Gazprom contracts.
                      It is obvious that 2020 has become a crisis year for the energy markets, incl. the gas market in general and Europe in particular. But it is also obvious that the demand for energy has fallen sharply due to lockdowns introduced to counter the COVID-19 coronavirus infection pandemic, and not from the closure of the Ukrainian market, as you brazenly lie.
                  2. Alexander Vorontsov
                    Alexander Vorontsov 1 May 2021 13: 21
                    -1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    This would work in full only if Europe received 100% of its gas from Russia. But this is not the case.
                    We have lost 100 conventional units. But since Europe buys 60% of gas not from us, then it will not be ours to sell gas to Ukraine in proportion.

                    Alexander, there is no need to explain what you do not understand.
                    If you were right, and we, selling gas to Europe instead of Ukraine
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    Those. roughly we can only say that the IMAGINARY mechanism you mentioned compensates for only 30% of our losses in Ukraine.

                    THEN in this case, our TOTAL sales to Ukraine and Europe would fall. Roughly speaking, they sold 100 conventional units of gas in total in 2011, from the bottom 90 conventional units to Europe, and 10 to Ukraine. If after the disappearance of Ukraine, we would sell not $ 100, but $ 93. to Europe, then you would be right. But, disgusting, we sell MUCH more to Europe than the recommended 100 units. Therefore, your logic is wrong.

                    By the way, one more curious moment.
                    The design capacity of the gas transmission system of Ukraine is about 150 billion rubles.
                    And the design capacity of the SP-2 under construction is as much as 50 billion.
                    Cool yes Andrey.
                    Please give me an article why this is a peremoga))) Well, 50 is where it is cooler than 150, right?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      1 May 2021 15: 07
                      +2
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      By the way, one more curious moment.

                      Whatever the child is not amusing ...
                      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                      The design capacity of the gas transmission system of Ukraine is about 150 billion rubles.
                      And the design capacity of the SP-2 under construction is as much as 50 billion.
                      Cool yes Andrey.

                      Cool. Firstly, I am surprised how you manage to lie literally in every word - by "gracefully" indicating the "design capacity", they blabbed out the fact that at most 100 billion cubic meters of gas was actually transferred through the gas transportation system of Ukraine. Well, just think, one and a half times less, who counts them for you ... Yes, and the design capacity of the SP-2 is not 50, but 55 thousand cubic meters. It's so simple, Alexander, here he lied by one and a half, there he reduced 10% and now - a beautiful picture :)))) Well, it's just that you are all in this example.
                      Secondly, you, Alexander, as I understand it, flew in from somewhere from Mars, and you don't know that Ukraine has been twisting our hands with gas transportation since the 90s, when there were relatively friendly relations between the countries, and that the construction of the Nord Stream caused not by the need for the FULL transfer of gas transit, but by the possibility of political pressure on Ukraine, which is no longer the only transit route. And that work on SP-2 has been going on since 2000. And that SP-2, in fact, is not the only new gas pipeline, others were also under construction - Yamal-Europe, for example, with a capacity of up to 33 billion cubic meters, since the supply the bulk of gas through Ukraine is corny unprofitable.
                      1. Alexander Vorontsov
                        Alexander Vorontsov 8 May 2021 12: 11
                        -1
                        Yes, and the design capacity of SP-2 is not 50, but 55 thousand cubic meters. It's so simple, Alexander, here he lied by one and a half, there he reduced 10% and now - a beautiful picture :))))

                        Normal people understand that when it comes to 150, these 5 do not make the difference between 50 and 55.

                        Secondly, you, Alexander, as I understand it, flew in from somewhere from Mars, and you don't know that Ukraine was twisting our hands

                        I am for the fact that we would arrange our puppet government in Ukraine.

                        No matter what they twisted our hands. And we are to them.
                        There were no statesmen rulers. Who ruled for the power.
                        There were "political women of easy virtue" and this is not a curse, but a completely normal term. These are people who, getting the rating, simply "sold" these votes as a commodity.

                        And they were bought)
                        Star-striped.

                        This required money. That compete with all other spending.
                        This would allow us to have concessional access to their military infrastructure. To 10 airfields.
                        Use their transport infrastructure more actively.

                        And we had to recruit and train fighters for PMCs at their training bases and send them to the same Syria.
                        Since the standard of living in Ukraine is lower in general, it was quite possible to recruit such guys there.

                        But now the Yankees are doing this)))
                        And you dream of an aircraft carrier.
                        Well done.
                        Wisely.

                        Could have better tariffs for gas transportation.

                        The fact that our hands were twisted is our defeat! How do you not understand this.
                        In war without shots. No sunken ships.

                        This is also a war. And it also needs to be financed.


                        What is not clear to you about the design capacity 150?
                        Well, we passed on it 100 more 50 remained in stock.

                        Those same 50 for which the SP-2 is designed.
                        We would already have this capacity now.

                        And our market share would not have dropped.


                        The fall in 2020 of our market share is NOT associated with a break with Ukraine :))))))

                        It is also connected with her.

                        It is obvious that 2020 has become a crisis year for the energy markets, incl. the gas market in general and Europe in particular. But it is also obvious that the demand for energy has fallen sharply due to lockdowns introduced to counter the COVID-19 coronavirus infection pandemic, and not from the closure of the Ukrainian market, as you brazenly lie.

