Military Review

Russia will study the feasibility of including a plan to create a promising aircraft carrier in the new state program

102

It became known about the plans of the Military-Industrial Commission to study the feasibility of including plans to create a promising Russian aircraft carrier in the new state program. We are talking about the armament program of the Russian army and navy for the period from 2024 to 2033. At the same time, it is noted that the preliminary design of the aircraft carrier already exists, but it is not included in the state program operating until 2024.


The fact that the military-industrial complex will consider the possibility of including a plan for creating a new aircraft carrier in the state program to the correspondent RIA News said a member of the board of this commission Vladimir Pospelov.

According to him, it is planned to estimate the cost of building an aircraft carrier.

Vladimir Pospelov notes that Russia currently has technologies that can be used to create the latest aircraft carrier. Among these are technologies for creating nuclear power plants. At the same time, according to a member of the military-industrial complex collegium, the take-off and landing complex and the deck aircraft themselves, which should have characteristics suitable for the future, for example, in terms of missile and bomb load, need some refinement.

Recall that the Russian Navy currently has one aircraft-carrying combat ship - "Admiral Kuznetsov". During the last period of time, this aircraft carrier has been undergoing repair and modernization work. So, repairs had to be carried out on its deck in connection with a well-known incident that occurred at a shipyard with a floating dock. Then the floating dock cranes, when falling, damaged the deck of the aircraft carrier, which requires additional time and money to carry out the work. Officials practically do not speak about the future fate of the floating dock itself.
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 18 May 2021 06: 11
    +4
    Dreams Dreams,
    Where is your sweetness?
    Where are you, where are you,
    Night joy?
    He disappeared
    Merry dream
    And lonely
    In the darkness deep
    I am awake.
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 18 May 2021 06: 20
      +1
      Something members of the forum were drawn to poetry. what
      Where will the future Russian aircraft carrier be parked then?
      Apart from Vladivostok and nearby bases, nothing comes to mind.
      The rest of the waters are too small and not suitable for him.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 18 May 2021 06: 43
        +2
        Let in the Vilyuchinsk area turn over closer to the striped ones.
        1. For example
          For example 18 May 2021 07: 22
          0
          You need to build to acquire competencies.
          You need to build consciously.
          The cost of the aircraft carrier will be lower than the cost of the airfield network in the north of the country.

          Building the "largest in the world" is stupid.

          You need to build to perform specific tasks. Hence the performance characteristics.

          The General Staff is not stupid.
          And we will wait and see.

          And if our generals think of bullshit, we'll tear them to shreds. wassat
          1. Ros 56
            Ros 56 18 May 2021 07: 25
            0
            I don't know whether it's true or not, I just found out the approximate cost of this device, about 500 billion of our rubles.
            1. Genry
              Genry 18 May 2021 07: 41
              +6
              Quote: Ros 56
              found out the approximate cost of this device, about 500 billion of our rubles

              This is without a team, fuel, consumables, ammunition, repairs, utilities, ...
              1. Ros 56
                Ros 56 18 May 2021 07: 45
                +3
                it will cost him to build.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 18 May 2021 09: 52
                  +10
                  It means, after all, a hundred-thousand-ton nuclear monster.
                  ... Too big for an air defense / missile defense aircraft carrier.
                  More precisely, it is strongly redundant.
                  Instead of 3 (three!) Aircraft carriers VI 45 - 000 tons 50 - 000 billion rubles each. everyone .
                  Russia does not need an aircraft carrier as such (a symbol, a power projector, a "white elephant" for parades), the Russian Navy needs a SERIES of warships capable of providing air defense / anti-aircraft defense in the areas of the Navy's combat deployment with the forces of its carrier-based aircraft. As well as reconnaissance, target designation in the interests of the attack ships of the Fleet and escort of long-range aircraft on the route.
                  And these should be ships that the Russian industry is capable of building in SERIES!
                  And from one or two such monsters, there will be no sense or benefit.
                  1. Nemchinov Vl
                    Nemchinov Vl 19 May 2021 02: 17
                    0
                    Quote: bayard
                    ... And these should be ships that the Russian industry is capable of building in SERIES!
                    "Grachata", or "Buyany" ...? !! what
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 19 May 2021 02: 54
                      0
                      Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                      "Grachata", or "Buyany" ...? !!

                      Quote: bayard
                      aircraft carriers VI 45 - 000 tons 50 - 000 billion rubles each. everyone
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 19 May 2021 12: 46
                        0
                        the cost of the mass and size of the vessel against the background of the cost of the components of the vessel is negligible. That is, AB that VI 50kt that VI 100kt will cost almost the same UNDER the CONDITIONS of using an identical set of TTT, components and assemblies. YES and the "shipyard problem" are extremely far-fetched and can be solved in a couple of years, you can see for yourself if you study modern technologies, first of all, see everything related to (SPMT) Self-Propelled Modular Transporter
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 19 May 2021 14: 48
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        the cost of the mass and size of the vessel against the background of the cost of the components of the vessel is negligible. That is, AV that VI 50kt that VI 100kt will cost almost the same

                        This is not true . Especially when you consider that the "monster" power plant is atomic (with all the due features, difficulties and price), while the AV Air Defense \ PLO has a gas turbine or gas turbine pair. The lighter AV will have not 4, but 2 - 3 catapults, twice as large, this is twice the volume of general ship systems. And what is not unimportant is the readiness of the industry for a task of such complexity. You cannot immediately go to school in the 10th grade, you need to go through all the steps, at least as an external student.
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        YES and the "shipyard problem" are extremely contrived

                        Not at all. Shipyards are not only slipways, hulls, docks, cranes and other equipment. They are also people, specialists - engineers, technologists, designers, welders, fitters, assemblers ... specialists in SKD. These people need not only to collect, train, they also need to gain experience. and money can't buy that. Therefore, the complexity of the tasks should be ascending, but consistently and step by step. And the experience of building two UDCs is not enough here.
                        From the middle of the decade on the "Zaliv" it is possible to begin the bookmarking of the AB Air Defense / PLO.
                        It will already be possible.
                        And closer to the end of the current decade, and "Zvezda" will grow to such a complexity of tasks.
                        But not earlier and without storming.
                        And by the way, for a warm-up, you can "Zvezda" first also build a task for the construction of one or two AB / PLO.
                        In the foreseeable future, I do not see any tasks at all for 100 thousand-ton nuclear AB in the Russian Navy. They are simply not available or on the horizon. At the same time, the tasks for the AV moderate VI described by me are already in bulk now. They are needed today. And the absence of our only "Kuznetsov" in the ranks gives a special feeling.
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        YES and the "shipyard problem" are extremely far-fetched and can be solved in a couple of years, you can see for yourself if you study modern technologies, first of all, see everything related to (SPMT) Self-Propelled Modular Transporter

                        Self-propelled modules are certainly very interesting, but they can solve the problem of delivering large units or assemblies to the installation site, nothing more. I'm talking about the readiness of the shipyards in terms of competencies. And the issue of technical equipment can really be solved in 2 - 3 years.
                        And there is also the issue of infrastructure ... logistics (for Far East this is a problem) ...
                      3. KCA
                        KCA 20 May 2021 14: 48
                        0
                        To build on the "Zaliv"? Why do we need aircraft carriers in the Black Sea? The Turks will not let the Turks out of it, according to the Montreux Convention, entry into the Black Sea of ​​aircraft carriers is prohibited, or again to fence the unknown "aircraft-carrying cruiser" crap, or to break through by force, or to negotiate with the Turks, which will mean that NATO members will also want to have free passage, Nimitz, of course , the straits will not pass, but DeGolle and Queen Elizabeth will pass completely
                      4. bayard
                        bayard 20 May 2021 18: 07
                        0
                        Quote: KCA
                        Why do we need aircraft carriers in the Black Sea?

                        They will not serve there. They built, tested and on a campaign - to the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet. The straits pass without an air wing on board.
                        Quote: KCA
                        The Turks will not be released from it, according to the Montreux convention, aircraft carriers are prohibited from entering the Black Sea,

                        So they won't have to go in. smile They just need to get out. And Montreux does not mind the exit of such ships from the Black Sea. And they won't have to go back - repair and maintenance is possible both at the Northern Fleet and at the Pacific Fleet.
                        Quote: KCA
                        or again to fence the unknown crap "aircraft-carrying cruiser",

                        If, nevertheless, some difficulties arise, then nothing will prevent to place a pair of inclined launchers of the Kh-35 anti-ship missiles on the deck. lol So much for the cruiser. bully Then, however, remove it further ... and / or install it on the next one, which also passes the straits.
                        In any case, no problems with the passage of our UDCs, which are landing helicopter carriers, are foreseen. request although helicopters are also aviation.
                        Yes, and we have helicopters based on each frigate, but no one bothers Montreux about this.
                        Quote: KCA
                        or to negotiate with the Turks, which will mean that NATO members will want to have free passage, Nimitz, of course, will not pass the Straits, but DeGolle and Queen Elizabeth will quite pass

