Military Review

Requiem for the Soviet Navy. Lost opportunities for heavy nuclear cruisers of project 1144

129

This article is, in fact, a continuation of a series of articles about stories and the prospects of the Russian Navy, on one of the key issues - "the problem of the Russian aircraft carrier."


For the first time, the question of the possibility of implementing an aircraft carrier based on the corps of the project of a heavy missile cruiser (TARKR) of project 1144 was raised by the author publicly in 2007 in the article “Aviation of the Navy. Was. There is? Will be?"

... 7. Construction of a new light training aircraft carrier (landing helicopter ship) or re-equipment of the project 1144 missile cruiser as an aircraft carrier (for example, repair with modernization of the TARKR "Ushakov" or "Lazarev" as an aircraft carrier). The presence of the second "deck" will allow to supply Kuznetsov for proper repair (or to provide the Pacific Fleet's "ship deck").

However, the idea itself arose much earlier, in 1994. During the period of cadet practice in the North navy... On the TARKR "Kirov", with the clarification of the issue in the development of documents on the possible promising appearance of the Navy in the 2000s (including taking into account financial and other restrictions).

Indeed, the hulls and power plants of the Project 1144 cruisers that remained at the disposal of the Navy at that time were quite possible to rebuild them into light aircraft carriers. One would definitely be able to.

Once again, I emphasize that the issue of efficiency (including the criterion "efficiency - cost") of an aircraft carrier is not worth it (its effectiveness has been studied and confirmed by a number of studies). The question can only be in its (air group) appearance and models of use.

Of course, a small aircraft carrier is theoretically inferior to a large aircraft not only in terms of combat effectiveness, but also in terms of "efficiency - cost"... Here I quite agree rated by A. Timokhin (and specialists from the US Navy and the RAND corporation, who investigated the issues of "various dimensions of aircraft carriers").

For example, the labor intensity of the construction of American atomic "Nimitz" is about 40 million man-hours. At the same time, the labor intensity of the four times smaller British light aircraft carriers of the Invincible class is only half as much - about 22 million man-hours.

However, this approach does not fully assess a number of practically significant factors.

First. No matter how good a "large aircraft carrier" is, if it actually does not exist, there is no subject of the conversation itself. Here it is necessary to note the operational requirements with which one aircraft carrier is “almost none”.

Second. Naval battles are not "sports competitions", where comparison is made in roughly equal conditions and according to strict rules. It is clear that the overall potential of the Nimitz is many times greater than the Charles de Gaulle-sized aircraft carrier. However, for the case of the Soviet Navy (and the Russian Federation), no one was going to bring the aircraft carriers to the "lists" "one-on-one". The main strike tool of the Navy was long-range operational anti-ship missiles (anti-ship missiles ON) from shipborne and aviation carriers. At the same time, the optimal task of our aircraft carrier was to provide (reconnaissance, air defense) our strike forces.

In fact, an aircraft carrier in this capacity is a means of obtaining data about the enemy, which can be used for accurate target designation to ship missile systems. weapons.
Moreover, the effectiveness of this, even for a grouping with a single ship of Project 11345, could practically be an order of magnitude (!) Higher than the effectiveness of strike forces (including enemy losses) operating without TAVKR. If our TAVKR began to participate in joint strikes, then its effectiveness "sagged" to 1,1–1,5 (efficiency gain coefficient). There were more than enough missiles in the USSR Navy, but there was a very big problem with the feasibility of the fleet's strike potential.

On the scale of the "great confrontation of the Cold War", a number of aspects of this were considered in the article “Once again about the myths of the post-war shipbuilding. Integration of long-range missile weapons and air defense aircraft carriers will be a good solution for the Russian Navy. "

Write-off of "Lazarev" was determined by "Nakhimov"


At the end of April this year, the aircraft carrier "Admiral Lazarev" in tow set off on its last trip from the Fokino base for disposal.


TARKR "Lazarev" ("Frunze") in the Fokino base, the last trip ...

In fact, this put an end not only in the fate of this ship, it became a symbolic turning point in the part of the naval reserve left to us from the USSR.

The modernization of the 3rd generation ships turned out to be a complete failure, and the extremely rare cases of this (TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov" and BOD "Marshal Shaposhnikov"), in fact, confirm this.

Project 1144 ships had a service life of more than 50 years, and it was the thoughtless and extremely costly modernization of "Nakhimov".

In fact, what is being completed at Nakhimov today is a senseless sawing off of a huge amount of resources. For two key reasons: the ship does not have a sane concept and application model, being in fact the Yamato of the XXI century (despite the fact that the battleship Yamato itself was sunk by aviation with minimal losses back in 1945), with a colossal level of financial costs on him (absolutely disproportionate to his capabilities). “Nakhimov” became the “golden log” of our defense industry complex (which was “sawed off” with great pleasure). Against the background of this main thing, the constant failure to meet the deadlines for it is already perceived as a "commonplace".

Taking into account the fact that the Nakhimov scam raises a number of very bad questions (including to the persons personally responsible for all this and actively participating in this “assimilation of budgetary funds”), an information campaign “in justification” was launched:

Doves of peace. The Eagles also have another secret. Of the four built ships - "Kirov", "Admiral Lazarev", "Admiral Nakhimov" and "Peter the Great" - by the end of the 90s, only the last was fully operational. The firstborn of the series, because of the "subcontractors", surrendered to the fleet literally unarmed.

In short, this is an absolute and shameless lie. And below this will be in more detail, with details and facts.

However, in the course of publication, the "degree of lies" simply "takes off":

In 1996, the cruiser "Peter the Great" saved from such a case, one might say. The visit of the first President of Russia Boris Yeltsin was planned to St. Petersburg. As usual, in order to solve stagnant problems, the command of the Navy included a visit to the Baltic Shipyard in the program of the head of state. The stake was very clear - he would see the giant and give money for its completion. They say that at this moment another miracle happened - the unfinished "drowned" literally at the quay wall.

That is, in "sober mind and good health" it is declared about the drowning of a ship with a nuclear power plant in the middle of the 90s in the center of St. Petersburg! Sorry, but this is not even a fake, this is not a duck. This is just an outrageous lie from start to finish, indecency, and it was published (by an "expert" with a "well-known name") not in some kind of "yellow sheet", but in ... the TASS agency ( link)!

Actually, all this is done by "pseudo-experts" in order to justify the next delays in the terms of "Nakhimov":

A similar story is observed with the new anti-aircraft missile system. It seems that instead of the S-300 or S-400 "Triumph" on the "Admiral Nakhimov" they can install the newest S-500 "Prometheus" ... However, with all this, none of the first persons ever spoke about the existence of a naval version of such a complex. And the naval version is always different. At least by the fact that the ship's radar stations operate in different conditions and modes than their coastal counterparts, they have to be built practically from scratch. It means that if the fleet really insists on the best, then the delivery time of the cruiser will increase even more.

And now the facts.

The first atomic heavy missile


The most complex component of the armament of the new TARKR was the S-300F "Fort" air defense system.
Of "Historical sketches of Captain 1st Rank V. K. Pechatnikov" on State tests of the air defense missile system "Fort":

Admiral Bondarenko, said that from now on the ship and its crew will work as in battle. Subsequently, no one, except for the admiral and the commander of the ship, knew from which direction and which target would be launched. A combat alert was simply played and a simple task was solved - to shoot down everything that appeared in the air. After some fuss at the first shooting, the personnel gained confidence, and it was the regime proposed by the admiral that led to the fact that almost the entire volume of shooting at the final stage of testing was completed in 12 days ...

On August 25, 1983, having already completed the last firing according to the test program, the ship returned to Severomorsk. Admiral Bondarenko played a combat alert, the personnel fled to combat posts. It turned out that Zam. The commander-in-chief for combat training decided to give another RM-15M target from his reserve. The boat fired from under the coast of the Kola Peninsula, and in the sea along which the ship was sailing, it was at least 5 points. I was on the bridge and I felt uncomfortable when the hatch covers of the launcher opened, and a wave at that time covered the fire deck. The rocket went off without comment, and then everything went on as usual. People grumbled: "Well, who else needs to be shot down?" There was no more shooting.

Be that as it may, the draft of all documents was sent to the Minister of Defense Marshal of the Soviet Union DF Ustinov for submission to the country's leadership. But he did not believe the successful completion of the tests and ordered the entire live-fire program to be repeated.

Nobody began to challenge the minister's order, but only repelling the attack of six RM-6 targets was repeated. DF Ustinov did not believe the successful results and ordered the transfer of the Slava RRC (project 1164), which had already entered service, to the Northern Fleet and a series of joint firing. As a result, 96 missiles were used for all additional firing.

Observers from all control bodies made sure that only personnel were working. The result of each shooting was reported personally to the Minister of Defense, while the other ministers watched the events in the north with bated breath. Our department did not go to these shooting, the URAV Navy represented the combat training department. All shooting gave 100% success. Only having received such brilliant results, the minister signed the documents and presented them at the instance.

It is worth noting here that the issue of delivering really combat-ready ships was so acute that the head TARKR "Kirov" received modifications of a number of key complexes from old ships, for example, the anti-submarine missile system "Metel" and BIUS "Alley-2M" (with their replacement with complexes 3rd generation "already on the next ship of the series - aircraft carrier" Frunze ").

And here it is necessary to note the exceptional role in ensuring the development of new ships of their first commanders - the lead (TARKR of the Northern Fleet "Kirov") A. S. Kovalchuk and E. G. Zdesenko (TAKR Pacific Fleet "Frunze").


Commanders: the head "Kirov" A. S. Kovalchuk and the first Pacific ("Frunze") E. G. Zdesenko

When Kirov's officers write that they had photographs of their Commander (with a capital letter) in their cabins, they do not exaggerate at all. A.S. Kovalchuk had great respect and love from his men. And this is, among other things, a personal assessment of the author, who already found Rear Admiral Kovalchuk as the head of the VVMU named after Frunze at the beginning of the very difficult 90s.

About Commander Zdesenko I have heard similar assessments already at the Pacific Fleet. Those interested can familiarize themselves, for example, with memoirs of N. Kurinus.

Yes, it’s impossible to say that “everything worked 100%”. And this applies, for example, to a number of CIUS tasks. But the "combat systems" and tasks on the new TARKR worked completely in accordance with the tactical and technical requirements for development.

And here the main question arises about Project 1144 - did they make sense, or did they represent, according to some authors, "a victory of common sense over technology"?
And the answer to this question is "His Majesty the Aircraft Carrier."

System-forming factor of the operational connection


Preliminary work on the future aircraft carrier of project 1144 began in the early 60s. However, full-scale work unfolded almost simultaneously with the deployment of work on our full-fledged aircraft carriers (Project 1160 "Eagle").


The model of the "Russian Nimitz" - the atomic TAVKR project 1160 "Eagle" (early 70s).

And in this version of the TARKR project 1144 acquired their deep meaning and very high efficiency: with long-range air defense systems, they not only provided the middle air defense line of the operational connection with the aircraft carrier, but also, due to a powerful strike complex, fettered the activity of enemy aircraft (forcing always to have a reserve of interceptors for parrying this threat). At the same time, the nuclear power plant on cruisers and aircraft carriers provided a huge range and high operational mobility of such a compound.

Actually, the example of the US Navy was before my eyes:


Atomic Task Force CVAN-65 Enterprise, CGN-9 Long Beach, DLGN-25 Bainbridge, DLGN-35 Truxtun in a war zone (Gulf of Tonkin 1972).