                        From Gazprom's report on what happened
                        The share of the United States soared almost 9 times. If in 2018 American gas accounted for only 0,7% of the European market with supplies of 3,7 billion cubic meters, then in 2020 it is already 6,2%, and in the first half of the year alone, 17,4 billion cubic meters were supplied.

                        On the question of the cost of bases.
                        So they won the "political war" and took EVERYTHING.
                        They have both "bases" and "gas" there.

                        Just answer me bluntly - what's wrong with the fact that I WANT the situation to be MIRROR ???
                        And that it is IMPORTANT for us.
                        And that AB does not play a role here in any way.

                        I'm talking about the fact that we are losing% of the market, you write some kind of unsubscribe.

                        Since 2018, European countries have sharply increased their gas purchases in Qatar and the United States - only these two countries have been able to increase their share over the past three years, Gazprom notes in the report.


                        WE HAVE GIVEN LYULEY in UKRAINE.


                        The consequences are AWESOME.
                        They are disastrous. Much more than Tsushima.
                        And you are here denying the obvious.

                        Do you want to prepare for a naval war? Get ready.
                        We will wait until they do the same in Belarus as in Ukraine.

                        We can't. We're good. We will endure Old Man. And let the United States deal with coups. So they will do it.
                        We are preparing for Tsushima and do not understand HOW they are fighting with us today.


                        The Nord Stream is caused not by the need for the FULL transfer of gas transit, but by the possibility of political pressure on Ukraine, which is no longer the only transit route

                        In principle, the transit of 50 cubic meters cannot be transferred "FULLY" through a pipe designed for 100 "cubes". It seemed obvious to me, didn't you?

                        And it's not about transferring, but about the fact that the market is developing.
                        And we need NEW capacities "for growth". Anyway.

                        And if we look at the situation from this side, then the loss of the gas transportation system of Ukraine is a disaster for us.
                        Because it shouldn't have been "Ukraine OR SP-2 + Yamal-Europe"
                        "And Ukraine I SP-2 + Yamal-Europe"

                        And since the share of Ukraine is huge, then even building new capacities, we are rolling back, especially in conditions when the market is growing.

                        And this GUARANTEES us that we have a powerful factor that will contribute to the further decline in our market share.
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov April 30 2021 22: 52
    0
    The strategy of indirect actions, when a rebellion or an “orange revolution” is arranged to overthrow an unwanted regime, and then, if the existing power is not immediately thrown off, the country's military potential is “multiplied by zero” through the operation of the Air Force and the Navy, is extremely effective. And it can be done in such a way that the allies of this very regime will simply not be given the opportunity to deploy their (that is, ours) aerospace forces at pro-government air bases.

    Dear Editors.
    Please explain why, when it comes to the fleet, everyone is so smart there.
    You write beautiful stories about the "advance placement" of ship strike groups.
    By the fact that you have nothing else to do, tk. ships sail slowly.


    And forgive people with disabilities in aviation in your opinion? With ICQ in 2 characters?
    Only ships can be placed in advance.

    nothing else can be placed in advance. No operatives, no MTR. No air defense ... nothing. So?
    1. Newone
      Newone 1 May 2021 03: 10
      -1
      You see, Alexander, the early deployment of aviation, in other words, patrolling, is very expensive. The advance placement of air defense, aviation at airfields and ground forces in the overwhelming majority of cases is simply impossible. For example, diplomatic work on the deployment of an air base in Belarus has been going on for 10 years, if not 20, and it is still not there. Moreover, without the obvious loss of Lukashenka's power as a result of military intervention to ALL, this base will not appear there, since a foreign base on the territory is a loss of sovereignty.
      The fleet, on the other hand, can be located in the required areas (with the correct organization, of course) almost constantly and this deployment costs orders of magnitude less than the deployment of aviation and two orders of magnitude less than the deployment of land bases (taking into account all costs).
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 1 May 2021 08: 01
        -2
        Quote: Newone
        You see, Alexander, early deployment of aviation, in other words, patrolling, is very expensive

        It's a lie.

        For example, diplomatic work on the deployment of an air base in Belarus has been going on for 10 years, if not 20, and it is still not there.

        And what does this prove? We also do not have combat-ready aircraft carriers, but this does not prevent you from considering the issues of their use in isolation from the current state of affairs.

        Moreover, without the obvious loss of Lukashenka's power to EVERYONE as a result of military intervention, this base will not appear there,

        I will remind you of your own logic.
        We have a certain ally. And the United States is staging a kind of coup in this country.
        So I would like to ask.
        What kind of ally is this that even an airfield cannot provide?

        Moreover, without the obvious loss of power to ALL Lukashenka

        This means that we must do it in our interests, without waiting for the United States to do it.
        This is also a "war" that requires money. And AB won't help here.

        The fleet, on the other hand, can be located in the required areas (with the correct organization, of course) almost constantly and this deployment costs orders of magnitude less than the deployment of aviation and two orders of magnitude less than the deployment of land bases (taking into account all costs).

        First, you are confusing.
        The fleet being at sea constantly burns its resources.
        An aircraft carrier is capable of combat at best 60% of its lifetime.

        land base deployment

        Difficult, but I will try to convey.
        Please google and read how the BASES differ from airfields, how the home airfield differs from an operational airfield or even a temporary one.