                        The Turks themselves have lathered up the canal, but Montreux does not concern it. If they want it (only if it is very strong), they will lead it through it.
                        To us under the BPKRK.
                        But Zaliv will indeed be ready for such orders in a few years.
                        But "Zvezda" will not be able to do it yet.
                        How much money don’t give.
                        In terms of climate, transport and production logistics and the convenience of attracting personnel, Zaliv is the most suitable place for such work.
              2. bayard
                bayard 19 May 2021 03: 25
                0
                But now they are vigorously lobbying for the construction of a series (of 3 units) of 100 thousand-ton AVs at Zvezda. “Zvezda” is objectively not ready for this and will not be ready for a long time. So far, they are only building tankers, and even then in a joint effort with the Koreans. Even gas carriers are not yet ready to build. I'm not even talking about the fact that the first of the 3-nuclear super-icebreakers "Leader" has already been laid there, which is also a super task for such a young shipyard. So for 5 - 7 years more, Zvezda will not be able to start building such AB. And if construction begins, it will take a long time, difficult and expensive. For the experience of creating SUCH, even the USSR did not have.
                Therefore, it is wiser to lay down on the "Zaliv" after the UDC (after launching their hulls into the water) an aircraft carrier of moderate VI (45 - 000 tons) on gas turbines or on gas-steam turbine pairs. With the possible implementation of electromotion. As a power plant, we can consider a gas turbine based on PD-50 (now its energy version is being produced for powering gas pumping stations on gas pipelines and for autonomous thermal power plants. The capacity of such a turbine is about 000 l / s. the turbine for powering it from the heat recovery unit of the GTU As a result, without additional fuel consumption, we will almost double the received power, having received from one turbine pair about 14 - 35 l / s.
                The power plant could make four such turbopairs with a total capacity of 240 - 280 thousand l / s and through an electric transmission (electric movement), without a gearbox, power the travel electric motors. The advantage is that in the case of using electromagnetic catapults on the AV, they can be powered directly from the power plant, and in the case of using steam, the steam can be taken from steam turbines - directly from the heat exchanger.
                And at the same time, there will be significant fuel savings (when using gas-steam turbopairs - as in modern TPPs). True, in this case, the power plant will no longer be as compact as the one made only at the gas turbine, but on a large ship there should be enough space for this. Moreover, saving in fuel and free steam will be a very significant option.
                Moreover, most of the R&D can be carried out as the development of equipment for a small thermal power plant, with funding from a civilian department (the Ministry of Energy, for example), and such a development will more than pay for itself in the civilian field.
                Moreover, both of these programs (100 thousand-ton AB and moderate VI AB) do not have to be mutually exclusive. AB up to 50 t. VI can be built for the Northern Fleet, because its combat capabilities will be quite enough for the Barents Sea. And to build 000 thousand tonnages for the Pacific Fleet, because from there they will be able to serve in the Asia-Pacific region and in the Indian Ocean, and their high autonomy and combat potential in such theaters will be more in demand.
                But this is only if the Defense Ministry and the Russian government are willing to pay for such ambitions. There have been a lot of loud statements of intent lately ... but maybe it's just ... before the elections ...?
              3. bayard
                bayard 19 May 2021 03: 32
                0
                Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                "Grachata", or "Buyany" ...? !!

                Quote: bayard
                aircraft carriers VI 45 - 000 tons 50 - 000 billion rubles each. everyone
          2. RBLip
            RBLip 18 May 2021 10: 40
            +3
            it approximate numbers. Knowing how we "like" to break the deadlines, "strength" and "stability" of the ruble, I think these 500 lard should be multiplied by three. The question is, is the toy expensive for the admirals? but you also need infrastructure, escorts, planes ...
        2. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin 18 May 2021 20: 22
          0
          Quote: Genry
          Quote: Ros 56
          found out the approximate cost of this device, about 500 billion of our rubles

          This is without a team, fuel, consumables, ammunition, repairs, utilities, ...

          The British had aircraft carriers for half of their service life, either under repair or modernization. Those. to have one combat-ready aircraft carrier constantly in service, you need to build two.
          And those costs that will be counted today can be safely multiplied by 2, or even 3 (this is even for one aircraft carrier).
          Plus, you need to determine from which items of the defense budget you are going to withdraw this remarkable amount.
          Those. to determine how much less aircraft, tanks, artillery, military personnel, military infrastructure, etc. - it should be understood that money for aircraft carriers will not go to the budget of the Ministry of Defense.
      2. BAI
        BAI 18 May 2021 08: 56
        +2
        500 billion of our rubles.

        For 3 years, fines on the roads (thanks to cameras) have collected 230 billion. The Crimean bridge was recaptured. 6-7 years old - aircraft carrier. And the fines can be raised. Then it will accumulate even faster.
        1. bayard
          bayard 18 May 2021 10: 42
          +4
          Last year, the unspent part of the budget (the amount that the government did NOT spend on the development of Russia and on social benefits) amounted to 1 (ONE) TRILLION rubles.
          These are two aircraft carriers in ONE year.
          And at the same time without any fines and additional taxes.
          TWO aircraft carriers in ONE year.
          Without touching the "state money box" of almost 600 billion dollars.
          And without carrying out "surplus appropriation" with "dispossession" of domestic oligarchs - the main asset of the modern Russian Federation.
          Russia (its government) has no money problems. The budget of the Russian Federation is chronically surplus and the main task of the government is how to spend this myriad profit, just not for social needs and not for development.
          Instead of the Fleet - the Olympics, the Spartakiad, the World Cup, megapipelines into the void ...
          And the TIME of the implementation of such a project as an aircraft carrier is also important. The declared 100-thousand-ton monster will be built for 10-12 years plus 2-3 years to acquire combat readiness (training of the crew, air wing, their combat coordination).
          While in 15 - 17 years it is possible to build a grouping of their SIX AV of moderate VI (air defense / PLO), which will solve the question of the need for such ships in two fleets.
          For the price of TWO 100-thousand-ton atomic monsters, which will not solve the problems of being in the sea, and will only solve such problems occasionally.
          If the goal of such an undertaking (construction of 100 tons of AB) is to develop the budget, then the problem will be successfully solved. There is no doubt about it. But this will be another conceptual deadlock in planning the development of the Navy and the Armed Forces as a whole.
          Where to base it and what tasks should they solve?
          He will be exactly as effective as the "Admiral Kuznetsov" for all the years of his service.
          Systems are at war, not individual ships. To solve the problems of the Navy, a GROUP of aircraft-carrying ships is needed, and not a parade "wunderwaffe". A grouping capable of providing a PERMANENT presence of an aircraft carrier at sea. For routine work - providing air defense / anti-aircraft missile defense in the area of ​​the NSNF deployment, ensuring the extended air defense line from sea directions, and, if necessary, ensuring the combat stability of the expeditionary forces of the Fleet in the DMZ / OZ.
          It will not be possible to build a grouping of 6 AB based on atomic 100 thousand tonnages either technically, financially, or in terms of implementation time.
          And the construction of 6 AV moderate VI (air defense \ PLO) is possible within an acceptable time frame and for reasonable money. And they SOLVE all the tasks facing the Fleet, in terms of their concern.
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin 19 May 2021 09: 06
            +2
            Bayard, thanks for the really clever comments, but after all it was about an aircraft carrier of the dimensions of "Ulyanovsk", and not "Nititz". And "Ulya" is quite an air defense aircraft carrier. There, 36 Su-33s were supposed to be located + support. A solid group, capable of challenging air supremacy among the amers at the end of the 80s. And its displacement is exactly the same 70-80 tons, which were mentioned.

            In general, in all honesty, it is not yet known whether this news is good or not. It depends on what happens at the output and whether it works. With the mess that reigns in the Navy now.
            1. bayard
              bayard 19 May 2021 09: 58
              0
              Quote: Artyom Karagodin
              in all honesty, it is not yet known whether this news is good or not. It depends on what happens at the output and whether it works. With the mess that reigns in the Navy now.

              Now there is (began) a struggle for the budget of the next armament program (from 2024), and the construction of a heavy atomic AB at Zvezda is being actively lobbied. But "Zvezda" is not ready for this. And by 2025 it will not be ready. She has not yet mastered the full construction cycle of large tankers. I haven’t even tried to start building a gas carrier yet. And I am already silent about the fact that last year they laid the atomic super-icebreaker "Leader", in the ability (today) to build which, there are very serious doubts. But the budget is divided today and began ... FIGHT using all available resources.
              ... And then there are elections on the way ... and the ruling party, as if it were evil, has lost its popularity very much ... So the work in the media field started.
              Quote: Artyom Karagodin
              but after all it was about an aircraft carrier of the dimensions of "Ulyanovsk"