As a result, the history of our aircraft carriers turned out to be very complex and winding. However, at the end of the 80s, the construction of nuclear aircraft carriers in the USSR was started (moreover, with large-block construction technologies that were ahead of the United States). And if it had not been for the collapse of the USSR, by the mid-2000s in the ranks of the USSR Navy there would have been only nuclear - 3 aircraft carriers.


Nuclear TAVKR "Ulyanovsk" project 11437.

That is, the well-known phrase about the 1144 project "victory of technology over common sense" had grounds only in relation to the TARKR project 1144 without an aircraft carrier.

At the turn - "status ship"


In 1987, a symbolic meeting at sea of ​​the Frunze TARKR and the Chinese destroyer Chongqing (a missile destroyer based on our Project 41) took place.


Meeting of TAVKR "Frunze" and the Chinese destroyer Chongqing. 1987 year

The newest powerful ship of the USSR Navy at the peak of scientific and technological progress and an obsolete PLA ship for twenty years, a meeting on the "threshold" of the death of a great power ...

In the future, the PLA Navy showed the whole world what stubborn and purposeful work on construction and improvement is - with claims that have already emerged today to become the No. 1 fleet in the world.


TAVKR "Peter the Great" at sea (testing the transfer of goods from the tanker "Akademik Pashin")

The Russian Navy in the early 2000s was left with the only TARKR "Peter the Great", which became the most "status" ship of the Navy.

The political influence and effect of "Peter the Great" became one of the key justifications for the repair and modernization of the aircraft carrier "Admiral Nakhimov". Alas, like a missile cruiser - Yamato of the XXI century.


TAKVR "Admiral Nakhimov" for modernization.

The problem is that Yamato would be good at politics (if the Japanese hadn't kept him so secret). But the realities of hostilities showed that for the Japanese Navy it would be much more useful instead of one more (several - instead of the entire series of super-battleships) heavy aircraft carrier. And the final assessment for him is the restructuring of the last hull of the battleship "Shinano" into a heavy aircraft carrier.

"Returning to the Aircraft Carriers"



Comparison of the sizes of the TAVKR project 1144 and the battleship "Yamato" (drawing by A. Dashyan).

The question arises, which aircraft carrier could have turned out on the basis of the TARKR project 1144?

And as a qualitative example of an aircraft carrier of this "dimension", one can recall the English R12 Germes (and further Indian), whose air group even included heavy attack aircraft Blackburn Buccaneer (that is, heavier than our MiG-29KUB). And from which, for experimental purposes, even the F-4B Phantom multipurpose fighters flew.

Requiem for the Soviet Navy. Lost opportunities for heavy nuclear cruisers of project 1144
Aircraft carrier HMS Germes (R12) British Navy, late 60s.

The dimension of such an aircraft carrier provided even the basing of our most promising carrier-based aircraft - the Su-33 KUB ... Alas, but to the question of the author of the article on this aircraft to its chief designer K. Kh. Marbashev a little over a year ago, the answer was:

I was left alone ...

And now the chief designer is gone ...
Official obituary of OKB "Sukhoi":

On April 13, 2021, after a serious long illness, the chief designer - director of the naval aviation program Konstantin Khristoforovich Marbashev ... passed away. In 1983, K. Kh. Marbashev was appointed deputy chief designer, and in 1989 - chief designer of the Su-27K (Su-33) shipborne fighter ... In the period from 1992 to 1999, K. Kh. Marbashev was deputy general designer for naval issues ...
In 1996 he took a direct part in a three-month military campaign in the Mediterranean on the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR as part of a squadron of ships of the Northern Fleet. From 1999 to the present, K. Kh. Marbashev held the position of chief designer for the Su-27 KUB aircraft.


Photo from 01.11.1989/1/10, immediately after the 2st landing of XNUMXK-XNUMX on the deck of the TAVKR.
In the foreground, from left to right: V. G. Pugachev, K. Kh. Marbashev, M. P. Simonov

An amazing photo, full of hope, and feelings of victory, and great success after hard work! In the photo there are emotions, but the emotions of persons whose official position (test pilot, chief designer and general director) said better than any words that the task of creating effective aircraft carrier forces of the USSR Navy was absolutely solvable.

Marbashev is no longer with us, the entire ship direction of the "dry" "hung in the air."
However, we have a shipborne MiG, the development potential of which is far from exhausted.


From the article "The Second Life of the MiG-29 Ship Fighter" by its Chief Designer I. G. Kristinov in the magazine "Wings of the Motherland" No. 9-10, 2019:

… On January 20, 2004, two contracts were signed in Delhi at the same time:

- for the repair and re-equipment of the ship "Admiral Gorshkov";

- delivery to the Indian Navy of a batch of 16 MiG-29K / KUB aircraft (12 combat MiG-29K and 4 combat training MiG-29KUB).

... The signed contract was of a purely delivery nature, and there was no provision for an R&D project to create an aircraft that would meet the requirements of the Joint Staff of the Indian Ministry of Defense (Osh MO (Indian Navy)) for a carrier-based fighter.

De facto, the RAC had to be carried out by the RAC "MiG" itself. At the same time, its cost turned out to be very, very modest. According to unofficial information on special forums - about $ 140 million (for comparison, the development work on the Su-30MKI in the early 2000s cost about $ 300 million). This is for questions like "where is AFAR on the MiG-29KUB?"

For this little money, the following was done:

In connection with the requirements of the (OSH MO (Navy) of India) to equip the MiG-29K / KUB aircraft with a number of foreign-made equipment (9 items), obligations were taken in the contract and funds were allocated for the integration of this equipment into the avionics of aircraft. At the same time, in accordance with the "Regulations on the creation of military aviation equipment" and other regulatory documents FSUE "RSK" MiG "was obliged to carry out R&D work, conduct a complex of ground and flight tests and obtain a production of a batch of serial aircraft and their operation in combat units.

To carry out the ROC, it was planned to build:

- two experimental aircraft (1 - MiG-29K (single combat) and 1 - MiG-29KUB (double combat training) for flight tests;
- two airframes for static and life tests;
- 28 stands for practicing and ground testing of various aircraft systems and assemblies.

And the "preliminary result" for the Indian Navy:

Today, MiG-29K / KUB aircraft are intensively operated in the Indian Navy, including from the ship. As of January 1, 2019, Indian Navy pilots performed more than 29 flights on MiG-16K / KUB aircraft, including more than 500 flights from the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier and 2800 flights from NITKi.

The article also contains about us (the Russian Navy), but completely different assessments and emotions.

According to the situation today, the MiG-29KUB continues to be an effective machine. The main issue of its prospects is the possibility of effective confrontation with aircraft of the F-35B (C) type. And there are solutions in this direction (provided that the MiG is considered not abstractly "one-on-one" with "Lighting", but as an element of the operational formation system of the Navy).

The conclusion from all this - the creation of an aircraft carrier based on Project 1144 and the formation of an effective air group for it was technically absolutely real. Moreover, the relatively low cost of operating such an aircraft carrier made it possible to ensure a high intensity of its use (including the development of issues of using aviation with a high intensity). The necessary supply of aviation fuel for this could well have been provided by the installation of onboard boules (at the cost of losing a couple of full speed knots).

AWACS question


Here the question of AWACS arises.

On the R12 Germes, AWACS tasks were solved by a Gannet AEW.3 turboprop aircraft with an AN / APS-20 S-band radar and AWACS data transmission equipment to the AN / ART-28 ship (that is, the fighters were controlled in the main version from an aircraft carrier).

The Gannet AEW.3 was operated in the British Navy until December 1978 (the withdrawal of the last "classic" aircraft carrier Ark Royal) ... And "tomorrow there was a war" (Falklands), where the "royal navy" was on the verge of defeat. Largely due to the lack of AWACS for low-flying targets.

After the Falklands, the British Navy urgently adopted AWACS helicopters.


Gannet AEW.3 and our Ka-31

The creation of the domestic Ka-31 AWACS helicopter was envisaged simultaneously with the Yak-44 carrier-based AWACS aircraft. However, it was significantly ahead of schedule. In fact, at the end of the USSR, they managed to make the Ka-31. And already in the 90s, after a relatively small and inexpensive revision, it went for export.

Speaking about comparing AWACS aircraft and helicopters, it is worth citing opinion of a domestic specialist (at one time directly related to the subject of the Su-33KUB):

We were supposed to have both airplanes and RLD helicopters. At the same time, the aircraft conducted long-range observation in a likely threatened direction, and helicopters over the TAVKR (while sharply increasing the radio horizon) in less likely directions.

The capabilities of an airplane and a helicopter are different, but their combined use leads to more safety for less money. For example, an RLD aircraft searches at the turn of 350 km, with a view range on the target of a fighter of less than 400 km, in "less probable" directions, in fact, nothing will help the ships. Since he sees in the same way as the ships themselves with their radars. A helicopter RLD, flying just over the TAVKR, sees fighters 100-150 km around.

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

Finally, in place of 1 Yak-44, about 5 Ka-31s can be accommodated in the hangar. The Yak-44 can stay in the air for 6 hours and make 2 flights a day, the Ka-31 can stay in the air for 3 hours and make up to 4 flights a day. In total, 2 Yak-44 or 2 Ka-31 are enough for round-the-clock patrolling around the ship, only they have a different viewing area. At the same time, both significantly increase the radio horizon of the connection.

And if you provide a similar viewing area as the Yak-44 (above the compound), then it is necessary to keep 4 Ka-31s in the air.

Total: to perform the same mission, you need 2 Yak-44 or 8 Ka-31. Taking into account the coefficient of combat readiness: 3 Yak-44 or 10 Ka-31. In this narrow (but important) task, the advantage is for the Ka-31.

And data on the radar AWACS (from him):

E-700 (Yak-44) target detection range EPR = 3 sq. m - 250 km (for 1,8 sq. m. it will be 220 km), "Harpoon" will see at a distance of 165 km.
E-801 (Ka-31) target detection range EPR = 1,8 sq. m - 110-115 km. "Harpoon" will see at a distance of 85 km.

Note by the author. These characteristics are the achievements of the early 90s and, taking into account the modern level of radar, can be significantly increased.

In addition, there are "alternative ways" AWACS. For example, using the ZG radar. And these are not "theories." From the memoirs of a veteran of the 2nd Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, retired colonel G. Ya. Kolpakov (monograph "History of domestic radar" 2011):

In 1987, at the Reflection-87 exercise, the Korona-2 over-the-horizon radar (ZG radar) (Nikolaev), two MiG-31 fighters (the basing airfield was 2100 km away from the ZG radar) participated in the experiment. intercepted targets - one Tu-16 and one MiG-23P aircraft each (the base airfield was removed from the ZG radar by 3100 km) ... During two flight days, four guidance and interceptions were provided (respectively, two bombers and two fighters) ... voice guidance, by issuing target coordinates according to the "legend", the mode of operation of the fighter onboard systems - "onboard search".

In 1988, the Zrachok-M radar station (Komsomolsk-on-Amur), two MiG-31 interceptors and two MiG-31 interceptors participated in the experiment (the base airfield was 3000 km away from the radar station. ) ... Automatic guidance of fighters (on board the fighters was installed special equipment for interfacing with the ZG radar).

Note. Despite the effectiveness, the ZG radar can not be considered as a "universal means" AWACS. The AWACS system should be built on the basis of a system of various means, resistant to enemy influence, covering the disadvantages of some with the advantages of other means.