        The presence of aviation does not necessarily involve BASE DEPLOYMENT.
        The Americans, when transferring their planes to Europe, do not deploy BASES at all, they use all the ready-made infrastructure.
        I repeat - if we are talking about our ally, then it is quite logical to assume that this "ally" will also somehow "invest" in the common cause. The Americans deploying planes to Europe do not deploy any "bases"; they use what is in Europe.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 May 2021 09: 28
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          The presence of aviation does not necessarily involve BASE DEPLOYMENT.
          The Americans, when transferring their planes to Europe, do not deploy BASES at all, they use all the ready-made infrastructure.

          And where did it come from, you certainly "do not know." Alexander, I have already made many discounts both on your rudeness and on your ignorance. But my patience is not unlimited. You either stop lying or stop talking about things that you have no idea about.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            Alexander Vorontsov 1 May 2021 11: 48
            -2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            The presence of aviation does not necessarily involve BASE DEPLOYMENT.
            The Americans, when transferring their planes to Europe, do not deploy BASES at all, they use all the ready-made infrastructure.

            And where did it come from, you certainly "do not know." Alexander, I have already made many discounts both for your rudeness and for your ignorance. But my patience is not unlimited. You either stop lying or stop talking about what you have no idea about.

            1) Who is "she"? There are very different examples. You, like Timokhin, began to hide behind abstractions?
            2)
            But my patience is not unlimited. You either stop lying or stop talking about things that you have no idea about.

            Did someone ask you for patience? Do what you want, that you arrange a circus of elementary things.

            You either stop lying or stop talking about what you have no idea about.

            I have the same opinion about your work.
            For example, about how you built a fleet that you do not need to maintain.
            At the same time, laying an incomprehensible 33%. By the way, you did not answer the question why, according to Maxim Klimov, 25% of funding goes to the fleet and not 33% as you like to write "calculated by you." So you better start with yourself in the question
            You either stop lying or stop talking about things that you have no idea about.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              1 May 2021 14: 31
              +2
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Did someone ask you for patience?

              Thank you! If so, then with your kind permission, I am happy to lead you with my nose in that stream of enchanting delirium with which you simply filled up comments on my article.
              You wrote to us
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              The presence of aviation does not necessarily involve BASE DEPLOYMENT.
              The Americans, when transferring their planes to Europe, do not deploy BASES at all, they use all the ready-made infrastructure.
              I repeat - if we are talking about our ally, then it is quite logical to assume that this "ally" will also somehow "invest" in the common cause. The Americans deploying planes to Europe do not deploy any "bases"; they use what is in Europe.

              Firstly, America has a mass of military bases all over the world, there are about 800 of them, although 600 and 1000 are also called. Secondly, it is America that bears the main costs of maintaining its military bases abroad. Moreover, the costs of maintaining such bases in the United States are colossal - figures of 65-100 billion dollars a year are called.
              That is, for a second, for a year, the Americans spend on military bases an amount comparable in size to the entire US aircraft carrier fleet.
              Maybe we get it cheaper?
              We do not pay Armenia for the bases, but we gave a loan for the purchase of weapons for $ 300 million.Belarus does not take money from us, but the Tajiks for the 201st first took $ 6 million a year, but then they demanded $ 300 million. we pay now - it is not disclosed in print. We pay Kazakhstan up to $ 200 million a year. A little more - here: https://topwar.ru/146119-vo-skolko-obhodjatsja-rossii-voennye-bazy-na-territorii-sojuznikov.html
              Tartus, if anything, costs us $ 2 million a year.
              And that's just the rent. And we also have to pay for the equipment of the base itself, the delivery of everything necessary to it, etc. etc. Americans, by the way, live in similar conditions. For example, their Ramstein base in Germany does not pay rent, and the Germans supply energy for it free of charge. But other costs for its maintenance and equipment are solely on the United States.
              Bases abroad are a VERY expensive pleasure, and no amount of your verbiage will refute this fact. Actually, it came to a scandal when Trump tried to transfer the American bases to self-sufficiency.
              The very proposal to force Europeans and other US allies to pay is a source of outright horror among many American experts and diplomats. "Even at this early stage [Trump's proposal] sent shockwaves through the Department of Defense and the State Department, where officials fear that this will be a particularly serious affront to consistent US allies in Asia and Europe, who are already questioning the depth of Trump's commitment to allies." writes Time. It is easy to guess what reaction the next stage of the American president's plan will cause: “Pentagon officials were asked to calculate two formulas: one would determine how much money countries like Germany should pay. The second formula will determine the discount these countries will receive if their policies are consistent with US policy. "
              As panicked experts and diplomats rightly point out, such proposals will lead to only one thing: in countries like Germany or Japan, where voters are not happy with the presence of American troops, public discussion will begin again about whether it is time to ask the Americans to leave. ... “Even raising this issue fuels the false narrative that these facilities (military bases. - Author's note) exist for the good of these countries,” Douglas Lute, a former US ambassador to NATO, told Time. “The truth is that the bases are there because the bases are in our interests,” he added.