              With such dimensions, there is no longer a fundamental difference. And the price between "Storm" and "Manatee" will differ by $ 1,5 billion.
              And in the end, not only specialization (air defense) is important, this is precisely what Nimitz, and Storm and Manatee may well be doing. And in the ratio of the unit price, the construction time of such a (45 - 000 tons) AB, the timing of the entire program (50 such AB), the creation of all the necessary infrastructure, air wings, the training of crews and pilots of the air group, the construction of an escort for this "herd "and all coastal infrastructure for them. It is also necessary to take into account that we will be ready to build AV of moderate VI already in 000 - 6 years - on the Kerch "Zaliv", the time and money for the entire program will take several times less and the Fleet will receive what it needs in the foreseeable future.
              And if you really need a "monster", atomic and terrible, then you can lay both series:
              - 3 - 4 AB air defense on the "Zaliv"
              - 3 "monsters" on "Star", but later.
              Even in this case, it will be much cheaper, faster and more timely.
              And the capabilities of the AV air defense of moderate VI are quite enough to solve all possible tasks in the Barents Sea.
              And how can we talk about such media projects when our Su-57 is not being built by, due to underfunding, naval aviation, especially specialized - PLO, MRA, AWACS, as it was not, and not. The fleets are subordinate to the districts ... Motorized riflemen and tankmen !!! (and in the Aerospace Forces, by the way, also - the commander-in-chief of their infantry). And when a shoemaker bakes pies, don't expect culinary delights ...
              In general, all this is a pre-election chime and a struggle for the military budget.
              1. Artyom Karagodin
                Artyom Karagodin 19 May 2021 11: 14
                +1
                Well, you may be right. We will wait and see. I was almost delighted when I first read this news, but on reflection, I came to the conclusion that shouting "hurray" is at least premature. Considering all the difficulties in the fleet, what will eventually come out there and whether it will come out is not clear. But the presentiments are not the most optimistic.
        2. the finish
          the finish 18 May 2021 16: 53
          +1
          A pet tax is on the horizon.
    2. Normal
      Normal 18 May 2021 07: 58
      0
      And if our generals think of bullshit, we'll tear them to shreds.


      About how!
    3. Esaul
      Esaul 18 May 2021 09: 21
      +2
      I totally agree. And the money for its construction must be taken from the oligarchs, otherwise they got too rich during the crisis, when the rest of the population, on the contrary, became impoverished.
    4. Piramidon
      Piramidon 18 May 2021 10: 01
      +2
      Quote: For example
      The cost of the aircraft carrier will be lower than the cost of the airfield network in the north of the country.

      But you can't drown these airfields with any torpedo
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 18 May 2021 12: 48
        +2
        Quote: Piramidon
        Quote: For example
        The cost of the aircraft carrier will be lower than the cost of the airfield network in the north of the country.

        But you can't drown these airfields with any torpedo

        yeah, and they are "repaired" with a crowbar and some kind of mother, but in general this is not a reason to abandon the aircraft carrier.
        But personally, I am opposed to the aircraft carrier being built, judging by the projects sucked in the media, these projects were riveted by yesterday's students according to the drawings of old people who have gone out of their minds. Yes, only nonsense about "you can put / not put a nuclear power plant" is surprising and understanding that the next "project" has not been worked out at all, even at the conceptual level.
        1. Piramidon
          Piramidon 18 May 2021 13: 57
          +1
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          these projects were riveted by yesterday's students according to the drawings of old people who have lost their minds

          They were stripped from the "Technique-youth" for the 70s. laughing
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette 18 May 2021 07: 40
    +1
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    Apart from Vladivostok and nearby bases, nothing comes to mind.

    In Vladivostok, perhaps at the Seaport?
  • bayard
    bayard 18 May 2021 11: 15
    +1
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    Where will the future Russian aircraft carrier be parked then?
    Apart from Vladivostok and nearby bases, nothing comes to mind.

    Vladivostok is freezing. Or do you mean an aircraft-carrying icebreaker?
    AB will be based in the same place as Kuznetsov - on the Northern Fleet. There the sea does not freeze - the Gulf Stream helps at the end.
  • Finches
    Finches 18 May 2021 06: 27
    +6
    I am not an expert from God in this matter, but I am tormented by vague doubts about the need for aircraft carriers in general ... There is a feeling that their era ended in the XNUMXth century! And the budget can be mastered in a different way, with greater benefit!
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 18 May 2021 06: 43
      +2
      Quote: Finches
      but I am tormented by vague doubts about the need for aircraft carriers in general ..

      I am only interested in one thing - where and what tasks, to curb who, are included in the military doctrine of Russia?
      The military doctrine is a LAW that defines the tasks of defense construction.
      As of today, there are no tasks for AUG in it!
      It is not necessary to make decisions on construction, but first, the tasks should be included in the doctrine, and IN FULFILLMENT of this law, the industry will be rebuilt - shipbuilding, aviation, etc., and then everything will roll on the rails.
      1. For example
        For example 18 May 2021 06: 49
        -9
        Cruise along the Northern Sea Route.
        Demonstration of flag and strength.
        In order to show control over these territories.
        Visibility may come in handy here.

        Well and the Caribbean to walk.
        In response to the voyages of the Americans in the Black Sea. laughing
        1. Lech from Android.
          Lech from Android. 18 May 2021 06: 59
          -3
          It is dangerous on the Northern Sea Route ... The landing deck of the ship will freeze over, again Sushki will dive to the bottom ... this is not good.
          1. For example
            For example 18 May 2021 07: 17
            -4
            If you build an aircraft carrier, then taking into account the trends in the development of aviation.
            Use full-length UAVs.
            Build with the North in mind.

            Yes, and the planes "dove" off the coast of Syria, and the deck does not freeze over there. wink
        2. Ros 56
          Ros 56 18 May 2021 11: 54
          -1
          There, let the icebreakers with Onyx ply, But in the Cuba-Venezuela region, under the cover of 400-500 five hundred and drip on the brain striped just right. Our 5th strategic fleet will go around the world and keep order. bully
    2. novel66
      novel66 18 May 2021 07: 10
      +2
      .There is a feeling that their era ended in the XNUMXth century!
      here, my words are straight !!!
    3. Stas157
      Stas157 18 May 2021 07: 14
      +2
      Quote: Finches
      I am tormented by vague doubts about the need for aircraft carriers in general ...

      Quote: tralflot1832
      Oh dear, it will cost us, where are we going to build?

      Messrs. Zaputintsy amaze me every time! As the greatness of Russia is estimated, so it is undoubtedly a superpower. And as a superpower build an aircraft carrier, so immediately and no money, and not why.
      1. Finches
        Finches 18 May 2021 07: 18
        -2
        Putin, "he lies down with this name, he stands up with this name ... " How do you manage to find cause-and-effect relationships, I'm really touched! laughing
        1. Stas157
          Stas157 18 May 2021 07: 23
          0
          Quote: Finches
          Putin, "he lays down with this name, he stands up with this name ..."

          There was no word about Putin. We are talking about zaputintsy - about you and your reasoning about the uselessness of aircraft carriers.
          1. Finches
            Finches 18 May 2021 08: 07
            +2
            Because you need to think with your head! And I did not say that they are not needed, but are they needed? That is the question!
          2. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 18 May 2021 09: 35
            +3
            Quote: Stas157
            Quote: Finches
            Putin, "he lays down with this name, he stands up with this name ..."

            There was no word about Putin. We are talking about zaputintsy - about you and your reasoning about the uselessness of aircraft carriers.


            And imagine that there are people who "to put it mildly" do not like Putin very much, but even more "not softly" they simply hate Navalny and other fraternity of supposedly oppositionists ...
            For being able to have your own position is one thing.
            And to hate one, only because (due to underdevelopment) you idolize another is not a position. This is childhood in the head.
        2. Xnumx vis
          Xnumx vis 18 May 2021 07: 36
          -5
          Quote: Finches
          Putin, "he lies down with this name, he stands up with this name ... " How do you manage to find cause-and-effect relationships, I'm really touched! laughing

          And when he sits in the toilet, and when he eats, he knocks on the keyboard incessantly ... he can't think of anything else ... A fighter against Putin's Russia! Lover of restructuring and riveting! definitely a resident of Kryzhopel, or Ashdod ... Svidoyevrey, or Svidorussky s ukraYny!
          1. Stas157
            Stas157 18 May 2021 08: 45
            0
            Quote: 30 vis
            And when he sits in the toilet and when he eats, he knocks on the keyboard incessantly

            laughing I don’t do it myself. But with the child there was a whole war. They could not wean the use of a smartphone while eating and in the toilet. It seems we won. So he now goes there with books! hi
    4. Aleksandr21
      Aleksandr21 18 May 2021 08: 43
      +4
      Quote: Finches
      There is a feeling that their era ended in the XNUMXth century!


      Well, why, the Americans and the Chinese will not agree with you ... South Korea, Japan, Great Britain France - at the present time these countries are also building new aircraft carriers, i.e. the relevance of the aircraft carrier platform has nowhere gone (planes, UAVs ...). But whether Russia really needs aircraft carriers is an open question ...
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 18 May 2021 12: 59
        +1
        Quote: Aleksandr21
        But whether it is Russia that needs aircraft carriers is an open question ...

        The point is not even needed / unnecessary, but that "What kind of aircraft carrier does Russia need?" and this is where copy-paste of foreign ships begins, the fantasies of designers, and sometimes even the ravings of a stubbornly-stoned brain on the subject of a wunderwaffe ("miracle of weapons").
    5. bayard
      bayard 18 May 2021 10: 58
      +1
      Quote: Finches
      And the budget can be mastered in a different way, with greater benefit!