The tasks of the operational connection with the aircraft carrier based on the project 1144 and the model of its application


Speaking about the real ability of a light aircraft carrier to really solve the tasks of the Navy, the question of seaworthiness when working with aviation immediately arises. After the article was published “Aviation of the Navy. Was. There is? Will be?" the author received a number of very critical remarks from shipbuilding specialists from the 1st Central Research Institute of the Navy, which can be briefly characterized by the phrase:

A light aircraft carrier of the Navy is not needed, since in most cases it will not be able to use its air group due to excitement.

In fact, their argumentation repeated the already expressed and widely known theses of the specialists of the 1st Central Research Institute Kuzin and Nikolsky.

The problem is that in our country the effectiveness of ships is usually judged by "mechanics" who too often have a very vague idea of ​​the combat assets of the fleet, tactics and operational art. The indicated authors themselves are a good example of this (the devastating criticism of which is given, for example, in "Once again about the myths of post-war shipbuilding"). Moreover, such a "mechanical approach to tactical issues" received neat but harsh criticism in the GosNII AS monograph on naval aviation.

In general, the issue of the evolution of the concept of a domestic aircraft carrier is worthy of a separate article, especially since such a very authoritative source as the specified work of the GosNII AS (with all its advantages and disadvantages) has not yet been introduced into wide public discussions on aircraft carrier topics.

However, within the framework of this article, two points are fundamental.

First. The seaworthiness of the use of aviation by light aircraft carriers can be significantly increased. It can be either a special system of pitching control, for example, on the "Charles de Gaulle", which made it possible to increase seaworthiness for aviation, from the aircraft carrier "Clemenceau" of a larger displacement, by as much as two points (!), And "a number of other methods."

Second. With an increase in the sea level, not only light aircraft carriers receive significant restrictions, but also other ships (and even "nimtsy" - despite the formal ability to fly, for example, at 6 points, its air group under these conditions has serious restrictions). Without going into details, in short - the decrease in the effectiveness of a light aircraft carrier in such conditions as part of an operational formation is quite possible to compensate by increasing the effectiveness of the use of other means against enemy targets (in conditions of high sea waves).

All this our "shipbuilders-mechanics" simply refused to perceive, understanding only one thing - the "mechanical" length of the ship's hull. Which (the building), based on their requirements, turns out to be simply unrealistic for construction and extremely problematic in (theoretical) operation.

The main idea of ​​the model for the use of a light aircraft carrier of the Navy can be to ensure combat stability and support its forces in the near zone as part of an interspecific grouping of forces in a theater of operations against a "strong enemy" the oceanic zone against the "weak enemy".

The question arises - what about the missiles? All these "Calibers", "Onyxes", "Zircons"? And they could very well be placed on the modernized APRK of project 949AM, with their inclusion in the operational connection with an aircraft carrier based on the project 1144. Alas, the modernization of these submarines was disrupted.

Here it will be very appropriate to recall the experience of the USSR Navy with the inclusion of formally completely outdated and very noisy nuclear submarines of the 675MKV project with long-range and effective anti-ship missiles "Vulcan" as part of a surface task force, where the use of formally completely outdated nuclear submarines was very effective.

Some financial aspects


We will not recall the epic with the repair of "Admiral Nakhimov" here. Everything could have been done much cheaper. On the ship, they simply "mastered the funds."

It is interesting to compare prices for various types of weapons and military equipment, while solving similar problems. Without going into details, here are some comparative values.

For example, the "Soviet" cost of TARKR project 1144 was equal to about 4 destroyers of project 956 or 27 interceptors Su-27. The cost of the TAVKR project 1143 (with the Yak-38) was one and a half times higher than the cost of the TARKR project 1144, while the cost of operating the TAVKR was twice as high. The difference in the cost of the Project 949A APRK and the TARKR was less than the cost of the destroyer (while the cost of the Project 949A APRK slightly exceeded the cost of the Project 971 cruising nuclear submarine).

Comparison with the Marine Missile Aviation (MRA) is very interesting, here the "equivalent" to one TARKR will be 16 Tu-22M3. Only the "devil", as you know, is "in the details." And if you start to deal with them, then "it suddenly turns out" that the cost of an hourly operation of a huge TARKR and a small (albeit heavy) bomber differs by less than 3 times.

That is, the active use of aviation is very expensive. Unlike ships.
Unfortunately, the works in which these (and other) issues were deeply worked out, for example, the articles of Rear Admiral Matveychuk (then the head of the department of surface ships tactics of the Naval Academy), still remain closed (although today they do not carry there is no state secret in itself).

However, on the basis of some permitted publications, it is possible to reach the approximate modern costs of operating ships and aircraft (and taking into account the operational stress coefficient). However, it is advisable to consider this issue in a separate article.

A brief conclusion from all this is that a light aircraft carrier in the "dimension of 1144 project" is not just financially feasible, but quite real within the framework of a series of ships, with their active operation.

"Common sense in the minimum version"


When carrying out the current modernization of the Admiral Nakhimov TARKR (as a missile cruiser), alas, the possibility of “minimal aviationization” due to the deployment of a reinforced group of helicopters was completely missed. Nominally, 1144 Ka-3 helicopters are based on the TARKR project 27. However, the very large modernization capabilities of the 1144 project made it possible to multiply this number.

And that would be very important and effective.

PLO helicopters could (provided the required number and the installation of an effective anti-submarine complex) provide the necessary "safety radius" from torpedo attacks by submarines during independent active maneuvering of a nuclear cruiser at high speeds.

AWACS helicopters - to provide the necessary detection range for low-flying targets and the possibility of over-the-horizon guidance of long-range missiles at them.

The deployment of Ka-29 landing helicopters and Ka-52 attack helicopters ensured the possibility of at least minimal "force projection" from the sea to the shore.


Alas, but the "mechanical replacement" of old complexes with new ones, in the complete absence of any sane concept of such a ship, preserved the situation of "victory of technology over common sense." The helicopter group on the Admiral Nakhimov did not receive any reinforcement.

Unique hull and unexplored survivability protection issues


One of the "bugs" that allegedly "modernization of ships is not needed" is the thesis that the cost of the hull is supposedly "less than 20%" of the cost of the entire ship, and, accordingly, it is supposedly "easier to weld a new hull."

However, in the case of the TARKR project 1144, this is absolutely not the case. To the extent that there are compelling reasons to doubt that in today's conditions it will be possible to repeat such corps for a reasonable time and cost.

The hulls of the ships of Project 1144 are not just "thick plating metal" (with the expectation of half a century of service), it is a material of steel, created at one time on the basis of including tank armor. This is a special design of the case and an original system of constructive protection, only small "echoes" of which were announced publicly. For example:


Drawing from the forum "Aviabaza"

In the end, if the ships went to decommissioning, there remains the possibility of actually shooting them with various means of destruction. It is worth recalling here that the results of such tests on large warships, even old ones, are classified by the US Navy because of their importance.

Just one example. We have adopted a new generation of anti-ship missiles with significantly weakened (in comparison with anti-ship missiles of the times of the USSR) combat units (CU). And not a single official in the Navy all this time bothered to check them against real warships - targets. Meanwhile, experts know, for example, such an unpleasant property of "small warheads" as the ability of large ships (for example, aircraft carriers) to "absorb" them in large numbers with a relatively small effect on combat effectiveness (roughly: the effectiveness of one warhead of 400 kg on an aircraft carrier in most cases will be higher than two warheads of 200 kg).

Of course, no one will shoot at a ship with a nuclear power plant and sink it with it. But the possibility of cutting out part of the hull structures with the formation of a separate target from them (to test the real effectiveness of the design protection scheme of the TARKR project 1144) deserves the most careful assessment.


Two approaches - at the top, special tests with the sinking of the old aircraft carrier "Oriskani" (US Navy) and the old years of the USSR Navy - a special target based on the citadel of the unfinished heavy cruiser of Project 82.

PS


Alas, today the opportunity to obtain a series of quite effective light nuclear aircraft carriers based on the TARKR project 1144 is practically missed (although theoretically such an opportunity remains for "Peter the Great").

The "manilovism" continues according to the "domestic Nimites":

The estimated cost of building a new aircraft-carrying cruiser for the Russian Navy has become known. A full cycle will cost 300-400 billion rubles. About this RIA News the source said ...

Only one solution remains from this impasse: the redesign of the UDC laid down in Kerch as light aircraft carriers.

This is the only worthy solution and effective solution to the scam (for today) with these "white elephants of the Navy". In the absence of air cover (aircraft carrier) and a powerful floating rear, UDC makes no sense. Their cost will deliberately and many times exceed the declared "100 million", and the displacement has already grown to quite "aircraft carrier" 40 thousand tons.

But getting decent and effective light aircraft carriers, with the existing backlog, is quite realistic.


Report to the Supreme Commander on UDC at a special exhibition of the Navy in December 2019 (Sevastopol).

In fact, we have (had) the following. Further, "just quotes" about the work of our carrier-based aircraft on "Kuznetsov" naval blog author, expatriate with US Navy experience, and on the UDC, "on deck":

Well, in order not to get up twice, here are two old posts and an interesting textbook on Kuznetsov and ropes ... 300+ comments. I didn't write about the cables there, because I don't know anything about it, but if the general carelessness shown in everything else applies to the cables, then there is nothing strange about the cliffs.
( link).

My comments about the organization of the deck personnel in this video are just quiet horror. It looks like nothing has been improved since the 90s. God forbid, "Kuznetsov" will have to deal with intensive combat flights - it will incapacitate itself.
The problems in the video are as follows: ... all this guarantees frequent accidents on the deck with varying degrees of severity during intense flights. It is completely unclear why the American rules for working on the deck have not yet been translated and implemented at least partially - they have the most experience in this matter. After all, all NATOPS on this topic can be downloaded from the Internet for a long time ...

At the same time, it is necessary to objectively understand that the problems in question are not “the exclusive illness of Kuznetsov”. This is evidence of the "ceremonial illness" of our entire fleet (the main thing is "to look cheerful and dashing at the parade," and the war "maybe it will wait or it will cost"). And the same can be said about our submarine forces, mine-sweeping ships, etc.
Author:
129 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 16 May 2021 04: 37
    +31
    Converting 1144 into aircraft carriers is an absolutely lousy idea! All world experience confirms this. There were a lot of such rebuilt aircraft carriers, moreover, people whose competence does not cause doubts, but in all cases it turned out to be an ersatz, moreover, expensive and of little use!
    1. mark1
      mark1 16 May 2021 06: 31
      +8
      Not just miserable - for that period (and for this one) it was an almost impossible task with an incomprehensible (even in theory) result.
      1. timokhin-aa
        16 May 2021 20: 12
        0
        Answer from M. Klimov:

        Not just miserable - for that period (and for this one) it was an almost impossible task with an incomprehensible (even in theory) result.


        MK:
        Monsieur, of course I understand that YOU are a great spitz in "turning a squeezed sofa" (under a beer and a TV set), but would you deign to somehow JUSTIFY YOUR statement?
        1. mark1
          mark1 17 May 2021 06: 11
          +3
          Yes, easy, musia - the restructuring of "Gorshkov" in "VikramAndityu" (the most optimistic example), repairs with modernization of "Nakhimov", endless repairs of "Kuznetsov" reasonable terms for reasonable means, musia ... And in case of "luck" we get an "unknown animal" made of almost pure gold with dubious practical value. Musya, be able to discern the obvious behind your Wishlist.
          1. timokhin-aa
            17 May 2021 13: 09
            0
            Yes, easy, musia - the restructuring of "Gorshkov" in "VikramaNdityu" (the most optimistic example),


            Well, how - did you manage to rebuild something?

            repair and modernization of "Nakhimov",


            And again - is there a failure? They just drove the money for it, there would be enough for Avik.

            endless repairs of "Kuznetsov"
            - well, this is solved by literally a few kicks to the responsible leaders.