              So there is no need to tell tales about how the United States is basing its troops on someone else's infrastructure. It is the Americans that UNDERSTAND THE BASES, and then CARRY THE LARGE SHARE OF THE COSTS OF THEIR MAINTENANCE.
              And if you didn't know this - then, if you please, stop writing comments and start reading at least something on the topic you are writing about. Only now, I am sure that you all know, but you just lie to people in the face. As soon as I pulled you to answer, for your chatter - you start to get hysterical
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Who is she"? There are very different examples. You, like Timokhin, began to hide behind abstractions?

              And an extremely stupid attempt to answer in the style of "stupid himself"
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              I have the same opinion about your work.

              My dear man, in those articles I answered ALL the questions asked to me. Have the courage (or whatever you have instead) to answer for your empty chatter about bases
              1. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 1 May 2021 15: 08
                -1
                Andrey you mean 25% then answer) Respect the readers.
                Before you burn it with napalm. I understand that the logic of the article about the construction of a free fleet has gone 3 seams, but try it.

                Firstly, America has a mass of military bases around the world, there are about 800 of them, although 600 and 1000 are also called

                Yes.
                But aircraft carrier fans only focus on aircraft carriers.
                Why and why? Does the United States have aircraft carriers?))) Why do they need bases ...

                Moreover, the costs of maintaining such bases in the United States are colossal - figures of 65-100 billion dollars a year are called.

                You remarkably said 1000 bases cost as much as 10 aircraft carriers.
                So the ratio was deduced.
                By the way, I had it from 30 to 1 to 80 to 1, depending on which base and which aircraft carrier.
                Well, ok. 100 to 1 so 100 to 1. I respect, respect ...

                Bases abroad are VERY expensive

                Well, you have not voiced the arguments. They only wrote in caps. Like Timokhin.
                He loves INSANELY dearly. SOOO expensive.
                Beautiful bright epithets. Without meaning.

                Yes, the bases cost money, but as you wanted.
                But this is TEN times cheaper than AB.

                So there is no need to tell tales about how the United States bases its troops on someone else's infrastructure.

                Those. you are now saying that the Americans pay for the light and the removal of the poop from the base.
                And that's why it's like their infrastructure, right? Bravo Andrei. Bravo. Clever.

                Ie they built runways right? Autobahns were laid?
                What kind of fairy tales? It is a fact - they built a minuscule amount. And 90% was before them.

                And an extremely stupid attempt to answer in the style of "stupid himself"

                Who sees what - your right, and so it was a stupid attempt to explain to you that the "base" of the base is different.
                And this affects the range of prices. A small airfield for Su-34 and small transport workers is not Kabul. And not Ramstein.
                Just like the corvette is not AB.
                But it’s not destiny

                My dear man, in those articles I answered ALL the questions asked to me. Have the courage (or whatever you have instead) to answer for your empty chatter about bases

                Yes, you have not answered anything.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  1 May 2021 15: 31
                  +3
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  You remarkably said 1000 bases cost as much as 10 aircraft carriers.
                  So the ratio was deduced.

                  And again - a lie, and understandable even to a third grader. Because an aircraft carrier has been in service for 50 years, and spending roughly 10 billion for each of 10 AB we get 100 billion in construction costs for 50 years. Well, let it be 200 billion - taking into account the operating costs
                  1000 bases per 100 billion per year - an average of 0,1 billion per year for one base, over 50 years - 5 billion, 200 billion / 5 = 40 bases. One aircraft carrier for 4 bases :))))))
                  And this despite the fact that not all American bases have an airfield at all :)))
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  Yes, the bases cost money, but as you wanted.
                  But this is TEN times cheaper than AB.

                  Congratulations, you failed in the 4 steps of arithmetic :)
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  Andrey you mean 25% then answer) Respect the readers.

                  You have nothing to respect. But I will answer :))) In the article, I never stated that today 33% is spent on the fleet. I wrote
                  In principle, it would be logical to allocate the Russian Navy funding for the purchase of weapons at a level of at least 30-33% of the "common boiler"

                  25% is the figure from the GPV 2011-2020, on which 10 trillion rubles should have been spent over 20 years, of which 5 trillion rubles. to the fleet. For 10 years.
                  We open my article. We read
                  And in this case, the average annual expenses for the Russian Navy increase to 385,5 billion rubles.

                  Multiplying 385,5 billion by 10 years = 3,86 trillion rubles.
                  The GPV 2011-2020 included FIVE trillion. That is, there are many more average annual costs than are needed for the construction of a fleet of the number I indicated.

                  I was planning to spend only 385,5 billion a year on average. GPV 2011-2020 assumed to spend 500 billion rubles. per year on average. In fact, the difference is even greater, because I counted in prices for 2020, and GPV - in "early", not yet denominated rubles. However, the concept of inflation is too difficult for you, so let's not talk about it.
                  Congratulations on landing in another puddle. No, seriously, your thought process is so imperfect that you are unable to realize that in addition to relative values, you also need to look at absolute values? :)))
        2. Newone
          Newone 1 May 2021 21: 52
          +2
          It's a lie.

          This is true even if it doesn't fit into your sense of the world.
          And what does that prove?

          This proves the very high complexity and cost of the deployment of its military contingents on foreign territory. We spend billions of dollars a year to support Belarus, but they do not allow us to establish a base at their place.