      Build another nuclear power plant in Turkey? Egypt? Bulgaria \ Hungary Czech Republic (optional) - AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE?
      Give more loans to Africa and other regions in need?
      The 100 thousand ton monster is redundant. You cannot build the grouping necessary for solving problems at any given time on such ABs. The Navy needs aircraft carriers of air defense / anti-aircraft defense of moderate VI to solve the problems of the combat stability of the Fleet.
      Not drums.
      Not "multifunctional".
      And sharpened for specific work to provide air defense of the naval group in the far zone.
      And to provide PLO with the forces of PLO helicopters from their side.
      This does not require "floating cities". AV VI in 45 - 000 tons will be sufficient.
      But at the same time, they must be flat-deck, with catapults and AWACS aircraft / helicopters.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 18 May 2021 12: 56
        -1
        Quote: bayard
        100 thousand ton monster - redundant
        The minimum is sufficient: we do not have and do not foresee special carrier-based fighters, only adaptation to the land deck, which means they will be heavy, which means you need a lot of fuel, you need a long take-off and landing length, you need catapults.
        Quote: bayard
        You cannot build the grouping necessary for solving problems at any given time on such ABs.
        Well, then there is nothing to build. Anyhow, what is not needed.
        1. bayard
          bayard 18 May 2021 14: 03
          +2
          Quote: bk0010
          Quote: bayard
          100 thousand ton monster - redundant
          Minimum enough:

          belay And what, in your opinion, should be VI with an OPTIMAL solution to this issue?
          150 tons?
          200 tons?
          With a kilometer-long deck?
          Catapults work quite successfully on both small and medium AB.
          From the French AV the American "Hokai" successfully launched with the help of American catapults.
          And they successfully boarded the AV VI deck of only 40 tons.
          Quote: bk0010
          we do not have and do not foresee special carrier-based fighters,

          And again I will be surprised ... what
          Isn't the Su-33 a special development for working from the deck?
          His PGO was just intended to improve takeoff and landing characteristics.
          And the MiG-29K \ KUB was developed exclusively for the decks of Soviet aircraft carriers. however, he was late and was reported already in post-Soviet times. And on the money of India (at that, very small, because they paid only for the DELIVERY of ready-made aircraft, and the design bureau assumed the costs of development work).
          And the fact that the glider (very seriously revised relative to the land version) of the MiG-29K \ KUB turned out to be so good that it was used on the MiG-29M2 and MiG-35 ... this only testifies to the quality of the work done. Deck ships' chassis are always with a large margin of safety. And the requirements for strength and overload resistance.
          Wasn't the American F-18 supplied as a regular IFI to other countries?
          To Canada?
          Australia?
          And not only ?
          And the glider MiG-29K \ KUB fully meets the requirements of a carrier-based multifunctional fighter. Engines and avionics can be generations 4+ or 5, but the glider is quite good.
          There may be a version of the MiG-35K, it doesn't matter.
          The combat radius of the MiG-35 is 1000 km.
          The maximum range is 3000 km.
          This is quite enough for a deck MFI.
          But the requirements for avionics and weapons will be noticeably tougher.
          And the Indians are quite happy with our MiG-29K \ KUB and Vikramaditya.
          Quote: bk0010
          it means they will be heavy, it means you need a lot of fuel, you need a great length for takeoff and landing, you need catapults.

          lol This is from ignorance of the issue. A carrier-based aircraft is always somewhat heavier than a land aircraft, for there are much greater requirements for structural strength. But for take-off he will have a catapult (on Kuznetsov and Vikramaditya - springboards), and for landing - aerofinishers.
          look at the dimension of "Charles de Gaulle" smile , and in fact from it both take off and land planes quite commensurate with our MiG-29K \ KUB.
          Quote: bk0010
          Quote: bayard
          You cannot build the grouping necessary for solving problems at any given time on such ABs.
          Well, then there is nothing to build. Anyhow, what is not needed.

          Yes, we do not need huge drums AB.
          In our Fleet, strike functions are assigned to missile ships. But these ships need air cover, air defense support in the far zone, capable of intercepting low-flying, inconspicuous anti-ship missiles beyond the horizon, reconnaissance and TARGETING for long-range anti-ship missiles, which are our strong point in our Fleet. Without such support, our ships on the high seas will be blind and defenseless. And they will never be able to realize their (rather considerable) impact potential.
          For such tasks, AVVI 45 - 000 tons is enough, but with catapults, AWACS aircraft / helicopters, with 50 - 000 MFIs and 20 - 24 PLO helicopters on board.
          This will be enough .
          And the cost of such AB will be in the range of 1,5 - 2,5 billion dollars. , in contrast to $ 7 billion. for a 100 thousand ton monster.
          For the price of one SUCH atomic miracle, you can build 3 normal ABs, which will be SUFFICIENT in their functionality for the tasks of our Fleet.
          And to satisfy our needs, we need 6 such ABs - 3 each. to the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet. To ensure the constant presence at sea of ​​at least one AW in the theater of operations.
          And they can be built for one - the same trillion that the Russian government saved last year on budget expenditures.
          It is not at all as expensive as the patriotic sentries portray, wringing their hands and counting pensions.
          This government will not raise pensions.
          But to build an aircraft carrier fleet instead of one of the nuclear power plants abroad, the construction of which (of which !!!) is financed from the National Welfare Fund, will be quite within its power WITHOUT ANY DAMAGE to the budget of the Russian Federation.
          The RF budget is CHRONICALLY surplus. If at least a part of this surplus is annually allocated to the program of building the Navy, there will only be a benefit to the economy, because it will be hundreds of thousands of new jobs and an injection of liquidity into the economy through the salaries of these workers.
          The money spent on the construction of nuclear power plants abroad will not provide such an injection of liquidity by definition. This will (is) the same withdrawal of capital abroad, as in the case of the shock workers of the capitalist economy of the Russian Federation.

          If today the question of the construction of aircraft carriers has been raised (and it is already being discussed from a practical point of view), then it is important to decide WHAT these aircraft should be, so that their appearance REALLY increases the defense capability and operational capabilities of the Navy and the Armed Forces as a whole.
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 18 May 2021 14: 43
            +1
            Quote: bayard
            And what, in your opinion, should be VI with an OPTIMAL solution to this issue?
            Here it is necessary to count: the length should be at least 350 m, the ship's (if they make non-nuclear fuel again) and aviation fuel should be enough to ensure the constant watch of AWACS aircraft (possibly PLO), a pair on duty for a hike lasting 12 thousand km (6000 in one direction ), as well as for 2-3 sorties of air groups of 30 aircraft, and the rise of the entire air group should not exceed half an hour. The aircraft carrier should be based on PLO, AWACS aircraft, target designators, transport and rescue vehicles and, in fact, fighters. AWACS aircraft should be sufficient to provide round-the-clock watch (taking into account maintenance requirements) and the rise of an additional aircraft in dangerous situations (one moves forward in a threatened direction, the other flies around the boundaries of the AUG radar patrol). For the couple on duty, this requirement is met by itself (there are many fighters). Catapults 4 at least (one, of course, they will break), lifts with a margin, armored deck. If you can squeeze it into less than 100000 tons, then you need to do it.
            Isn't the Su-33 a special development for working from the deck?
            No, this is a rework of the Su-27 to work from the deck.
            MiG-29K \ KUB
            And this is a rework of the MiG-29.
            A carrier-based aircraft is always somewhat heavier than a land aircraft, because there are much greater requirements for structural strength
            Yes, only for a specialized carrier-based aircraft, you can hack down some characteristics (range, carrying capacity) to transfer the released weight for "sharpening" for deck-based (reducing the takeoff run, for example). Nobody will destroy the characteristics of the base aircraft.
            look at the dimensionality of "Charles de Gaulle" smile, and after all, planes that are quite commensurate with our MiG-29K \ CUBE take off and land from it.
            This is not a sample at all. Excuse me, do you know that the MiG-29K from the Kuzi fly in under-armed and under-refueled? There is generally a normal takeoff from only one of the three lanes. This should not happen again on the new aircraft carrier.
            And the cost of such AB will be in the range of 1,5 - 2,5 billion dollars. , in contrast to $ 7 billion. for a 100 thousand ton monster.
            For the price of one SUCH atomic miracle, you can build 3 normal AB
            No, it will cost at least 2/3 of the normal one, it will be possible to build 3 normal or 4 stumps.
            And to satisfy our needs, we need 6 such ABs - 3 each. to the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet.
            12 - 6 pcs. at the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet: it is unlikely that we will be able to provide KOH higher than that of the Americans, and they have 33 months out of the 6-month service cycle of AB at sea, and then - off the coast in different degrees of readiness.
            And they can be built for one - the same trillion that the Russian government saved last year on budget expenditures.
            Impossible: we need not only to build ships, but also to prepare the basing (and this is not only electricity, water, air, repair, but also cover (air defense, OVR, etc.)), design and build air groups, train pilots and sailors , develop new instructions and statutes, etc. You can't get by with a trillion.
            1. bayard
              bayard 18 May 2021 16: 42
              -1
              Quote: bk0010
              Here it is necessary to count: the length must be at least 350m,