            And in case of "luck" we get an "unknown animal" made of almost pure gold with dubious practical value.


            Well, let's talk about the practical value - what is wrong there?
            1. mark1
              mark1 17 May 2021 13: 44
              +3
              It’s not like that. By the time this "ub-ka" is put into operation, it will be more than 50 years old, half of the country's gold reserves have been spent and what it will do "in the ranks" seems to be known only to you, Musya.
              All your objections like - "spent a lot of money, time, gave kicks to whoever needed it, and sooner or later, somehow it grew together," sorry, they don’t roll
        2. Barberry25
          Barberry25 17 May 2021 19: 00
          +6
          Well, here Klimov clearly went to the wrong steppe .. or "Ostap suffered" .. Either he claims for the large expenditures of the fleet on dubious projects instead of cheap, proven series, then he bumped into redesign .. What seemed to him that it was possible to make a missile cruiser light ("training" ... it's generally five points) the aircraft carrier crashes on the technical side .. 1) Is it possible to make an aircraft carrier out of a cruiser? You can, though there are a few BUT: 2.1) How is the design of an aircraft carrier usually carried out? take the requirements of the fleet, determine the approximate dimensions, determine the power plant, the size of the air group, those. support, radio engineering part, air defense / PLO .. and gradually everything is placed in the corps .. and here? 2.2) You will first need to remove all unnecessary things, then redesign the hull so that it can perform the functions of an aircraft carrier, then shove an air group into the vacated spaces ... The example of Kharkov-Gorshkov-Indus will not work here, because in fact they only removed the missiles and lengthened the deck. and if we take a clean missile cruiser as a base, then we will have a bunch of mismatches, empty spaces and low efficiency. It's the same as taking Shaha and trying to make a racing car. And for what? for the sake of a theoretically light aircraft carrier? In this case, it's easier, cheaper and build from scratch faster ... thankfully there are no problems with cutting the hull. Well, I wrote about the PLO cruiser based on the UDC ..
    2. Thrifty
      Thrifty 16 May 2021 07: 15
      +4
      Sakhalinets - maybe the result was poor because the perestroika was carried out by amateurs in this topic, under the leadership of the same amateurs? After all, there is always only one problem - to build exactly what the fleet needs, and not what we can build! It's easy to find the difference in queries and results! And I completely agree with Klimov, to write off the ship is a crime, you need to rebuild it into a light aircraft carrier, or at least a helicopter carrier, and preferably, in the same place of deployment, and use it later!
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 16 May 2021 09: 42
        +2
        Quote: Thrifty
        or maybe the result was poor because the perestroika was carried out by amateurs in this topic, under the leadership of the same amateurs

        The Japanese already had experience in building aircraft carriers.
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 16 May 2021 09: 56
        +3
        Quote: Thrifty
        to write off the ship is a crime, you need to rebuild it

        From what I read, I’m sorry I don’t remember where, he needs to change the turbines, and not everything with the reactors is, thank God. He was written off not because there is nowhere to go, but simply repairs would be too expensive.
        1. timokhin-aa
          16 May 2021 20: 13
          +1
          Answer from the author M. Klimov:

          MK:
          GTZA - revision
          YR - operation No. 1
      3. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 16 May 2021 10: 05
        0
        Are these Americans amateurs? Or the Japanese?
        1. Igor Kobernik
          Igor Kobernik 16 May 2021 16: 05
          0
          As for the Americans - I will not argue ... But the Japanese - yes ... Suffice it to recall the history of their LC like "Yamato" ... Expensive and absolutely useless "toys" ...
      4. bayard
        bayard 16 May 2021 17: 36
        +2
        Quote: Thrifty
        - and maybe the result was poor because the perestroika was carried out by amateurs in this topic, under the leadership of the same amateurs?

        Both the Americans and the Japanese quite successfully rebuilt their battleships, battle cruisers, and even simply cruisers into aircraft carriers. And they were good at getting what the fleet needed from what was available. But in our case, the question is not only that the time is lost and the ships (with our winters) turned all their stuffing into dust, during the sludge. But this is not such a problem either. There is one more - where to rebuild?
        Since then (post-Soviet times) and to this day it can only be Severodvinsk. And he is already loaded, the dock and the slipway are occupied by "Admiral Nakhimov" ... for another two or three years. And then "Peter the Great" will go for repairs and modernization - for another 5 - 7 years ...
        It was necessary to think about such things earlier, and to start modernization and restructuring 10 - 15 years earlier ... But in those years we had "no enemies."
        Using decommissioned cruisers (and not only cruisers) as targets is certainly a sensible thing. Especially when you consider that the utilization of such a cruiser at the Pacific Fleet alone is estimated at 5 billion rubles.
        There are serious doubts that the proceeds from the metal from its disposal will be significantly less than this amount. So, at least for the sake of saving budget funds ... and for the sake of gaining experience in practical shooting at a real large target ... to study its results ...
        As for the redesign of the already under construction UDC in Kerch ... here I also disagree with Maxim - the deadlines will be delayed, the estimates will be inflated, it will come out ... not that. Or not quite what you need. Another thing is that using the experience of building these UDCs and the construction capacity of the Zaliv, the next two hulls will be laid down for light / medium aircraft carriers. About this and the GDP, when the pair of these UDCs was laid last year, stuttered ... in riddles, but quite transparent.
        But these - light-medium aircraft carriers first need to be designed, choose a power plant for them, the type of catapult, decide on the means of DPLOiU (aircraft, helicopters, or both combined). And the very first question is the type of power plant. Both Klimov and Timokhin insist on nuclear power plants from new icebreakers. But there is also an alternative - our industry has presented a gas turbine based on PD-14 with a capacity of about 35 l / s. It has already been ordered for pumping gas with our pipelines and for autonomous thermal power plants in remote areas. Such a turbine would fit well into the power plant of a hypothetical AB. And if we implement such a power plant on a gas-steam turbopair (as in modern thermal power plants, in the same Crimea or on our 000 cruisers), and at the same time implement electric propulsion, then four of such turbopairs would be enough. At the same time, without complicated, noisy and expensive travel gears and long shaft lines. With the possibility of direct power supply from this power plant of EM-catapults, and if steam catapults are selected (you never know how it goes), then there is the possibility of direct extraction of superheated steam from steam turbines. Additional power systems on the ship for these purposes will not be needed.
        And a nuclear reactor is preferable for really heavy AB. Both the price and the complexity of operation.
        And the Nakhimov, which is completing the modernization, will not become a new Yamato if it will act in tandem with the modernized Admiral Kuznetsov and a support group of a pair of new frigates 22350 and a pair of modernized BOD 1155.
      5. Per se.
        Per se. 17 May 2021 11: 25
        +4
        Quote: Thrifty
        Or maybe the result was poor because the perestroika was carried out by amateurs in this topic, under the leadership of the same amateurs?
        Rather, perestroika was led by traitors under the leadership of "sworn friends," that is, enemies. The result is not surprising.

        For the modernization (restructuring) of the cruisers of the 1144 project, this was also possible.

        The author of the article is right in many respects, the corps of the project 1144 were unique, which would have served for a hundred years, cutting them on pins and needles is stupidity and betrayal. However, remembering about the traitors controlled by the enemies, why be surprised.

        Speaking of light aircraft carriers, the cruisers could have been altered in them, just as they could have used the hull from the Ural nuclear reconnaissance ship (SSV-33). But, who needs it, our aircraft carrier fleet, and the fleet in general, the Yankees have long ago declared a "vendetta", cleaning up everything that is possible and impossible, up to even the hypothetical completion of the Ulyanovsk in due time or the conversion of Project 1609 ro-ro-boats into helicopter carriers (code Atlantic").

        There were projects for light aircraft carriers.
    3. Snail N9
      Snail N9 16 May 2021 07: 25
      -1
      It seems to me that instead of classic aircraft carriers, it's time to create fundamentally new ships - carriers of unmanned aircraft ... and underwater drones ..
      1. CastroRuiz
        CastroRuiz 16 May 2021 13: 58
        0
        You have been slapped by the licks of the big ships, but I also agree that it will be for the drone carriers. But later.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 16 May 2021 16: 29
          +5
          Quote: CastroRuiz
          but I also agree, INTO the drone carriers.

          Don't you want to look at the dimensions of the drone? Their carrier will be no less than Kuzi.
          1. Photon
            Photon 17 May 2021 13: 33
            0
            Drones don't need a carrier. https://topwar.ru/153879-podvodnyj-glajder-morskaja-ten-instrument-dlja-flota-i-dlja-nauki.html
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 17 May 2021 20: 02
              0
              Quote: Photon
              https://topwar.ru/153879-podvodnyj-glajder-morskaja-ten-instrument-dlja-flota-i-dlja-nauki.html

              We are talking about air drones, not underwater drones.
      2. timokhin-aa
        16 May 2021 20: 16
        +2
        Snail N9 Today, 07:25
        It seems to me that instead of classic aircraft carriers, it's time to create fundamentally new ships - carriers of unmanned aircraft ... and underwater drones ..

        Exactly what it seems to you, if we talk about a drone capable of dumping a MiG-29K in a garbage dump, then this is the same fighter, just without a pilot, and it needs an ordinary aircraft carrier.
    4. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 16 May 2021 14: 08
      +4
      Quote: Sahalinets
      There were a lot of such rebuilt aircraft carriers, moreover, people whose competence does not cause doubts, but in all cases it turned out to be an ersatz, moreover, expensive and of little use!

      "Lexington", "Saratoga", "Akagi", "Kaga" - are they expensive and of little use ersatz?
      1. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 16 May 2021 15: 07
        -2
        According to the criterion cost-effectiveness - yes! Well, let's add that in this case, far from finished ships were rebuilt, and not already finished ones.
    5. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 11
      +2
      Answer from the author M. Klimov:

      Converting 1144 into aircraft carriers is an absolutely lousy idea! All world experience confirms this. There were a lot of such rebuilt aircraft carriers, moreover, people whose competence does not cause doubts, but in all cases it turned out to be an ersatz, moreover, expensive and of little use!

      MK:
      LIES!
      1. The same "Akagi" and "Kaga", "Lady Lex and Sarah" were quite adequate heavy aircraft carriers. Even if the specialized ship was better, but these constructively fully met their tasks.
      2. At the time of the end of the war, the United States had 105 aircraft carriers, do you want to count how many of them were the results of various conversions or projects on a non-aircraft carrier?
      1. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 17 May 2021 03: 23
        -1
        Nonsense!
        Akagi, Lex, Bearn, etc. - a forced decision, and prohibitively expensive. But there was a choice - either to demolish the hull, or to build at least something. And they were much worse than specially built aircraft carriers and obviously more expensive.
        Independence and Saipan are unsuccessful ships at all.
        1. 949
          949 17 May 2021 10: 10
          +3
          Quote: Sahalinets
          Akagi, Lex, Bearn, etc. - a forced decision, and prohibitively expensive.

          if they started to "gnaw" the citadel (and then there was no doubt about the advisability of such a restructuring in AB)
          1144 does NOT have it
          Quote: Sahalinets
          But there was a choice - either to demolish the hull, or to build at least something. And they were much worse than specially built aircraft carriers.

          Don't talk nonsense to hurt her!
          Neither the Japs considered their Akagi and Kagu to be "at least something" nor the Americans as their "ladies"

          According to the criterion cost-effectiveness - yes! Well, let's add that in this case, far from finished ships were rebuilt, and not already finished ones.