          I will remind you of your own logic.
          We have a certain ally. And the United States is staging a kind of coup in this country.
          So I would like to ask.
          What kind of ally is this that even an airfield cannot provide?

          You distort what they write to you.
          There is a certain country in which we have interests. Libya, for example, was not our ally, but we had (economic) interests there and we suffered (from unfulfilled contracts) quite tangible economic losses.
          So such a country may NOT grant us the right to use its territory until it is too late. as an example, Yugoslavia under Milosevic, which took care of establishing allied relations with us, when they were already bombed.

          The fleet being at sea constantly burns its resources.

          AND? It is necessary to let the ships not go out on pins and needles?
          By the way, aviation for training pilots must also constantly "burn the resource".

          Difficult, but I will try to convey.

          It is difficult for you because you do not know and do not understand the question.

          The Americans, when transferring their planes to Europe, do not deploy BASES at all, they use all the ready-made infrastructure.

          Конечно они не развертывают базы, они используют готовую инфраструктуру УЖЕ РАЗВЕРНУТЫХ баз: Рамштайн (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%88%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BD_(%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0)), Авиано(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviano_Air_Base),
          after Kosovo-Pristina was torn away from Serbia (http://pentagonus.ru/publ/amerikanskaja_voennaja_baza_camp_bondsteel_v_kosovo/3-1-0-2962)
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 2 May 2021 11: 41
            -1
            Libya, for example, was not our ally, but we had (economic) interests there and we suffered (from unfulfilled contracts) quite tangible economic losses.

            Ok, do these profits cover the costs of the military confrontation?
            1. nerd.su
              nerd.su 2 May 2021 13: 16
              +1
              Quote: 3danimal
              Ok, do these profits cover the costs of the military confrontation?

              No, but this is a matter of principle. If we have not defended our interests in any way, then we cannot. And since we cannot, then not only the United States will squeeze us out of everywhere. Any king of any banana country will take ours and make his own.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 2 May 2021 13: 46
                -2
                And since we cannot, then not only the United States will squeeze us out of everywhere. Any king of any banana country will take ours and make his own.

                Reminds me of the rules for gaining authority among boys in a depressed area.
                Big politics should be led by adults. We must learn from the advanced (economically successful) countries.
                My grandfather, parents (born 50-52) told me that many were annoyed when another "banana king" (and sometimes a cannibal) came for an irrevocable handout.
                The problem is that we got a lot of "contacts" from the USSR, which was not about benefits in foreign policy, but more about ideological confrontation (with bad capitalists and bourgeoisie). Establishing relationships with outsiders who can annoy the opponent.
                What if you plan your investments and risks not a year in advance?
                And not to get involved with toxic / problem countries, but more successful ones? Let's say from the first 50-60 economies?
                For example, in Africa, in addition to the CAR (160th place), there is South Africa, which is 36th.
                1. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 3 May 2021 21: 17
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Reminiscent of the rules for gaining authority among boys in a depressed area

                  Yes.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  Big politics should be led by adults.

                  That is, guys who are many years old. The character became more reasonable, measured seven times, only then cut it off. The principles have not changed.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  My grandfather, parents (born 50-52) told me that many were annoyed when another "banana king" (and sometimes a cannibal) came for an irrevocable handout.

                  I doubt it very much. If your grandfather was not an employee of the KGB or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he was sure that the subjects of this banana boy were starving. It was in the 90s and later that the people developed the habit of exposing Africans, for example, to invoices for the PCA, which the USSR gave them in the 60s in order to free the warehouses.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  The problem is that we got a lot of "contacts" from the USSR,

                  Soon it will be 30 years since the USSR is gone, and you are all about inheritance.
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  What if you plan your investments and risks not a year in advance?

                  Well, the miscalculation of risks for the future and gives the result - you need an aircraft carrier laughing
                  And you propose to contact the countries against which he will not help either.

                  Quote: 3danimal
                  And not to get involved with toxic / problem countries, but more successful ones? Let's say from the first 50-60 economies?
                  For example, in Africa, in addition to the CAR (160th place), there is South Africa, which is 36th

                  Well, what do you offer South Africa? Minerals to extract? So they can do it themselves. They wanted to build a nuclear power plant for them and they even nodded their heads, I-I! So the hegemon brought a bag of bananas to the parliament, and it doesn't matter that the place is 36, not 160. They abandoned our high technologies. But objectively we are the best in the nuclear industry.
                  And you are carrying a blizzard about long-term investment planning. Or take the Czech Republic. Or Libya, a good example. How will you calculate where the United States will do the Orange Revolution in five years?
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 3 May 2021 22: 27
                    0
                    They wanted to build a nuclear power plant for them and they even nodded their heads, I-I! So the hegemon brought a bag of bananas to parliament

                    https://www.atomic-energy.ru/news/2018/07/31/87772

                    Well, yes, everywhere, behind everything there is a hegemon. There are no internal reasons: no green ones (greetings from Germany), no political struggle, etc.
                    1. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 4 May 2021 21: 29
                      0
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      Well, yes, everywhere, behind everything there is a hegemon.