              Where does this figure come from? Why not less?
              The "Nimitz" has 332,8 m and is quite enough.
              Quote: bk0010
              ship (if they make non-nuclear fuel again) and aviation fuel should be enough to ensure constant alert of AWACS aircraft (possibly PLO), a pair on duty for a 12 thousand km hike (6000 in one direction)

              smile If ever something like this is done in the Russian Federation, it will certainly be atomic.
              But where to go on such a mass?
              In order to teleport in the Barents Sea, dispersing the enemy's anti-aircraft defense aircraft and repelling air raids and attacks of the CD and anti-ship missiles, it is clearly redundant.
              And in order to seek happiness on foreign shores, then we will not have enough of such (such) escorts. There is simply nothing for it (the escort) will build, even if three such monsters start to build. And it will be like with the same "Ash", whose program ate the lion's share of the Navy's budget. As with the modernization of "Admiral Nakhimov", which has already gobbled up at least 100 billion rubles. And it will gobble up more. I will not be surprised if the final figure is 150 or all 200 billion rubles.
              Let's count the money ...
              7 (and most likely 10) billion dollars. behind the head AB - whatever you want.
              No air group.
              No crew and wing training costs.
              Without the cost of equipping the bases.
              The bare cost of building a ship alone: ​​7-10 billion dollars.
              What can be built for the Navy with this money?
              - 12 - 18 SSBNs of the "Borey" type.
              - 12 - 18 frigates of project 22350. (the price of both pr. 550 million dollars.)
              - 10 - 15 frigato / destroyers pr. 22350M (expected cost 650 million dollars)
              - 6 - 9 SSGN pr. "Ash-M".
              - 6 - 9 destroyers VI 12 - 000 tons on 14 gas turbines M-000FR \ FRU, with 4 cruise missiles in the UKSK and the "Fort-M" air defense missile system (analogue of the S-90) and 80 helicopters.
              It makes no sense to compare with smaller ships.
              Note that the number of ships indicated for the cost of one AB exceeds or is equal to the declared amount of the Fleet's requirements for such types as:
              - SSBN "Borey",
              - frigate pr. 22350,
              - frigato \ destroyer pr. 22350M,
              - heavy destroyers of a hypothetical project (there was a desire to have 6 pieces).
              How is it? Are you getting a little clearer?
              While AB on gas turbines (or gas-steam turbine pairs with the implementation of electric propulsion) VI 45 - 000 tons, will cost 50 - 000 billion dollars.
              The industry announced its readiness to build such one within the range of $ 2 billion (1,5 - 2 billion), but I threw up to $ 2,5 billion on the unforeseen.
              Yes, also the cost of only a bare ship, without an air wing, crew training and bases. But this is 3 - 4 AV of moderate VI, the combat capabilities of which are able to COMPLETELY meet the needs of our Navy.

              Quote: bk0010
              Isn't the Su-33 a special development for working from the deck?
              No, this is a rework of the Su-27 to work from the deck.

              No, the T-10 glider was only taken as a basis. Moreover, both design bureaus (both the MiG and the Su) initially included in their brainchildren the possibility of creating deck-based aircraft on their basis. Indeed, in the USSR it was planned to build at least 6 such aircraft carriers (2 units of the Kuznetsov type, 4 units of the Ulyanovsk type). And all the work was carried out systematically and in many ways in parallel.
              In addition, the Su-33 used PGO to reduce the takeoff and landing speed. In the USA, the wing area is simply increased - we look and compare the F-35C and F-35A.
              And in the United States, the same "Phantom" had both deck and land hypostases, and none of them was flawed. The same "Skyhawk" - too.
              It's just that the United States has a very large number of carrier-based aircraft and they have the ability to develop specialized aircraft adapted to the deck.
              In the USSR, the Su-47 Berkut was developed as a carrier-based fighter-bomber with an innovative engine of the Lebedev system, a slotted flat nozzle and a forward-swept wing. It was designed EXCLUSIVELY as a carrier-based aircraft. By order of the Navy. But it did not grow together - the state did not become.
              Quote: bk0010
              MiG-29K \ KUB
              And this is a rework of the MiG-29.

              No, these are different aircraft with the same type, but with a scaled plane. The MiG-29K \ KUB has a significantly larger wing area, no "shark gills", more powerful engines (9000 kgf versus 8300 kgf), much stronger airframe made of anti-corrosion alloy, much more payload.
              Quote: bk0010
              That's not a sample at all. Excuse me, do you know that the MiG-29K from the Kuzi fly in under-armed and under-refueled? There is generally a normal takeoff from only one of the three lanes.

              And how would you like, without a catapult? lol
              The Americans won out too - they tried to teach their F-18 to take off from a springboard ... and simply refused the competition.
              Why
              In general, he could not lift almost anything with him.
              But in our case, when fighters mainly take off in explosive missiles (air defense support), this is not critical. And the catapult will fix everything.
              Quote: bk0010
              No, it will cost at least 2/3 of the normal one, it will be possible to build 3 normal or 4 stumps.

              Where do such fantasies come from?
              Our calculations are based on the experience of building a series of Soviet "Krechetov" and modernization / reconstruction of "Vikramaditya". And if the industry says that it is ready to build for 1,5-2 billion dollars. , it means that for 2,5 billion it will definitely build.
              Moreover, the series.
              Quote: bk0010
              12 - 6 pcs. at the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet: it is unlikely that we will be able to provide KOH higher than that of

              Sur. Even the Americans do not have so many nuclear weapons. And we certainly won't.
              We are interested in a bunch of such AV moderate VI and a heavy missile ship of the "Orlan" type or a hypothetical destroyer (a non-nuclear "Leader" - there was such a project) + escort ships (2 frigates 22350 \ 22350M, 2 BPK pr 1155, MAPL and / or SSGN under water). Such a KUG \ AUG will be optimal and self-sufficient in terms of its combat and operational capabilities.
              Such an AUG can be used both on an "expedition" and on military service in a "bastion".
              And the construction of SUCH type of ships is optimal.
              Both in terms of price, and in terms of industry capabilities (you can build in Kerch) and in terms of your combat capabilities.
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 18 May 2021 18: 46
                -2
                Quote: bayard
                Where does this figure come from? Why not less?
                A figure from the length of the takeoff of Nimitz (330 m) and Kuznetsov (305 m). Not less, so that not individual unique individuals, but simply trained pilots, could take off and land from an aircraft carrier. More than Nimitz to compensate for the "non-deck" past of our carrier-based aircraft.
                Quote: bayard
                But where to go on such a mass?
                The same place as small. It's just that aviation will not work half-heartedly from it.
                Quote: bayard
                7 (and most likely 10) billion dollars. behind the head AB - whatever you want.
                Less than two times: we do not have states, but that's not even the point. Above, I just wrote that no matter what to build, or do well, or spend money on something else.
                Quote: bayard
                While AB on gas turbines (or gas-steam turbine pairs with the implementation of electric propulsion) VI 45 - 000 tons, will cost 50 - 000 billion dollars.
                The industry announced its readiness to build such one within the range of $ 2 billion (1,5 - 2 billion), but I threw up to $ 2,5 billion on the unforeseen.
                And where does the savings come from, on what? A normal aircraft carrier can also be made non-nuclear. The price of the case is not decisive now, you will save on the engine, yes, but not important. Where does steam / electricity for catapults come from? What kind of fuel oil tanks will have to be installed to ensure the required intensity of flights! All other equipment is identical.
                Quote: bayard
                No, the T-10 glider was only taken as a basis.
                This is what I am writing about: not "made the plane to work with Kuznetsov," but "taken as a basis for T10" and ensured its adaptation to the deck.
                Quote: bayard
                And how would you like, without a catapult? lol
                I want it to be correct, so that the capabilities of the aircraft (sealed!) Are not cut because of the ship.
                Quote: bayard
                Where do such fantasies come from?
                See above. There are no articles for serious savings.
                Quote: bayard
                Sur. Even the Americans do not have so many nuclear weapons. And even more so we will not have
                That's it, and I'm about the same.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 18 May 2021 22: 54
                  +1
                  Quote: bk0010
                  A figure from the length of the takeoff of Nimitz (330 m) and Kuznetsov (305 m). No less, so that not individual unique individuals, but simply trained pilots could take off and land from an aircraft carrier

                  10 - 20 meters of total length will give you nothing. Landing is on aerofinishers, jogging / broaching after their hook is standard. If you really want to lengthen the landing deck (it is oblique), just lengthen it without lengthening the ship itself. Technically, this is quite possible. For example, look at the project of the aircraft carrier "Varan", its landing deck is stretched almost to its full length. Due to this, the total length of the ship was reduced.
                  Quote: bk0010
                  to compensate for the "non-deck" past of our carrier-based aircraft.

                  No, old pilots will not be suitable for carrier-based aviation, new ones will have to be recruited - immediately after the flight university, or even from cadets to select in advance suitable ones by grip. And when they learn, gain experience, and if they have the proper raid, they will be no worse than the American deck ships.
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Quote: bayard
                  But where to go on such a mass?
                  The same place as small. It's just that aviation will not work half-heartedly from it.