          YOU have no idea about him
          specifically for 1144 - ships ARE, AEU HAVE
          "their missile variant" has a very dubious meaning
          but a couple of squadrons of MiGs (or squadron + verts) have an extremely high value
          About "not finished" - another ACHINEA wassat Sahalinets, because due to the complete replacement of the main cable routes, the Nakhimov building was "turned out" completely (and it was not far from being built from scratch)
    6. 949
      949 17 May 2021 10: 05
      -1
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Converting 1144 into aircraft carriers is an absolutely lousy idea! All world experience confirms this

      fool
      YOU this your nonsense wassat somehow able to substantiate?
      or just habitually talking nonsense wassat ?
      Quote: Sahalinets
      There were a lot of such rebuilt aircraft carriers, moreover, people whose competence does not cause doubts, but in all cases it turned out to be an ersatz, moreover, expensive and of little use!

      DON'T SHOOT SHOOT, IT'S SICKOh!

      In the United States, by 1945, MORE THAN A QUARTER of AVs were rebuilt from military and civilian projects for a different purpose!

      Quote: Sahalinets
      ersatz, and expensive and of little use!

      fool
  2. Revolver
    Revolver 16 May 2021 04: 38
    +2
    Only one solution remains from this impasse: the redesign of the UDC laid down in Kerch as light aircraft carriers.

    In general, a little bit needs to be changed. Too short? Embed a couple of extra sections in the middle. This was done even with "live" ships and vessels, and these have just begun to build. Catapults? This is a problem, but "Kuznetsov" manages to get by with a springboard, and these will do too. Move the superstructure outside the hull? It should also be solved, and balanced with a piece of deck on the opposite side, if not a full-fledged oblique deck, then at least parking lots for additional aircraft / helicopters. Finishers are placed. Hangars - if they accept helicopters, they will also accept aircraft, at least MiGs, if not SU.
    Aircraft AWACS? What if, in the existing dock, one of the landing barges was replaced with a seaplane? Or is Beriev's design bureau already unable to do anything?
    And all together will not raise the price much. Yes, not a Nimitz, but ask any admiral if a dozen MiGs can use it. The answer is well known.
    1. Avior
      Avior 16 May 2021 09: 13
      +1
      ... if not a full-fledged oblique deck, then at least parking spaces for additional aircraft / helicopters.

      An oblique deck for aircraft with an aircraft finisher is made for a reason.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 16 May 2021 20: 04
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        An oblique deck for aircraft with an aircraft finisher is made for a reason.

        I agree. But if you stupidly weld this deck and assume that it will work, it will most likely not work. There are a lot of questions (never a shipbuilder, just a mechanical engineer, so don't ask if the terminology is wrong) balance in the transverse and longitudinal planes, how it will behave under the winds from different sides, on a wave, when rolling, and what the hell is all about which I am not aware of, but I guess that it will not do without pitfalls. So there is plenty to count and model before deciding how and how much to widen the deck.
        And light aircraft carriers, well, at least the same Thai royal yacht with a flight deck, do without an oblique deck.
        1. Avior
          Avior 16 May 2021 22: 51
          -1
          Well, at least the same Thai royal yacht with a flight deck can do without an oblique deck.

          it does not have an aerofinishing, helicopters and VTOL aircraft are based there, Harriers.
          Another landing method.
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 17 May 2021 05: 04
            0
            If I'm not mistaken, the slanting deck was welded on the Essex already in the 1950s. And the cable finishers were originally on them. At least on the USS Intrepid, which I have been on several times.
            1. Avior
              Avior 17 May 2021 06: 50
              0
              On Midway, too, they welded afterwards, during reconstruction
              The design of the Asian carriers was not formed in one day
              In addition, after the war, there was a transition to jet aircraft in carrier-based aviation.
              With the use of jet aircraft with a high landing speed on aircraft carriers, the danger of the aircraft slipping onto the nose of the flight deck has increased. This led to the idea of ​​creating aircraft carriers with a flight deck, the landing line of which is located at an angle of 8-10 ° to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft carrier (the so-called angular, or "oblique" deck). Conventional aerofinishers are used to brake aircraft when landing on the corner deck. In the event of an error, the pilot can go on a go-around, since all the space ahead of the landing strip is free.
  3. jonht
    jonht 16 May 2021 04: 54
    +5
    Maxim thanks, the article is interesting. But don't you think that at the moment it is already possible to leave manned aircraft for an aircraft carrier?
    Look, there are already Orions and Altair for reconnaissance and long-term observation, they can use weak weapons. Shock Hunter is in the testing stage, Thunder and Lightning are in the process of development.
    Who is stopping us from designing an aircraft carrier with a UAV as the main weapon? To connect all this with a fashionable centralized network connection and at the output we have the same small aircraft carrier, but without manned aircraft. In addition, the satellite grouping of global communications has almost been restored, creating a repeater UAV based on existing technologies is also not a problem.
    Yes, there are disadvantages, the same speed parameters of the UAV, but there are also advantages to the duration of stay in the air.
    Again, the cost of a manned aircraft and the cost of a UAV.
    1. Denton
      Denton 16 May 2021 14: 07
      +2
      In the foreseeable future, no one will leave manned aircraft. There are too many problems. Although drones will certainly be added to the air group.
      Moreover, a drone with characteristics equal to a manned aircraft will be about the same size.
    2. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 18
      +1
      Maxim's answer:

      No.
      All this is too "raw" for AB problems
      1. jonht
        jonht 16 May 2021 22: 47
        +1
        The road will be overcome by a walking .....
        If you read the requirements for the 6th generation, then this is already a swing for unmanned aircraft.
        And for our Navy, the main problem is precisely obtaining accurate target designation for anti-ship missiles, and this can be done more than successfully by UAVs. And if you take into account the duration of the flight up to 48 hours, then I personally made a bet on them. Using only two complexes, 6 UAVs can provide constant monitoring of specified sectors at a great distance or a safe radius around the KUG.
        And if you take into account the cost of your complex, AV plus various UAVs plus maintenance costs, it will be much cheaper than the classic ones. And this is also important for us.
        But this is my vision of the development of our Navy.
        1. timokhin-aa
          16 May 2021 22: 48
          +1
          And if you take into account the duration of the flight up to 48 hours, then I personally made a bet on them. Using only two complexes, 6 UAVs can provide constant monitoring of specified sectors at a great distance or a safe radius around the KUG.


          You don't consider their combat toughness.
          Do not take into account the fact that missiles on ships cannot be replenished at sea.
          1. jonht
            jonht 17 May 2021 04: 21
            -1
            For now I will not say, but before the replenishment of the BZ was carried out by the KIL ships, they possessed not only special holds, but also crane equipment for loading operations. As a person who participated in overloading on the open sea, on fishermen, it is true, I can say that loading missile containers will not be difficult and a lot of time, the main limitation will only give excitement, but again we were overworked even with 3 balls on the BMRT (avenue Pulkovsky meridian or as BATM is sometimes written). KIL ships are in the same dimensions and maybe a little more, frigates and a corvette are also over 100 m in length.
  4. Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri 16 May 2021 06: 23
    +1
    For a month now, I have finished an article about a public initiative that may save Admiral Lazarev from an unenviable fate. But since the idea is not mine, there is a process of coordinating positions with its author. Yes, and my chronic was aggravated, I had to take care of my health. But God willing, I'll post it next week)))
  5. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 16 May 2021 06: 33
    +8
    I specially waited for the opinions of users who are well versed in this matter and was not mistaken.
    The opinion about the article is twofold. Only this article, like the previous ones on similar topics, revealed the problems, but could not indicate a way out of this situation when
    it is necessary to objectively understand that the problems in question are not “the exclusive illness of Kuznetsov”. This is evidence of the "ceremonial illness" of our entire fleet (the main thing is "to look cheerful and dashing at the parade," and the war "maybe it will wait or it will cost").

    Most importantly, the author outlined the general line:
    And the same can be said about our submarine forces, mine-sweeping ships etc.

    This "etc." just infuriates. This window dressing can end badly, and one fine moment we will find ourselves in a situation where the incredible will become obvious, and the problems that have surfaced (suddenly !!!) will turn out to be the day before yesterday, put on the back burner.
    Interesting (in my opinion) proposal:
    Quote: jonht
    But don't you think that at the moment it is already possible to leave manned aircraft for an aircraft carrier?

    ==========
    And yet I do not manage to understand what our General Staff plans to do with Syria and Venezuela as potential allies. Replenishment of fuel and food supplies, as well as maintenance, requires an expanded network of naval bases in different parts of the world. Does Russia have it in order to send promising AUG or any other orders to solve geopolitical problems with manic persistence? It's like sending a space expedition with humans to Mars. One way trip. Did I make it clear?
    hi
  6. knn54
    knn54 16 May 2021 06: 57
    +6
    I agree with Yuri Vasilyevich. Too many BUT
    1. Who and where will be built. After all, even with destroyers it is impossible.
    2.Where will be moored.
    3. In the same Britain. With their capabilities, there is not even one COMPLETE AUG.
    Etc.
    1. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 23: 13
      0
      1. They will be altered in the Sevmashma basin, where Nakhimov was actually altered and before that Gorshkov.
      2. Where is now. There the sediment will grow by a meter from the force.
      3. They still have same-sex marriages. Let's become like?
      1. Liam
        Liam 16 May 2021 23: 28
        +5
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        ... They still have same-sex marriages. Let's become like?

        Wack has some kind of glitch on this topic. Feel free to switch from AUG to gays and back ... although it would seem where they are ... psychologists and sexologists have a rather unequivocal opinion about such parallels to the place and out of place
        1. timokhin-aa
          17 May 2021 13: 05
          0
          This is quite an adequate answer to "but the British." We are not English.
  7. From Tomsk
    From Tomsk 16 May 2021 07: 20
    +4
    The author got stuck somewhere in the early 2000s. Today, the global trends for ships in the far sea zone are no more than 14 thousand tons, that is, an increase in the efficiency of actions while reducing the displacement.
    1. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 19
      -2
      Oteto from the author of the article M. Klimov

      MK:
      In my opinion, YOU are stuck somewhere.
      Enlighten where YOU dug up such a joke about the "downward trend" of the displacement AB to 14 thousand tons?
  8. demiurg
    demiurg 16 May 2021 07: 26
    +6
    There is no point in converting a thirty-year-old cruiser into an aircraft carrier. It's just more expensive than building from scratch. Well, it would still make sense to restore sharks with alteration into carriers of CD / onyx / zircons.
    This I can accept, there is only a serious alteration of mines and BIUS.
    But the light aircraft carrier of the Russian Federation is easier and several times cheaper to make from civil projects.
    1. In a big war, it will be disposable anyway, no matter how many bulkheads it has and what is the pump capacity, and the frequency of cable duplication. Radiation doesn't give a damn about all this.
    2. In the colonial turmoil, he has nothing to fear, and all of the above is also unimportant.
    1. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 21
      -3
      Answer from M. Klimov:

      MK:
      Alas, to repeat the case from scratch and the GEM 1144 will have a fantastic price tag.
      LAV based on civil projects makes sense, but it will lose MANY TIMES 1144-AB
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 17 May 2021 16: 18
        0
        I am goggled by childhood impressions when, having arrived to enter the DVIIMU, I saw the ships for the first time. I knew that Sarychi and Udalie were newer and more modern, but it was Buki who were more beautiful for me.
        But all the same, I understand that it is more important to preserve Udalye and Sarychi. In reality, it is necessary to separate wishes and possibilities.
      2. Barberry25
        Barberry25 17 May 2021 19: 17
        +1
        why repeat the corpus?
  9. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 16 May 2021 07: 28
    +6
    Once again I was convinced that Navalny in politics is Klimov on the naval topic. Sorry, author, nothing personal, I have the right to an alternative point of view.
    1. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 22
      -5
      Answer from M. Klimov:

      MK:
      Once again I was convinced that the POCIENT on the VO on the naval topic is
      https://topwar.ru/user/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82/
      https://topwar.ru/user/ Шарнхорст
      He has no "alternative point of view" for a banal reason - EVERYTHING that he writes is an illiterate ACHINEA and graphomancy.
      In the near future YOU, Monsieur Dyusha, will receive an analysis of YOUR nonsense in full.
      In the meantime, there is an extremely simple question - YOU HAVE AHINA about the "NSYF base" in Magadan, since YOU are going to trim the submarine in winter (in ice conditions) ???? "Sing, bird don't be ashamed" ...
  10. Igor Tikhomirov
    Igor Tikhomirov 16 May 2021 07: 49
    -4
    We must forget about the ocean-going fleet once and for all. The history of the late Russian Empire and the USSR confirms this. Admiral Nakhimov and others are analogs of the Sevastopol-class battleships (you can recall from earlier history the Tsar Cannon), that is, nothing more than cruise liners for the highest command personnel of the fleet. The ocean-going ships of the Russian fleet must be disposed of in order not to waste the already extremely limited financial resources.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 16 May 2021 09: 56
      0
      Quote: Igor Tikhomirov
      The ocean-going ships of the Russian fleet must be disposed of in order not to waste the already extremely limited financial resources.