                      We agreed. I immediately realized that you are a reasonable person! They even provided a link to the article confirming my words! Here is a quote from your link:
                      Formally, South Africa could resume the atomic program by re-negotiating and re-signing the agreement. But even then, sources noticed that the environmental component was secondary, since there was a political factor behind the complaint against the nuclear power plant: the lawsuit in the High Court was an element of the fight against President Jacob Zuma. In the winter of 2017/18, the struggle ended in success: the president was ousted from the leadership of the African National Congress (the leading party in South Africa), and in February he ceded the post of head of state to Cyril Ramaphos.

                      That is, Jacob Zuma, who was criticized for being too loyal to Russia, was replaced by Cyril Ramaphos, the man who owns the McDonald's fast food chain in South Africa, who is on the international advisory boards of The Coca-Cola Company and Unilever Africa, and who is openly called American in South Africa. a puppet. After that, South Africa forwards Rosatom. Even you made the right choice
                      Quote: 3danimal
                      there is a hegemon behind everything. There are no internal reasons

                      drinks

                      By the way, there is further about Bulgaria, I will tell you this, too, the hegemon pushed us, since Sofia decided to abandon the completion of the Belene NPP, and use the equipment supplied by Rosatom for the construction of a new reactor at the operating Kozloduy NPP. This option was proposed by the American Westinghouse, which will sell technologies for the power unit to Bulgaria and will accompany the construction. Neither add nor subtract.
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 4 May 2021 23: 38
                        0
                        This option was proposed by the American Westinghouse, which will sell technologies for the power unit to Bulgaria and will accompany the construction. Neither add nor subtract.

                        Offhand, this option is better.

                        “Decisions on nuclear energy in South Africa today are largely determined by economic considerations,” says Nikolai Shcherbakov, senior researcher at the Center for African Studies at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Not because of a shortage of funds or the risk of a serious crisis, but because investments in the nuclear the energy sector does not seem to be the most efficient now, especially against the background of environmental and social problems. "

                        The expert recalled that back in 1989, South Africa curtailed its nuclear weapons program - this is the only case when the government voluntarily abandoned further work on the development of nuclear weapons, which they actually had.

                        In South Africa, no one started to build a nuclear power plant instead of ROSATOM.
                      2. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 5 May 2021 07: 32
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Offhand, this option is better.

                        Better let the Americans build than we do !?
                        Your anti-Russian position is clear, so the question is rhetorical.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        In South Africa, no one began to build a nuclear power plant instead of ROSATOM

                        So what? The main thing is for the United States that Rosatom does not build its reactors around the world. They themselves cannot build on such a scale, there is no possibility. But they can screw up the main competitor. The situation when Rosatom was forwarded, but no one replaced it, or the object was turned into a long long-term construction with unclear prospects is not unique.
                      3. 3danimal
                        3danimal 5 May 2021 07: 50
                        0
                        Better let the Americans build than we do !?

                        Emotions and hysteria. I have always thought (and so was brought up) that these qualities are more characteristic of women.
                        American Westinghouse, which will sell technologies for the power unit to Bulgaria and will accompany the construction.

                        Where does the information come from that a new nuclear power plant will be built? Its construction was curtailed.
                        Westinghouse will only upgrade the old one.
                        https://republic.ru/posts/l/770898

                        https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1903445

                        And Rosatom was left with nothing:
                        The Bulgarian government will soon decide to pay Russia 1,3 billion leva (over 660 million euros) as compensation for the refusal to build the Belene NPP.

                        But they can screw up the main competitor. The situation when Rosatom was forwarded, but no one replaced it, or the object was turned into a long long-term construction with unclear prospects is not unique.

                        Your judgments assume the absence of subjectivity in most countries.
                        Lack of internal political struggle, the presence of "green".
                        Westinghouse closes a nuclear power plant in Germany? By the way, he has a difficult position, unlike Rosatom.
                        On June 6, 2011, the German federal government decided to leave 9 power units of eight nuclear power plants and gradually completely abandon nuclear energy production by the end of 2022.

                        Less conspiracy.
                      4. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 5 May 2021 21: 50
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Emotions and hysteria

                        Actually, it's a surprise. The rest is your imagination.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Where does the information come from that a new nuclear power plant will be built? Its construction was curtailed.
                        Westinghouse will only upgrade the old

                        So that's exactly what I said. You should at least learn to read and understand what you read.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        the decision to pay Russia 1,3 billion leva (over 660 million euros) as compensation for the refusal to build the Belene NPP.

                        The price was $ 6 billion. The compensation is less than a billion.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Your judgments assume the absence of subjectivity in most countries.

                        Not. But the influence of the USA with satellites is enormous and difficult to resist.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Westinghouse closes a nuclear power plant in Germany? By the way, he has a difficult position, unlike Rosatom.

                        So of course. The cost price of amers is lame. And cards from the sleeve are used: internal political struggle, green ...
                      5. 3danimal
                        3danimal 6 May 2021 01: 41
                        0
                        The price was $ 6 billion. The compensation is less than a billion.

                        Well, the nuclear power plant was not built, in the end.
                        Not. But the influence of the USA with satellites is enormous and difficult to resist.

                        It's good to be a superpower request
                        Here we have to think about what prevents us from developing (inside, ourselves, and not nod to hostile influences).
                        https://youtu.be/1CEWPz_dfq4

                        About the "brain drain".

                        So of course. The cost price of amers is lame.