                  In the Barents Sea, an average AB will be sufficient. There, mainly against PLO aircraft and long-range patrolmen, we will have to act. Well, and even if the American AUG wanders. But the main tool against it is the anti-ship missile system, which the main thing is to give target designation.
                  Heavy AB is needed where there is a need for high performance of the air group.
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Quote: bayard
                  7 (and most likely 10) billion dollars. behind the head AB - whatever you want.
                  Less than two times: we do not have states, but that's not even the point. Above, I just wrote that no matter what to build, or do well, or spend money on something else.

                  500 billion rubles, this is just about 7 billion dollars. Application price, which is usually exceeded by 25 - 30%. Plus, it will be the main one, and our industry has no experience in building SUCH ship and never had. This means it will be long, with errors that will have to be corrected, and in excess of the previously announced estimate. Therefore, the price for a 100-ton nuclear power plant will be approximately $ 7-10 billion.
                  And do not hesitate, it will not be cheaper.
                  And yes, while I was leaving, I met with someone and found out that yes, right now the program for the construction of a 100-thousand-ton nuclear power plant at Zvezda in B. Kamna is being actively lobbied. But apparently, this is just a grand cut program. The shipyard is not ready for such work, and will not be ready by 2025.
                  At least because it is overloaded with orders for tankers and gas carriers (15 years ahead), in addition, the lead super-icebreaker "Leader" has just been laid there, which are to be built by 3 units. , to work out reactors on them for future AB ... and only AFTER the slipways are vacated, in their place it will be possible to lay down a heavy aircraft carrier. And even then, if the competence of shipbuilders will correspond to the complexity of the task at that time.
                  In the meantime, at "Zvezda" ... salary delays, understatement of salaries, unresolved social issues ... Because of which there are even strikes taking place there.
                  News agencies do not write about this, but those who live there know and post videos from there. From the strike.
                  This means that not everything is smooth there. Salaries are low and with delays, living conditions ... Spartan, the deadlines for the final delivery of CVD are delayed and pulled into the right ...
                  So, the struggle for such a tasty order is of an exclusively corrupt-sawing nature. This is a completely young and inexperienced enterprise, which has not yet built a single vessel on its own, everything is only in cooperation with Korea - they drag the ship's hull without a bow to Korea in the dock, saturate and complete it, then drag it back, dock with the bow and lower it to water. With such a groundwork and competencies, it is too early for them to even start building a gas carrier ... I strongly doubt the possibility of successfully building the icebreakers "Leader".
                  So we have nowhere to build heavy AVs yet. In 10 years, if everything goes well, you can take on such a task. If they do it earlier, the failure is guaranteed by 85 - 90%.
                  But the average AB can be laid in the Kerch "Zaliv" immediately after the launch of both UDCs. And you can build AB there on the stream - slipways allow you to simultaneously build several large ships.
                  And no one there will lock them in the Black Sea - they will build, test, accept, and forward - through the straits to the Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet.
                  I will repeat once again - the road is a spoon for dinner. If the bookmarks start from 2024/25, then we will receive the first such AB in 7 years. And then rhythmically the rest after 2 - 3 years, each next. This is if we build at one shipyard. But the fact of the matter is that AV of moderate VI can be built in St. Petersburg. Where icebreakers are being built now. And if we build at 2 shipyards at the same time, then we can get the entire series of 6 such ABs within 15 - 17 years.
                  If we start with a 100-ton atomic unit, then we will be able to lay it down later, we will build (at least the head one) for 10 - 12 years, and the construction of the entire series in 3 units. we will stretch for 20 years or more.
                  Will we need them then?
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Quote: bayard
                  No, the T-10 glider was only taken as a basis.
                  This is what I am writing about: not "made the plane to work with Kuznetsov," but "taken as a basis for T10" and ensured its adaptation to the deck.

                  Again you didn’t understand. Both the Su-27 and the MiG-29 were originally designed taking into account the basing of their modifications on the AB deck. But at the same time, the deck version was developed separately with a large share of unification.
                  The construction of AB for normal aircraft (not VTOL aircraft) in the Navy was pushed for a long time, several projects of such were created. At one time, they planned to place the MiG-23 on them, and even tested their deck version ...
                  So the deck versions of the MiG-29K \ KUB and Su-33 were not "a sudden whim of admirals", but the result of a long preparatory work and struggle for the project.
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Quote: bayard
                  And how would you like, without a catapult?
                  I want it to be correct, so that the capabilities of the aircraft (sealed!) Are not cut because of the ship.

                  And the admirals wanted the same. Including Admiral Gorshkov. They insisted on installing at least one catapult on Kuznetsov. And such a catapult, already ready and tested, was already in the shop of the Nikolaev Shipyard ... But the decision of the Ministry of Defense was inexorable - "these two should be built only with a springboard." But there was a desire and desire to base the Yak-44 AWACS aircraft on the "Kuznetsov" and "Varyag".
                  You can't even imagine what a huge and serious work was going on then, in an effort to provide the USSR with classic aircraft carriers. What kind of system planning was going on ... But the "overland thinking" of the Ministry of Defense interfered with a lot.
                  Quote: bk0010
                  And where does the savings come from, on what? A normal aircraft carrier can also be made non-nuclear.

                  This is the calculation of the estimated cost. From the developer. And it is industry-aligned. Everything else is from the evil one.
                  For the average AB, we have almost everything to build it. And there are no critical barriers and lack of competencies.
                  For heavy nuclear ... we have practically nothing. You have to do everything, design, make mistakes and correct them, create production facilities, equipment, components, units, reactors - everything from scratch. Everything for the first time.
                  And we have never built such large buildings either.
                  You cannot go to school right away in the 10th grade.
                  It is necessary to go through all the steps, even as an external student.
                  1. bk0010
                    bk0010 18 May 2021 23: 12
                    0
                    Quote: bayard
                    In the Barents Sea, an average AB will be sufficient.
                    Will the fighter, fully armed and fueled, rise from it? Or will it be like now?
                    Quote: bayard
                    And do not hesitate, it will not be cheaper.
                    Well then, the air defense tasks can be solved by the base aircraft and frigates. For 7 gigabytes, you can adjust a lot of them (they seem to go for $ 450 million).
                    Quote: bayard
                    Again you didn’t understand. Both the Su-27 and the MiG-29 were originally designed taking into account the basing of their modifications on the AB deck.
                    If they were specially made for an aircraft carrier, they could take off from it with a full load, it would just be less, but the plane itself would be less. If they were specially made for an aircraft carrier, then they would estimate how much can take off from a Kuznetsov springboard on a pair of MiG-29 (or Su-27) engines and designed the aircraft based on this. Moreover, Kuznetsov is not the first time, it all started with verticals, they also had such a problem (up to the lack of arrival in good weather), the issue was solved with a cunning run, but this is also not an option.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 19 May 2021 00: 29
                      +1
                      Quote: bk0010
                      Will the fighter, fully armed and fueled, rise from it? Or will it be like now?

                      From the catapult, he will rise in full load. With 6 tons of payload.
                      And now the F-18, when taking off from a springboard (they tried to offer India for their new AB), is not at all capable of taking a load when fully refueled. So - a clean deck boat showed the same or rather worse result than that of the MiG-29K \ KUB, the result. That is why India chose the MiG-29K \ KUB for the Vikrant as well.
                      It is a sin to compare the possibilities when starting from a springboard and a catapult. On our new AV, a catapult should be required.
                      If such a catapult is steam, then the steam can be taken from the heat exchanger of the gas turbine - there is more steam capacity than from a good classic boiler. And this is WITHOUT additional fuel consumption!
                      Quote: bk0010
                      Well then, air defense tasks can be solved by using basic aircraft and frigates.

                      This is impossible - the distances are too great, but there is such a thing as "reaction time". From the base, our fighters will only have time to take revenge, but not how not to save. And they will not be able to patrol at such a distance for a long time. This has long been meaningful, and it is for this that our air defense systems were created ("Kuznetsov" and "Varyag").
                      Quote: bk0010
                      For 7 gigabytes, you can adjust a lot of them (they seem to go for $ 450 million).

                      Here I am about the fact that for that kind of money you can build a lot.
                      3 AB of moderate VI, or 2 such AB and air wings to them, or 1 AB of moderate VI with an air wing and all escort ships. And at the same time, it will also remain for the basic infrastructure.
                      And the cost of frigate 22350 is 550 million dollars. , project 22350M is estimated at about 650 million dollars.
                      Quote: bk0010
                      If they were specially made for an aircraft carrier, they could take off from it with a full load.

                      They would have taken off from the catapult.
                      And do not forget that the half load for the Su-33 is 4 tons. If we are talking about explosive missiles, then you can hang the entire ammo. But at the same time, you may have to start from a distant starting position (with a greater take-off run).
                      Both the naval and industrialists wanted to install a catapult on Kuznetsov ... at least one (or two could have been on the oblique deck), but they were simply forbidden.
                      All new ones will be ONLY with a catapult.
                      Quote: bk0010
                      If they were specially made for an aircraft carrier, then they would estimate how much can take off from a Kuznetsov springboard on a pair of MiG-29 (or Su-27) engines and designed the aircraft based on this.