      I hope you are talking about surface ships of large displacement, and nuclear submarines and coastal ASW frigates may come in handy if a war breaks out
      1. timokhin-aa
        16 May 2021 20: 23
        -4
        Vladimir, an article with the analysis of this nonsense is already being written
    2. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 22
      -3
      How long can you write nonsense?
  11. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 16 May 2021 07: 59
    -2
    the optimal task of our aircraft carrier was to provide (reconnaissance, air defense) our strike forces.

    In fact, an aircraft carrier in this capacity is a means of obtaining data about the enemy, which can be used for precise target designation to ship missile systems.

    The task is easily and simply solved without any aircraft carriers by arming ships with a set of UAVs of different types. From disposable "Lancet" type to strategic high-altitude climbers capable of being on duty for a couple of months along the entire route of the KUG campaign.
    Oh yes, we have even an average "Altius" - a problem for decades ...
    We can only hope that there really will be no war.
    1. Yuri V.A
      Yuri V.A 16 May 2021 08: 28
      +4
      A serious long-range drone and size is serious, requiring an appropriate flight deck. Whatever one may say, but we get a symbiosis of a light aircraft carrier and a missile cruiser.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 16 May 2021 23: 17
        -1
        Quote: Yuri V.A
        A serious long-range drone and the dimensions are serious,

        a drone can be a helicopter
        1. Yuri V.A
          Yuri V.A 17 May 2021 02: 07
          +1
          Indeed, it is best to adjust missile guidance at a range of at least 1-500 km by helicopter.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 17 May 2021 07: 59
            -3
            Quote: Yuri V.A.
            Indeed, it is best to adjust missile guidance at a range of at least 1-500 km by helicopter.

            at a distance of 2000 -3000 km from the coast, you can use coastal aviation, around the search group of the enemy submarine located within a radius of 3000 km from the coast, you can use a deck helicopter from a frigate or corvette or deck drone = helicopter
            1. Yuri V.A
              Yuri V.A 17 May 2021 09: 09
              0
              Speech purely about ship means, the coast has nothing to do with it, like a helicopter, for such a range.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 17 May 2021 14: 48
                -2
                Quote: vladimir1155
                around the search group of the enemy submarine located within a radius of 3000 km from the coast, you can use a deck helicopter from a frigate or corvette or deck drone = helicopter
                I repeat again if it is not clear
    2. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 25
      -4
      It is so only decided on the couch. Well, or draw combat radii on the map of Mediterranean. Or in the Norwegian Sea.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 17 May 2021 10: 58
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        It is so only decided on the couch. Well, or draw combat radii on the map of Mediterranean. Or in the Norwegian Sea.

        That's it.
        a drone a priori flies farther than a deck airplane, and the possible duration of the flight is even inappropriate to compare.
        If a large UAV does not fit on the deck / cellar, it can be launched from the shore before the ships leave to sea, and let it circle over them all the time until they return home.
        Only who would do all this.
        And so yes, at the time of prescription 30 years ago, even a light aircraft carrier would be very useful as part of a group of ships. Only now these 30 years have passed. And since then, so much has changed in the country (do not remember how the soldiers walked the streets begging? What kind of aircraft carrier was there, there was nothing to feed the people)
        And in technology, what used to fit in a carriage now fits in the palm of your hand.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 May 2021 14: 49
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        draw combat radii on the map of Mediterranean. Or in the Norwegian Sea.

        why do we need to go there?
  12. Lair
    Lair 16 May 2021 09: 18
    +3
    The article is very good and professional, like the rest of the author. I also think that the modernization of Nakhimov in the form in which it is being done now is sabotage. The author's idea that 1144 without nuclear aircraft carriers are meaningless is absolutely correct! Still, the main proposal of the author - the restructuring of 1144 into a light aircraft carrier - is questionable. I think that they would have spent a lot of money and time (12 years at least with the current state of the USC), but at best they would have received another training aircraft carrier like Kuznetsov. If they wanted an aircraft carrier, they didn't have to give Gorshkov to India. And now the main task in the aircraft carrier direction
    in the Russian Federation - to bring Kuznetsov into working condition.
    1. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 26
      0
      Answer from M. Klimov:

      MK:
      You are missing out on OPERATIONAL NEEDS that require MULTIPLE AVK.
      And they could be obtained on the basis of the 1144 + SERIES high tactical mobility (AEU) made it possible to reduce the severity of the required amount of AVK.
  13. Pavel57
    Pavel57 16 May 2021 09: 33
    +1
    The article is interesting, but time and opportunities were lost.
  14. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 16 May 2021 09: 52
    -5
    the construction of such battleships was a clear mistake, but less than the construction of aircraft carriers, of course, the aircraft carriers safely rotted, they did not have berths, Kuzya was always at the factory berth and therefore afloat, but the period of his real combat readiness for the period of existence is scanty and now he is again rusty and for a long time ... instead of 1144 (and all the more, instead of useless oversized draft-constrained aircraft carriers), it was necessary to continue the 1135 1155 series, then the fleet would now have four to eight times more PLO 1155 frigates (imagine 30-40 1155 per ocean providing PLO at the bases of nuclear submarines), ... but of course there was no need to write off such ships ahead of schedule, 1144 could undergo modernization and serve more, if not for the total cut during the repair of Nakhimov, as a result, most likely, Peter will not be modernized , but will they give him an easy HTG or just write it off ... how much longer will Nakhimov serve? 10-15 years no more
    1. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 27
      -1
      it was necessary to continue the series 1135 1155, then the fleet would now have four to eight times more frigates PLO 1155 (imagine 30-40 1155 per ocean, providing ASW at the bases of nuclear submarines)


      And who would solve other problems then?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 16 May 2021 23: 21
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        other tasks

        what kind? there is the most important task 1 combat stability of the SSBN exit 2 PLO Within a radius of 1000-3000 km from the bases of the nuclear submarine, it is the first priority, and all your other tasks are queued after the first .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v = 0mpoJh7eWjk
        1. timokhin-aa
          17 May 2021 13: 03
          0
          Well, now what tasks is the fleet actually solving - in Mediterranean at least?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 17 May 2021 15: 00
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Well, now what tasks is the fleet actually solving - in Mediterranean at least?

            all peacetime tasks can be assigned to frigates and corvettes of PLO, to patrol ships, border ships, to existing ships of the third rank of all types, to killer ships and tugs, as if to fight piracy and pushing the enemy out of the border zone by the corps, neither your unnecessary Russian aircraft carrier, no cruiser, even 1155 is too big for this, although a frigate
  15. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 16 May 2021 10: 27
    +4
    Felt, sometimes even touching))) wept a lot. Especially touched by the comparison with "Yamato"))) if the author does not know, I will reveal to him a terrible military (Japanese) secret. About the Yamato even during WWII they said: "There are the largest and most useless things in the world, the Egyptian pyramids, the Chinese wall and battleships of the Yamato type and also the Yamato floating hotel for old, sick and silly" Hasiri "admirals") )))
  16. dgonni
    dgonni 16 May 2021 10: 40
    +7
    Ndya! Well, the author turned it down!
    He doesn’t know that Lazarev was undergoing a dock repair of the hull. In order not to drown near the wall and wait for a cut on needles.
    I mean, there are no buildings as such!
    Second factor! Well, the buildings have 1144 know-how. OK! We build a NEW HULL of the aircraft carrier using the 1144 know-how.
    And the restructuring of rotten hulls in under-aviation is a real cut of the budget.
    1. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 27
      -1
      Answer from the author M. Klimov:

      MK:
      Do not confuse CASE and DBA. The case was converted precisely because of the DBA, and the wear on the case itself is minimal.
      Second, today it is almost impossible to reproduce building 1144, or it will build just incredible costs. "Without going into details" - he is "not quite ordinary",
      1. dgonni
        dgonni 16 May 2021 21: 58
        +1
        Then set real priorities and real prospects with your co-authors!
        For 99% of the people took for a reality an attempt to reanimate dead corps in the type of aircraft carrier.
        P.S. This is real in these realities is not real!
        And the author himself understands this.
        It's worth fighting. But? Unrealistic.
        Soon the level of the frigate will be prohibitive!
        P.S. 2. UDC in Crimea will not be built a priori. And the author knows about it!
        Especially considering the delays in the salaries of hard workers over half a year!
  17. iouris
    iouris 16 May 2021 10: 45
    +1
    If anyone does not understand, I repeat: the radio burned out on the armored car!
  18. Doccor18
    Doccor18 16 May 2021 12: 14
    +6
    Thanks to Maxim for another interesting article.
    However, I do not quite agree with the author. Still, to have a light aircraft carrier (based on a nuclear cruiser) with a small air group is, in my opinion, too much. It will take a huge amount of work, time consuming and significant in terms of costs.
    But why such cruisers were killed, for this sabotage, if not betrayal, still descendants will study.
    Two or three nuclear cruisers, after modernization, could become the basis of the AUG together with the aircraft carrier from Kerch (instead of the UDC).
  19. Comrade I
    Comrade I 16 May 2021 12: 52
    0
    It seems that there will be a sufficient number of people who are ready to object to the author on the specific idea of ​​restructuring the 1144s into aircraft carriers.
    However, this is not even the main thing in the article.
    Time after time we are shown that a sufficiently strong fleet that meets a certain set of requirements, we have in force. And that the main deterrent factor here is not at all technical and financial, but political and corruption.
    Of course, financial, technical, scientific and other objective factors play a huge role. But they become insurmountable (at the moment) only if you plan a larger fleet that falls outside the framework of some doctrine.
    This doctrine and its requirements comrade. Klimov and other authors often discuss here. And, of course, only from my modest level of knowledge, it seems to me that we are able to have a fleet adequate to such a doctrine. Including not aircraft carriers.
    1. Comrade I
      Comrade I 16 May 2021 16: 37
      0
      Including not aircraft carriers.