                        An example with the closure of a nuclear power plant in Germany.
                        Greens are doing their job. Internal factors.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 09: 22
    -1
    Quote: Newone
    The fleet, on the other hand, can be located in the required areas (with the correct organization, of course) almost constantly and this deployment costs orders of magnitude less than the deployment of aviation and two orders of magnitude less than the deployment of land bases (taking into account all costs).

    what terrible nonsense! airplanes at the airfield and even more so the ground forces do not burn fuel per day on a railway carriage like your AB, you cannot imagine what a ship is at sea and how much it needs, even a frigate eats everything in three throats, fuel oil, and also there is weather, watch, repairs
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 1 May 2021 09: 28
    -3
    Quote: Newone
    early deployment of aviation, in other words, patrolling,

    amazing stupidity, with what fright did the advance placement at the airfield and patrolling become one and the same for you?
    1. Newone
      Newone 1 May 2021 21: 19
      +1
      Let's place an airfield 200 km from the Pentagon ....
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    1 May 2021 07: 24
    +1
    Dear Boris gave you an exhaustive answer
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      Alexander Vorontsov 1 May 2021 09: 13
      -1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Dear Boris gave you an exhaustive answer

      Alas, no.
  • Newone
    Newone 1 May 2021 01: 19
    -1
    Another great article from Andrey. It is a pity the previous one was rather weak: already outdated data on the shipbuilding industry were used.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 May 2021 07: 24
      +1
      Quote: Newone
      the already outdated data on the shipbuilding industry were used.

      ??? :)))
      1. Newone
        Newone 1 May 2021 14: 55
        -1
        Andrey, in your article you did not pay attention to the shipbuilding capacities of the Zvezda shipyard. And they already allow making ships in Nimitz dimensions. Just compare the sizes of AB and the Afromax tanker. Moreover, with the introduction of the second stage (already under construction and half finished) in 2024, the shipyard will be able to make even floating docks for supercarriers.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 May 2021 15: 09
          +1
          Quote: Newone
          Andrey, in your article you did not pay attention to the shipbuilding capacities of the Zvezda shipyard. And they already allow making ships in Nimitz dimensions.

          Boris, I just know that Zvezda will not build aircraft carriers for sure - it is scheduled almost decades ahead for civilian orders. In addition, a project of such complexity should not be done in the Far East - there is now neither personnel nor industry, the logistics costs would be awful.
          1. Newone
            Newone 1 May 2021 19: 12
            -1
            Andrey, there are several slipways for the Moscow Region reserved (one is being built on one dock), and whether Rosneft will build supertankers on the supposed main slipway of 500x200 m. Personnel tend to migrate if necessary (Vladivostok is still much more pleasant to live in than Severodvinsk).
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              2 May 2021 09: 54
              +2
              Quote: Newone
              Andrey, there are several slipways for the Moscow Region reserved (one is being built on one dock), and whether Rosneft will build supertankers on the supposed main slipway of 500x200 m.

              Boris, everything is very complicated there. Read about what problems there are with components, for example Igor Sechin's SSK Zvezda has gone for Korean metal, or Zvezda shipyard may switch from foreign steel to Russian steel, and, for example, the supply of Zvezdochka screws may cause shipyards under sanctions ...
              1. Newone
                Newone 2 May 2021 13: 50
                -1
                Andrey, problems with steel will be solved if they suddenly become acute. In addition to Koreans, there are ours and Chinese and Indians.
                [Quote] The interlocutor of the publication noted that in this case, Russian Railways will need to modernize the car fleet and the Severomuisky tunnel.
                Источник: https://advis.ru/php/view_news.php?id=DEA6D23D-5873-704A-BC59-1B446047693D[quote]
                Now the Northern branch of the bam is being completed in a hurry for the sake of coal, and there are absolutely different volumes there. At the same time, it will be easier to transport steel from MMK.
                And the equipment by sea is a little more difficult and more expensive to deliver than to Severodvinsk.

                The point is that Zvezda will build and pay off from the huge non-military demand. And this is the stability of the shipyard's operation and a decrease in the period of its economic recoupment, which ultimately will result in a decrease in the time and cost of building military ships.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  2 May 2021 14: 50
                  +1
                  Quote: Newone
                  Andrey, problems with steel will be solved if they suddenly become acute. In addition to Koreans, there are ours and Chinese and Indians.

                  Reshat. But the point is that Zvezda is provided with civil orders (the management said that there are under 90), despite the fact that there are serious problems with the supply of literally everything. And frames too
                  Quote: Newone
                  Personnel tend to migrate if necessary (Vladivostok is still much more pleasant for housing than Severodvinsk

                  Yes, I would not say :)))))) I traveled half the country myself (I worked from St. Petersburg to Ulan-Ude), but I know that not everyone (especially working specialties) is ready for such victories
                  Quote: Newone
                  The point is that Zvezda will build and pay off from the huge non-military demand.

                  Certainly. Let it continue to pay off for itself, as I said, civil orders are overwhelmed to the eyeballs
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 2 May 2021 11: 38
    0
    About Africa:
    How big are the revenues there compared to the upcoming expenses?
    It's not about economics and profits, it's about a sense of greatness.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 May 2021 12: 33
      +1
      Quote: 3danimal
      How big are the revenues there compared to the upcoming expenses?
      It's not about economics and profits, it's about a sense of greatness.