                      "Kuznetsov" and "Varyag" were built as (and they were called so) transitional, on the way to completely classic aircraft carriers. And the springboard was made not so much because "there was no catapult", but to ensure a greater rate of launching of fighters. The new (at that time) fighters had a very powerful thrust-to-weight ratio, and the AV was conceived precisely as the AV of the air defense. That is, the full load was not supposed to them - only explosive rockets. But the following atomic "Ulyanovsk" were supposed to become completely classical AB. But even on them the springboard remained. Plus two catapults - for AWACS aircraft and fighters with a full bomb load.
                      It was worth a lot to be able to launch aircraft with a failed catapult. Even the Yak-44 was planned, in extreme cases, to launch from a springboard, when starting from a distant launch position. The Yak-44 engines had excess power, the same ones were later installed on the An-70.
                      Quote: bk0010
                      , it all started with verticals, they also had such a problem (up to not flying in good weather),

                      They just had a weak engine. On the Yak-39, this problem was solved (with a more powerful engine).
                      Quote: bk0010
                      the issue was resolved by a cunning run, but this is also not an option.

                      Takeoff with mileage peeped at the British "Harriers", and when they tried, the bomb load and the range (combat radius) immediately increased 2 - 2,5 times. The Yak-39 was already in no way inferior to the "Harrier", and in some ways even surpassed it. And the accident rate of our VTOL aircraft was lower than that of the British.
                      But in fact, our "Krechets" simply did not have time to wait for their Yak-41, which were capable of making a revolution in carrier-based aviation. If the Union had existed for another 10-15 years, we would have seen 10 aircraft carriers in the Navy, 6 of which would have carried heavy anti-ship missiles in addition to the air wing. Which were able to provide air defense of ship groups and strike at the shore and enemy ships. They would be different than those of the United States, but their synergy with missile ships and SSGNs would give an undeniable advantage over the US Navy.
                      But history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood.
    6. Kalmar
      Kalmar 18 May 2021 11: 13
      0
      Quote: Finches
      I am tormented by vague doubts about the need for aircraft carriers in general

      Yes, it seems to have been repeatedly discussed: in the first place - intelligence and target designation. The use of aviation for the timely over-the-horizon detection of surface and low-flying targets. This will allow both to significantly increase the air defense capabilities and to fully unleash the potential of our long-range anti-ship missiles (for which the issue of command control is still very acute).

      Here you just need to keep in mind that the "American" model, where the aircraft carrier is the center of the universe, is not the only correct one; there are many other options, including relatively budgetary ones.
  • Andrei Nikolaevich
    Andrei Nikolaevich 18 May 2021 06: 18
    +2
    And he (the aircraft carrier) is generally needed? Maybe it's better to build ships of a different class?
    1. novel66
      novel66 18 May 2021 07: 11
      -1
      destroyers and more
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 18 May 2021 06: 18
    0
    We have Gramadier plans, with near-zero implementation! We planned to build a bunch of corvettes and frigates, but we only have what we have enough strength for! Will the aircraft carrier be built in China, at the expense of the near-Kremlin billionaires? This is the only real option to get an aircraft carrier into the Russian fleet in the foreseeable future, everything else is fantastic!
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 18 May 2021 06: 33
      0
      Lived what is called to the handle.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 18 May 2021 11: 22
      0
      Quote: Thrifty
      We planned to build a bunch of corvettes and frigates, but we only have what we have enough strength for!

      I suspect that the point is not even a lack of forces, but, to put it mildly, an organizational mess and distorted priorities of the defense industry complex: instead of meeting the needs of the fleet, it is focused on meeting the financial needs of "respected people." As elsewhere, in general.
  • Adimius38
    Adimius38 18 May 2021 06: 33
    +5
    to be honest, these are the fantasies of our military-industrial complex. Which cannot even build one full-fledged cruiser, even a semi-cruiser such as a super pot cannot build, but they swing at an aircraft carrier and three at once laughing
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 18 May 2021 06: 42
      +3
      but they are swinging
      And they don't swing. They will spend money on feasibility studies. And when the money for the study is scattered around the dachas in Italy and Spain, then it turns out that there is no need for an aircraft carrier.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 18 May 2021 06: 42
    +1
    To begin with, we would raise the standard of living of the population with the lowest incomes, how many of them we have, 20 or 30 percent of the total. And let them think about the aircraft carrier project so as not to make mistakes in the design.
    1. Adimius38
      Adimius38 18 May 2021 06: 45
      +4
      with such food prices, all 50%. Have you seen how much a package of 2 liters of tomato juice costs? 200 RUR I understand the people who remember the USSR with sadness in their eyes.
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 18 May 2021 06: 49
        +1
        Well, maybe there is a gilded bag, why be surprised. Made by super duper technology.
        And I still remember my favorite tomato juice for 10 kopecks. for a glass of conical flasks in the juice-water sections.
      2. Lech from Android.
        Lech from Android. 18 May 2021 07: 02
        +3
        But Chubais voiced how he remembers the USSR, uuuu vrazhina.
        Tomato juice from the USSR ruined his brains.
        1. Ros 56
          Ros 56 18 May 2021 07: 13
          +5
          They would hang this redhead bastard by the tongue and ask how efficiently the owners work and how things are going with the demonopolization of large manufacturers and retailers. And then RAO EU did not give him rest.
      3. Xnumx vis
        Xnumx vis 18 May 2021 07: 38
        -5
        Quote: Adimius38
        with such food prices, all 50%. Have you seen how much a package of 2 liters of tomato juice costs? 200 RUR I understand the people who remember the USSR with sadness in their eyes.

        Where did you find such tomato juice !! the most expensive in Sevastopol costs 150 rubles ... What are you drinking there instead of tomato juice ... fig knows it ...
        1. Ros 56
          Ros 56 18 May 2021 10: 05
          -2
          This is how it was during the Soviet era. What are you talking about?
        2. Adimius38
          Adimius38 18 May 2021 18: 24
          -2
          Do you go to shops at all? the Internet seems to be, as it is, just write nonsense. Fill in tomato juice 2 liters
          1. Xnumx vis
            Xnumx vis 18 May 2021 18: 43
            0
            Quote: Adimius38
            Do you go to shops at all? the Internet seems to be, as it is, just write nonsense. Fill in tomato juice 2 liters

            Why should I hammer! Yesterday I bought tomato juice ... Kuban Gardens ... two liters 157 rubles. And on the Internet --- Here !! 1Orchard / Juice with taste Tomato with salt and pulp 1.93l
            Reference: 16182197
            Tomato with salt and pulp [/i] 1.93l Orchard.

            114 ₽.
            1. Adimius38
              Adimius38 18 May 2021 18: 47
              -1
              good tomato juice Dobry 2 liters the average price is 190-200r maybe so it will be clear
              1. Xnumx vis
                Xnumx vis 18 May 2021 21: 48
                0
                Quote: Adimius38
                good tomato juice Dobry 2 liters the average price is 190-200r maybe so it will be clear

                So what? there is tomato juice and five hundred rubles! Is it clear now !? Everyone buys with their own pocket and discretion .. That .. the conversation is meaningless.
                1. Adimius38
                  Adimius38 18 May 2021 23: 59
                  -1
                  in my opinion, I did not name tomato juice at 500 rubles, but called ordinary juice, which is practically in every chain store and which is far from premium quality. The conversation really doesn't make sense, because first you need to visit such common stores as magnet, pyaterochka and others.
    2. Stas157
      Stas157 18 May 2021 07: 07
      0
      Quote: Ros 56
      For a start would raise the standard of living of the population with the lowest incomes, how many of them we have, 20 or 30 percent of the total

      Not yet before. Now our government is helping the Syrians a lot and is sending aid to the CARs free of charge. Great superpower deeds! We will wait.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 18 May 2021 13: 19
        -1
        You are talking nonsense, our help to Syria is not so great, the main expenses go to "the destruction of radical pro-religious forces, which in the long term can be used by third parties to incite conflicts within the country (RF) on religious grounds"... And our (RF) spending on their "destruction in the bud" is much less alternatives.
        1. Stas157
          Stas157 19 May 2021 06: 24
          -1
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          You carry delirium

          And you write it here.

          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          our help to Syria is not so great, the main expenses go to "destruction of radical pro-religious forces

          А it what do you think is not help? And the expenses on the war turned out to be so large that they were even classified from the people. Moreover, no one knows why we need this alien war.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 18 May 2021 06: 49
    +1
    Oh, it will cost us dearly, where are we going to build it? Yes, and a material and technical supply base for it needs to be created, not all the time it will "heat" its reactors.
    1. SERGE ANT
      SERGE ANT 18 May 2021 07: 00
      +8
      The construction of a new Russian aircraft carrier was estimated at 500 billion rubles.
      The Military-Industrial Commission of Russia, as part of the preparation of a new state armament program for the period from 2024 to 2033, will consider the feasibility of including plans for the construction of a new aircraft carrier in the corresponding program. Collectively, the Navy (Navy) requires three such ships. This was announced on Tuesday, May 18, by a member of the board of the Russian naval industrial commission, a member of the naval board under the government, Vladimir Pospelov. their cost. In theory, the Navy needs three such ships - the lead one and two serial ones. There is a preliminary design of the aircraft carrier, "Pospelov said in an interview with RIA Novosti.
      The main priorities of the state armaments program (GPV) for 2024-2033 will be such areas as the development of high-precision weapons, including hypersonic ones, the introduction of robotic systems, weapons based on new physical principles.
    2. Ros 56
      Ros 56 18 May 2021 10: 07
      +1
      Well, where, the Russian city of Nikolaev is for this. You just need to carry out the appropriate preparatory work. bully
  • Graz
    Graz 18 May 2021 07: 10
    -3
    it is unnecessary, it will become obsolete before construction

    give me a destroyer Leader for each fleet! soldier
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2021 07: 16
    +2
    Well - on time. Just to replace Kuznetsov and ripen
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 18 May 2021 07: 25
      0
      Maybe in Kerch, after all, not quite the UDC was laid ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2021 07: 37
        +3
        it was the UDC that was laid there, and ... this is both good and bad. Bad - because the UDC for us today in the queue of priority needs takes place 100500, and it is pointless to spend resources on them. It's good - because Kerch will bother him for the same 100500 years and people will be in business.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 18 May 2021 08: 22
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Good - because ... people will be in business.