      "... и aircraft carriers. "
  20. bk0010
    bk0010 16 May 2021 13: 25
    0
    1) The AWACS helicopter is a crutch, it is certainly better than nothing, but much worse than the AWACS aircraft.
    2) I think the modernization of 1144 is correct, albeit expensive. Petya needs it that way too. And until we can create such titans again, we need something that has not been profiled "to keep in shape."
    3) Light aircraft carriers are not needed at all. The aircraft carrier must be at least 350m long (I know that the amers have less, but their planes are lighter), have catapults and are built in a series of 12 hulls. Less is a waste of money. At first, four air groups are enough (2 in the oceans, 2 in repair), then you can gradually build up to 12 (in case of war and to compensate for losses). But to prepare naval pilots with a margin, so that they have time to rest after leaving.
  21. g1v2
    g1v2 16 May 2021 13: 36
    +12
    Turn the most powerful warship of our time into a non-aircraft carrier? Enthusiast projects are getting more scary. belay Well, let's assume that we are talking about the decommissioned Lazarev. I'm not even talking about the fact that only the design of such a transformation will take at least 5 years. In another 5 years, the development of UNIQUE AND PIECE equipment for such a freak will begin. Damn, even relatively moderate upgrades of 1155 with the installation of serial equipment and repairs take us many years. The restructuring of the rotten Lazarev into an under-Avian will take about 15 years. I'm not even talking about the fact that Lazarev's condition was already crap back in the 14th year. Photos from the inside strongly hinted at this.
    Damn, the construction of a large aircraft carrier from scratch will be about the same costs and terms as this project.
    Peter1 and Nakhimov are the cores of the KUG. These are the arsenal ships that are the backbone of the group. And before the start of the construction of "destroyers" Leader is the basis of our DMZ squadrons. We have only 2 of them. For 2 KUG in fact. Their capital and modernization with the replacement of equipment with modern SERIAL is quite a logical step. request
    The only thing I agree with Klimov is that ours have not fired modern missiles at decommissioned ships or their elements for a long time. Shooting at the decommissioned Eagles might not have been worth it, but there are still Sarichi. At the Pacific Fleet it would be quite reasonable to take one of the decommissioned Saryches and work hard on it. Surely we would have gained a lot of important experience. Maybe, based on the results of the shooting, they would start modernization. request I, too, somehow doubtful about such a reduction in the weight of the warheads of modern anti-aircraft missiles. It is clear that, on the other hand, more of them will break through the air defense and about the enemy, but what damage they will inflict in this case is an open question. Tch to shoot at a real ship would be worth it.
    1. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 29
      0
      In another 5 years, the development of UNIQUE AND PIECE equipment for such a freak will begin.


      It was just developed for Vikrant and you haven't noticed.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. timokhin-aa
        16 May 2021 23: 10
        -1
        You would understand at least something / would, in principle, be able to understand all this ..
        1. max702
          max702 17 May 2021 12: 37
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          You would understand at least something / would, in principle, be able to understand all this ..

          Yeah .. You can see the special ...
          1. timokhin-aa
            17 May 2021 13: 02
            -2
            Yes, a book about you, do not add do not take away
    3. 949
      949 17 May 2021 10: 48
      -1
      Quote: g1v2
      To transform the most powerful warship modernity into a non-aircraft carrier?

      You are raving monsieur
      Even in terms of the number of attack missiles (SLCM), the Tika easily surpasses the 1144M (when replacing the KR missiles).
      But this is "theory".
      And the practice is that the missile potential of the 1144M turns out to be DIFFICULT TO REALIZE, and the ship itself has an extremely low combat stability.
      Quote: g1v2
      I'm not even talking about the fact that only the design of such a transformation will take at least 5 years

      A real estimate of 2,5-3 years is the maximum.
      Quote: g1v2
      In another 5 years, the development of UNIQUE AND PIECE equipment for such a freak will begin.

      fool
      Well, show off your "knowledge" wassat "sign" - WHAT?
      Regular air finishers and elevators, "lettered". Maximum - revision according to GOST 307.
      If you look at the state of "Lazarev" at the time of 2008, then its hull and nuclear power plant were very good, and the same "Zvezda", if retained by the director of Shulgan, would have done all YEARS IN THREE, MAXIMUM FOUR.
      Quote: g1v2
      even relatively moderate upgrades of 1155 with the installation of serial equipment and repairs take us many years

      but it is not necessary to cut out the tonsils through the ass
      "Calibers" on 1155 got up without "shredding the hull".
      Quote: g1v2
      I'm not even talking about the fact that Lazarev's condition was already crap back in the 14th year. Photos from the inside strongly hinted at this.

      these photos did not say anything about the shitty state of the power case
      light bulkheads and cable routes - one hell of a complete replacement
      but the power plant in 2008 was collected to the maximum for "secondary use" (and not for scrap)
      Quote: g1v2
      Damn, the construction of a large aircraft carrier from scratch will be about the same costs and terms as this project.

      300 lards have already been announced
      and it is quite clear that with the "valiant OSEKA" this is "just the beginning"
      and the "most interesting" thing is WHERE TO BUILD (what you want)
      Quote: g1v2
      Peter1 and Nakhimov are the cores of the KUG. These are the arsenal ships that are the backbone of the group.

      in the realities of modern combat, these are TARGETS
      Quote: g1v2
      And before the start of the construction of "destroyers" Leader is the basis of our DMZ squadrons.

      fool
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 17 May 2021 14: 11
        0
        And the practice is that the missile potential of the 1144M turns out to be DIFFICULT TO REALIZE, and the ship itself has an extremely low combat stability.

        Are you talking about a lone ship? What about acting with an aircraft carrier? Even with the same hypothetically converted from 1144. How would you rate it in this case?
  22. Denton
    Denton 16 May 2021 14: 00
    +11
    Sorry, but what kind of nonsense ???
    That is, you propose to take a missile cruiser designed to carry anti-ship missiles and rebuild it into an aircraft carrier ???
    Well, that is, to take almost everything that is out of the hull (we need a place under the hangar deck), cut off the entire superstructure (we also need the flight deck, hence the superstructure on the starboard side), alter all systems in general, shift all cable routes and that's it. pipelines. And after that, get an undersized aircraft carrier (yes, there are two undersides, because one is not enough) with a tiny air group, without a catapult, with scanty fuel reserves for aircraft but with reactors.
    I am not an accountant, but there is a suspicion that such a modernization will cost as much as the construction of an avik in 100k tons, and maybe more.
    At the same time, it is very funny how the author is indignant about the cost of modernizing Nakhimov, although it is precisely the alteration of the old ship for new missiles that is quite logical.
    1. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 34
      0
      The problem is that modern. Nakhimov in the form in which it was made and went for the money to an aircraft carrier, and not converted from a cruiser, but a new one.

      The second point - if you leave only the hull and the nuclear power plant, then you can build something like this ship



      Atomic only and 10 meters longer.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 17 May 2021 19: 30
        0
        but you can do that too ..
        the point is not whether it can be altered, but in terms and price tag ... and yes ... an aircraft carrier of 25 thousand tons ... will be very conditional in terms of combat capabilities ... but there is no point in doing a training one
    2. 949
      949 17 May 2021 10: 51
      -1
      Quote: Denton
      Sorry, but what kind of nonsense ???
      That is, you propose to take a missile cruiser designed to carry anti-ship missiles and rebuild it into an aircraft carrier ???
      I am not an accountant, but there is a suspicion that such a modernization will cost as much as the construction of an avik in 100k tons, and maybe more.
      At the same time, it is very funny how the author is indignant about the cost of modernizing Nakhimov, although it is precisely the alteration of the old ship for new missiles that is quite logical.

      YOU are talking nonsense here.
      For carrying anti-ship missiles will only be "until the first good raid."
      After that, on the surface of the water RANKS WILL REMAIN (inflatable emergency)

      u4gr8Kk6p8 (Vasily)
      At one time, I took part in the construction of the TARK "Kalinin". If I am not mistaken, Kirov cost 800 million rubles for the country, Frunze 1 billion, but Kalinin cost XNUMX billion full-weight Soviet rubles.


      Other numbers. "Frunze" was MUCH cheaper than the indicated figure.


      Quote: Essex62
      And I had a question with the author's proposal to increase the helicopter group on Nakhimov. On which bank is he going to project power and, most importantly, why?


      You will first provide it with air defense - taking into account the cut radio horizon of the ship's radars.
      As for "projection onto the shore" - an action of the scale of "landing in Mogadishu in 1979"

      Quote: Angry Troll

      Now it would be a cruiser, which at least something else can be converted into an unfit for combat aircraft.


      He cannot do ANYTHING. Against any strong opponent.
      Only "work out as a target."
      1. Denton
        Denton 17 May 2021 12: 46
        0
        Go at least read Wikipedia, well, there are all sorts of target designation, missile range about radio horizons, so for general development. Maybe you will understand how to use a missile cruiser (but this is not accurate)
        But that's not the point, it's nonsense to convert a cruiser into an aircraft carrier
      2. Barberry25
        Barberry25 17 May 2021 19: 32
        +1
        but as a "training aircraft carrier" with a wing of 12 fighters, what can he do?
  23. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 16 May 2021 14: 14
    -7
    Suddenly I thought.
    And if it were not for the construction of squalid khrushchebs throughout the country in the 60s, would that be enough for a couple of full-fledged AUGs?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 17 May 2021 12: 22
      +5
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      Suddenly I thought.
      And if it were not for the construction of squalid khrushchebs throughout the country in the 60s, would that be enough for a couple of full-fledged AUGs?

      This would be enough for "events in Novocherkassk" throughout the country. For 15 years after the war, it is already very difficult to explain to the people the necessity of living in a barrack without prospects for new housing.
      I still managed to see that barrack in Vaganovo, where my grandparents lived before receiving a room in Khrushchev - this is a complete polar fox, and at that time it was considered "ordinary housing, others had worse".
      In addition, the fleet could build AUG and within the existing budget - by redistributing funds from the same diesel-electric submarines and BOD programs.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 17 May 2021 13: 02
        -5
        Quote: Alexey RA
        For 15 years after the war, it is already very difficult to explain to the people the necessity of living in a barrack without prospects for new housing.

        It's a pity that Vissarionovich lived for another 10 years - he would have explained.
        As for the prospects, it was possible to give people the opportunity to solve the problem of housing on their own. There was no mortgage back then, but there were housing cooperatives. By the way, it is a purely communist principle - there are no bankers raking in interest, there is no commercial developer who has incorporated his profits into the cost of apartments.
        That is, it was necessary not to build up cities at the state expense and distribute apartments for free, but to develop development plans and house projects, reserve communications, and the housing cooperative would come to the site, purchase materials for contributions from the cooperative members, rent equipment and build according to one of the proposed projects.
        By the way, there would be no problem of khrushchevs, which were built according to the most cost-effective project as temporary housing "before the onset of communism" - after all, people could use their own money to build more solid and high-quality buildings with better planning.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 17 May 2021 14: 07
          +3
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          As for the prospects, it was possible to give people the opportunity to solve the problem of housing on their own. There was no mortgage back then, but there were housing cooperatives. By the way, it is a purely communist principle - there are no bankers raking in interest, there is no commercial developer who has incorporated his profits into the cost of apartments.