      Are we fighting in Syria out of a sense of greatness?
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 2 May 2021 12: 44
        -1
        To a large extent. To feel it.
        Wishlist ...
        Who counted the profit made and the money spent there?
        Syria is destroyed, some people died, some fled.
        The restoration requires billions, which we do not have (it is no coincidence that the rich USA were offered to chip in).
        And the fighting continues there. Hanging a burden on a budget.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 May 2021 14: 43
          +2
          Quote: 3danimal
          To a large extent.

          No :) In Syria, we are fighting to prevent the formation of a radical Islamist state, which will destabilize both Chechnya and Tatarstan for us (try, at least)
          Quote: 3danimal
          Who counted the profit made and the money spent there?

          Listen, as an economist, I'm telling you - not everything is measured by profit :)
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 3 May 2021 03: 43
            -1
            In Syria, we are fighting to prevent the formation of a radical Islamist state, which will destabilize both Chechnya and Tatarstan for us (try, at least)

            It all began with such statements.
            At first, they almost completely helped to hold on to Assad, which was the main goal.
            It was not only we who fought with IS, because the defeat (as an organized structure, at least) was inevitable.
      2. Newone
        Newone 2 May 2021 13: 58
        +1
        We in Syria are fighting for the sake of Tartus and Khmeimim.
        So that when we begin to resolve the issue with the 404 territory, the potential enemy would not be tempted to support his minions with a volley of tomahawks from the eastern Mediterranean basin.
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 4 May 2021 18: 55
    -2
    Aircraft carriers are certainly needed, but only for TF! In which case, in other NATO fleets they simply will not be released anywhere! Ships of the Nakhimov class are more stable in battle! If the runway is damaged or something else, the aircraft carrier turns into a trough! In the west, where to break through with a fight? Coastal fighter aircraft reaches all the way to England! At the Pacific Fleet there is an open ocean, open space! Americans have bases all over the world! And in Russia! The country's leadership itself does not know both ours and the former USSR! And ordinary people just scratch their tongues! There are no bases, tasks, goals to use! It seems that we have already decided on the construction of helicopter carriers and the basing of vertical take-off aircraft on them in the future! If necessary, the UDC can land troops! And the aircraft carrier? The helicopter carrier can organize anti-submarine defense of the warrant! Bomb who? In Syria, Russia has proven that you can do without aircraft carriers!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      5 May 2021 07: 56
      +1
      Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      Coastal fighter aircraft reaches all the way to England itself!

      laughing fool
      The rest of the comments - match this
      1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
        VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 8 May 2021 05: 10
        0
        I do not want to offend but the nonsense of your articles, comments are tired! Learn materiel! Before you write anything, you need to thoroughly study everything! In your articles, babbling! Pros you put, tech who is a complete layman! In addition to the beautiful style of presenting your nonsense all the time, there is nothing else! Kvass as in the cartoon Sailing Solnyshkin all articles!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          8 May 2021 10: 42
          0
          Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
          I do not want to offend but the nonsense of your articles, comments are tired! Learn materiel!

          And hysterics began, and what a one! :))))) "The paranoid fought in the foam, like the witcher at the Sabbath:" Untie the towel, innovators, fanatics, my heart is bermudic and my soul is bermuda! "(C) :))) )
          Come on, teach me the materiel, and tell me, for a start, which of our fighter aircraft reaches the coast of England :)))) With reference to at least some source other than your fevered imagination.
          1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
            VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 8 May 2021 11: 55
            0
            If you stop writing kindergarten nonsense, then there will be no hysteria! Write nonsense all the time! And the source of kvass is one Wikipedia! Tell you the Military Secret? You beautifully expounds but only in each article is nonsense! You need facts, but no one will give them to you! In short, stop writing comics! If I prove anything to you, I will sink to your level! You have already been written once, it did not reach you! You make people laugh!
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              8 May 2021 14: 28
              -1
              I did not expect any other answer.
              You cannot confirm your words, but with the rest, I, of course, understand - spring, exacerbation - please contact your attending physician.
              1. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
                VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 9 May 2021 20: 14
                +1
                Earnest request! Andrey is a serious site and this is not the place for your feuilletons! Don't write anything! All my military acquaintances are laughing at you! No offense! You have already been written not to go where you do not know! You can never prove anything to such people! You are always 100% delusional! And this is not an insult. You just do not know how to accept criticism!
  • Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 5 May 2021 15: 18
    +1
    Andrey is logical as always
  • Vadim Kuznetsov_2
    Vadim Kuznetsov_2 10 May 2021 22: 31
    0
    Disgusting article. Write to write. No idea about the state. Secret and state. Interests. Apparently the author did not serve in the army and still does not know the matchast well. It is terrible that such articles appear in such a worthy source.
  • Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to a member function delete () on null in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php:1135 Stack trace: # 0 / var / www /topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(529): HTML_Node-> deleteChild (false) # 1 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/ pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 2 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(559): HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 3 / var / www / topwar / html / topwar.ru / vendor / ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php (531): HTML_Node-> clear () # 4 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/ pharse / pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 5 [internal function]: HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 6 {main} thrown in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php on line 1135