          Excellent. We have created a housing cooperative - and what next? Who will build and from what? Khrushchevs are just the end product of a huge housing construction system created specifically for them. And the main costs were spent on the creation of this system - on the growth of cement and steel production, on the construction of reinforced concrete plants, on the creation and acquisition of construction trusts.
          There is no "Khrushchev" program - the construction industry remains at the level of the early 50s, when in 5 years as many square meters were leased as under Khrushchev in a year. The n / h simply will not have materials to meet the needs of the housing cooperative.
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          That is, it was necessary not to build up cities at the state expense and distribute apartments for free, but to develop development plans and house projects, reserve communications, and the housing cooperative would come to the site, purchase materials for contributions from the cooperative members, rent equipment and build according to one of the proposed projects.

          Where to get these materials without a budget-paid program of preparation for the construction of "Khrushchev"? Or should housing cooperatives first modernize a cement plant, a steel-rolling plant, build a precast concrete plant, produce construction equipment - and only then build a house? And how many materials will need to be released on an estimated basis for the construction of houses in a certain period of time - have you not forgotten that we have a planned economy? wink
          It's easier to sell to the population apartments in houses built by the state - by installments, on credit, etc. But these should be massive cheap apartments - because the population has little free money. And again we come to the "Khrushchevs"
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          By the way, there would be no problem of khrushchevs, which were built according to the most cost-effective project as temporary housing "before the onset of communism" - after all, people could use their own money to build more solid and high-quality buildings with better planning.

          I can see directly how the fire inspector and the post office employee buy an apartment with their own money. solid and quality building. smile
          By the way, have you forgotten about the nice habit of the Soviet government to take away a third of the salary by the end of the 50s through a voluntary-compulsory loan? And about the 20-year deferral of repayment of these loans under the National Union of Agriculture? Where is the money? ©
  24. Non-fighter
    Non-fighter 16 May 2021 15: 44
    +10
    That is, in "sober mind and good health" it is declared about the drowning of a ship with a nuclear power plant in the middle of the 90s in the center of St. Petersburg!

    I tell you how the ships are sinking at their own pier.
    The main character is a water ejector. The principle of operation is the same for a spray gun / spray gun, who is closer to what :) The design is made of iron, due to the principle of operation there are no moving parts, it is powered from the fire main, which is ALWAYS under pressure.
    1. Sailor # 1 decided to dry a room. He opened the necessary valves, made sure that the water ejector was working and ran on about his business.
    2. Sailor # 2, not knowing anything about the intentions of sailor # 1, closed the fire main.
    3. The check valve, which should cut off such situations, did not work. We were just from the dock, maybe we didn’t rotate something there, and instead of drainage, flooding began.
    4. The crew was hijacked for an evening walk on the occasion of the failed drill review.
    In short, when all this was discovered, enough water was poured to declare an emergency alarm. The ship is sinking at its own berth, without a move !!!

    And regarding the conversion of the Kruzak into an aircraft carrier, it would be necessary to cut everything above the waterline and do it again.
    And the silhouettes. Kirov has a saddle between the masts. This is actually the cover of the hardware compartment, there are a couple of necks for access to the reactors. How will this fit into the flight deck? In short, what the author offers is porridge from an ax.
    1. 949
      949 17 May 2021 10: 36
      -1
      Quote: Not the fighter
      I tell you how the ships are sinking at their own pier.

      repeat
      Quote: Not the fighter
      The main character is a water ejector.

      NAME AT LEAST ONE NAVY SHIP DROWNED BY THE EJECTOR
      ZHDEMS
      This is to the question that YOU are confusing the sinking of the ship and the flooding of some premises (not even compartments!)
      Considering such YOUR "swims in a puddle", YOUR aplomb, to put it mildly, is not appropriate.
      Quote: Not the fighter
      And regarding the conversion of the Kruzak into an aircraft carrier, it would be necessary to cut everything above the waterline and do it again.

      Do not smack nonsense, it hurts.
      Quite everything was provided by the demolition of living quarters and a number of office spaces above the main deck on the poop and waist (and rearranging them in the bow)
      Quote: Not the fighter
      Kirov has a saddle between the masts. This is actually the cover of the hardware compartment, there are a couple of necks for access to the reactors. How will this fit into the flight deck?

      Easy - The flight deck is ABOVE this saddle.
      Just in case - "Kirov" once crawled "inside and out"
      Quote: Not the fighter
      In short, what the author offers is porridge from an ax.

      In short, YOU are swimming in elementary questions of the BZJ.
      What kind of hints.
  25. Pavel57
    Pavel57 16 May 2021 16: 03
    +1
    Quote: Denton
    That is, you propose to take a missile cruiser designed to carry anti-ship missiles and rebuild it into an aircraft carrier ???

    And how Novorossiysk was modified into Vikramaditya, the excess was cut off, the necessary was built.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 16 May 2021 16: 32
      +3
      Quote: Pavel57
      And how Novorossiysk was modified into Vikramaditya

      It was originally built as an aircraft carrier, so it was, in principle, possible there.
    2. Non-fighter
      Non-fighter 16 May 2021 18: 18
      0
      Well, there was still an aircraft carrier in the base, albeit a specific one.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. Normal ok
    Normal ok 16 May 2021 17: 04
    +3
    Lord, for the sake of such articles, I also read VO.
  28. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 16 May 2021 17: 29
    -6
    A. S. Kovalchuk and E. G. Zdesenko

    The names are somehow suspicious.
    Of non-brothers or what?
    1. Beregovic_1
      Beregovic_1 27 May 2021 14: 00
      -1
      There are many such names in the navy. In the 2000s, Kirov and Nakhimov were commanded by Chernenko and Vasilchenko. And the brigade commander was Golovchenko
  29. Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 16 May 2021 19: 00
    0
    Maxim! Allow me a question: isn't it easier to build a UDC and an Aircraft Carrier on the basis of a class 1 or 3 super-large tanker?
    1. timokhin-aa
      16 May 2021 20: 30
      -1
      NOT Maxim, but I will answer - it's easier, but he by himself will have a bunch of disadvantages - speed, survivability, seaworthiness, etc.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 16 May 2021 22: 56
        0
        Clear. Thanks for the answer. Is a modern tanker in itself much inferior to equal-tonnage warships in terms of survivability? It seems that it is very difficult to drown them now.

        PS: I don't really understand something about ships (armored combat vehicles are another matter), but this moment was always interesting.
        1. timokhin-aa
          17 May 2021 13: 00
          -1
          Incommensurably inferior. Like any civilian ship.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 17 May 2021 13: 14
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        NOT Maxim, but I will answer - it's easier, but he by himself will have a bunch of disadvantages - speed, survivability, seaworthiness, etc.

        There will be no problems with survivability - thanks to the ecologists:

        However, tankers were already distinguished by their vitality for the better - not without reason of all AVEs, AVEs rebuilt from tankers were considered the safest for service.
        But yes, you won't be full of constructive protection alone. And with the speed and maneuverability of the tanker, everything is not very good.
  30. u4gr8Kk6p8
    u4gr8Kk6p8 16 May 2021 23: 19
    +5
    The author writes - For example, the "Soviet" cost of TARKR project 1144 was equal to about 4 destroyers of project 956 or 27 interceptors Su-27.
    At one time, I took part in the construction of the TARK "Kalinin". If I am not mistaken, Kirov cost 800 million rubles for the country, Frunze 1 billion, but Kalinin cost XNUMX billion full-weight Soviet rubles.
  31. kig
    kig 17 May 2021 03: 15
    0
    Further "just quotes"

    it is interesting that the video referred to in the quotes is no longer available on YouTube or LiveJournal.
  32. Eug
    Eug 17 May 2021 07: 40
    0
    As for me, the appearance of an aircraft carrier should be determined based on the effective composition of the air group, otherwise, again, something not very useful will turn out. As for the TARKR without the TAVKR, this is another embodiment of the anecdote that remains relevant about the army "the second did not come" ...
  33. Essex62
    Essex62 17 May 2021 08: 39
    +2
    And I had a question with the author's proposal to increase the helicopter group on Nakhimov. On which bank is he going to project power, and most importantly why? Russia needs a lot of frigates and a little fewer destroyers to guard the attack submarines. The doctrine of the RF, in the current configuration of the OPS, can only be defensive. There is nothing for us to promote by force into the World. Trumpet and trumpet only.
    1. Stepan S
      Stepan S 17 May 2021 18: 19
      0
      I agree. Our business is "pipe"
  34. Evil troll
    Evil troll 17 May 2021 09: 52
    +2
    Now it would be a cruiser, which at least something else can be converted into an unfit for combat aircraft.
  35. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 17 May 2021 13: 08
    +1
    Today the open media announced that the modernization of Peter the Great is next in line, after Admiral Nakhimov.
    1. Lair
      Lair 17 May 2021 16: 28
      +2
      There is nowhere to go, Peter the Great today is practically incapable of combat and requires very serious repairs with modernization. This ship has very big problems, and the entire resource is knocked out - it has been driven to wear for all these years. True, if the repair takes 10-15 years as usual, it will be very sad ...
  36. Stepan S
    Stepan S 17 May 2021 18: 17
    +1
    The country is sorely lacking shipbuilding capacities, docks, even for the construction of new ships. And modernization means occupying a huge pier, a dock for ten years, without a guarantee of getting something worthwhile at the exit. You don't even need to mention the amount of money that will be spent in this case, because it will surpass all reasonable amounts.
  37. Oleg133
    Oleg133 17 May 2021 18: 26
    +1
    There is border-surfing all over the country, and you also want aircraft carrier. The country will not stand
    1. Nikkon
      Nikkon 17 May 2021 22: 26
      0
      Quote: Oleg133
      There is border-surfing all over the country, and you also want aircraft carrier. The country will not stand

      Let the curb. He does not need the slipways, but it is pleasant to the eye. Otherwise, we will not master the aircraft carrier and we will lose the bordering. wink hi
  38. AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship 18 May 2021 01: 52
    0
    Between MiG29 and F35 there are about 35-40 years. How can you put them on the same level. Technology (and most importantly - electronics) has gone very far in the United States. F35 will not fight on the principle of "Only old people go to battle". Pkstil missile from a long distance, turned around and left. And nobody needs Mig's agility
  39. oleg ushakov
    oleg ushakov 20 May 2021 21: 59
    0
    An author or a stupid person, or a foreign agent ... wrote such nonsense! Nick hasn’t written off ANY EAGLE! Moreover, I did not DISPOSE! It is not necessary, gentlemen liberasts, to pass off what is desired as real!
  40. hostel
    hostel 23 May 2021 18: 50
    0
    It is well said about splendor
  41. Bekasov Artem Andreevich
    Bekasov Artem Andreevich 9 June 2021 12: 51
    +1
    Lovers of naive art always have a special lightness in their views. By combining an elephant and a hippopotamus, they dream of seeing a handsome man, not a freak. How easy it is in words to take from a nuclear-powered missile cruiser 250 meters long and build an aircraft carrier!
    Here are just the price and terms of its construction will go off scale all reasonable limits. There is no need to look far for examples - the aircraft carrier of the Indian Navy "Vikramaditya" (former TAVKR project 11435 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov"). The contract was signed around 1997 and handed over to the Indians in 2013 - a total of 16 years of construction from a missile aircraft carrier made a conventional light aircraft carrier. How long it may take to convert a missile cruiser into an aircraft carrier, I'm afraid to think, but not less, and most likely much more. And then why is it needed in 15-20 years, when the hull of the ship is already time to write off (TARKR "Admiral Lazarev" was launched 40 years ago). And how long does it pass in this case if it is put into operation?
    See the world experience. Anyone who had previously tried to make an aircraft carrier out of a large cruiser or tanker was limited to one copy, not a series. And for a long time then they spat from such a miracle.