          Comfort...
      2. Xnumx vis
        Xnumx vis 18 May 2021 07: 40
        -6
        Maybe they will build a UDC ... they will gain experience and lay down an Aircraft Carrier?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2021 08: 10
          +4
          Quote: 30 vis
          Maybe they will build a UDC ... they will gain experience and lay down an Aircraft Carrier?

          In 15 years? :)))) Hardly.
        2. Xnumx vis
          Xnumx vis 18 May 2021 12: 50
          +1
          I look at the cons, which appeared within half an hour, to my comments today, yesterday. the day before yesterday ... some sort of svidogomilauri squinting his eyes belay , went through a hurricane of hatred, the blackness of stupidity, the poison of impotent anger ... Somehow tired of this policy of conducting dialogues ... am
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette 18 May 2021 07: 49
    +5
    I am sure that the study of the feasibility of including the plan for the creation of a promising aircraft carrier in the new state program will lead to the inevitable conclusion that such a decision is inexpedient in the near future, as it happened during the discussions that took place here at the VO.
  • Normal
    Normal 18 May 2021 08: 04
    +3
    I think it's all empty.
    No aircraft carrier needed.
    It is necessary to talk about whether an aircraft carrier is needed or not.
    It is necessary to study expediency.
    You need to imitate the activity.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 18 May 2021 19: 47
      -1
      Quote: Normal
      No aircraft carrier needed.

      totally agree
  • Curt
    Curt 18 May 2021 08: 45
    0
    Everything is complicated here. On the one hand, the concept of building and using our fleet is defensive, our budget is not very good, and in general, the fleet still has something to transfer without aircraft carriers - as an option with this money to purchase aviation for the navy and provide it with personnel.
    On the other hand, Kuzya is on his last legs, And if he is written off - the whole (industry?) Will go to degradation - this is the deck aviation and the Kuzi crew - the loss of personnel and that's all. It will be very expensive to restore all this later. As an option, if it really squeezes, just buy some kind of maaaahony aircraft carrier like a mistral from someone - but then the question of money and again expediency.
  • bald
    bald 18 May 2021 11: 13
    +2
    It’s not easy to build a target at our own expense, because in fact, given our capabilities and realities (which are not spoken about aloud), surface aircraft carriers are a graveyard. Why jerk the budget for nothing. Say about conflicts like Syria. How much was spent, but things are still there - strategists.
  • Conjurer
    Conjurer 18 May 2021 11: 27
    +1
    Quote: Curt
    Everything is complicated here. On the one hand, the concept of building and using our fleet is defensive, our budget is not very good, and in general, the fleet still has something to transfer without aircraft carriers - as an option with this money to purchase aviation for the navy and provide it with personnel.

    Yes, everything is complicated. But you need to think for the future and make plans for today, keeping in mind the future.
    Well, for example, do we need SSBNs in the future? Logically, they seem to be needed so as not to put all the eggs (SNF) in one basket. But in fact, the enemy makes them more and more vulnerable and, from the analysis of the statements of many authors on the forum, it follows that now it is better for boats not to leave their bases at all. If it goes on like this, then it's better to build mines, not boats - everything is more protection for missiles. That is, it seems like an obvious choice - to provide protection for the boats in the deployment area, or to refuse them altogether. In fact, there is no choice. The abandonment of boats is a transition to a deep defense with big problems to crawl away from their shores sometime in the future (specialists, equipment will be lost and, if there is no need to defend the areas, then you can not strain too much with the fleet).
    Well, what is the biggest threat to our boats now? Enemy submarines and PRL aviation.
    And what is the threat to enemy submarines and aviation submarines? This is where opinions differ radically. Some believe that submarines and air defense systems are needed, others - basic fighter and PRL aviation. At the same time, everyone has an understanding that we are lagging behind in the characteristics of submarines, that the resistance of KUGs against aviation raises concerns that basic aviation is far from flying to the deployment areas. Ie, everywhere "but". A good solution in these circumstances would be an airfield somewhere near the deployment area with fighter and submarine warfare aircraft to destroy enemy submarines and its submarine submarine aviation, and it would be strengthened, if necessary, by the base fighter and submarine submarine aviation and supplemented using its target designation. Submarines and air defense KUGs. At least two such airfields are needed - one in the Barents Sea, the other in the Okhotsk Sea. Then the construction of SSBNs for the future makes sense.
    So how do you get these airfields?
  • CYM
    CYM 18 May 2021 11: 37
    +2
    Quote: Genry
    This is without a team, fuel, consumables, ammunition, repairs, utilities, ...

    As well as air wings, escorts and port infrastructure. IMHO If the goal is to "master" the budget, then the aircraft carriers are the most it. If the goal is to increase the country's defense capability (and we have a defense doctrine), then aircraft carriers for defense, to put it mildly, are a strange choice. And how long will we, with our rate of shipbuilding, build an aircraft carrier, 30 years? Then it's better to start designing the Death Star right away. winked
  • AAK
    AAK 18 May 2021 13: 12
    +5
    An aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy in terms of relevance at the present time - approximately in 10th place;
    the primary task is the ASW forces: normal projects of the IPC and corvettes (with a series of more than 40 and 20 for 15-20 years, respectively), as well as a mass series (more than 50 units) of basic patrol anti-submarine aircraft (options in the Tu-214 or MS-21);
    then - the project of a compact (up to 4500-5000t) submarine-hunter for SSBNs and enemy nuclear submarines with a series of at least 25-30 units in 15 years and a series of submarines with a VNEU of at least 20 units;
    further, in terms of relevance - the escort forces of the fleet - a continuation of the series of "Gorshkovs" somewhere up to 18-24 units. and 22350M - at least 10-12 ships in 12-15 years
    - supply ships (universal squadron transports, refueling tankers - 12-16 units for 10-12 years), as well as submarine rescuers, reconnaissance ships, etc.
    - completion of the modernization of "Petra" and "Nakhimov" as air defense-missile defense cruisers for KUG / AUG
    - and only then, after all of the above - aircraft carriers, but not light ones, in 40-50 thousand tons, but somewhere in 75 thousand tons like "Midway" (exclusively to ensure seaworthiness and normal basing of the air group) with 3-4 e / m catapults, aircraft / UAV AWACS and with the number of air group in 50-60 aircraft
    Before the creation of a relatively combat-ready and balanced fleet, the AB building is of the "no pants, but with a hat" type
  • fa2998
    fa2998 18 May 2021 16: 18
    -1
    On the "military review" articles are regularly changed - some aircraft carriers - the last century, "FU", an easy target, etc., others are a shame, how can it be without an aircraft carrier, projects are presented, etc. Articles "for" and "no" literally every week come out in turn.
    My opinion. Avian carriers so far (and maybe not at all) are not needed by Russia. That it is already insanely expensive, but the main thing is the lack of experience in using such a device. Do not remember about Kuznetsov, a dozen pilots and takeoffs, landings, an event !.
    I think we need to build modern destroyers (normal, ocean-going), and the flagship in the squadron is a cruiser (but now smaller than "Peter") And we will show the flag, and with the help of modern weapons they can perform their functions.
  • lvov_aleksey
    lvov_aleksey 18 May 2021 20: 02
    0
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    Something members of the forum were drawn to poetry. what
    Where will the future Russian aircraft carrier be parked then?
    Apart from Vladivostok and nearby bases, nothing comes to mind.
    The rest of the waters are too small and not suitable for him.

    and do not, the Pacific Ocean is a good harbor))))
    If necessary, we will fly or sail (missiles and underwater robots)
  • lvov_aleksey
    lvov_aleksey 18 May 2021 20: 05
    0
    Quote: fa2998
    On the "military review" articles are regularly changed - some aircraft carriers - the last century, "FU", an easy target, etc., others are a shame, how can it be without an aircraft carrier, projects are presented, etc. Articles "for" and "no" literally every week come out in turn.
    My opinion. Avian carriers so far (and maybe not at all) are not needed by Russia. That it is already insanely expensive, but the main thing is the lack of experience in using such a device. Do not remember about Kuznetsov, a dozen pilots and takeoffs, landings, an event !.
    I think we need to build modern destroyers (normal, ocean-going), and the flagship in the squadron is a cruiser (but now smaller than "Peter") And we will show the flag, and with the help of modern weapons they can perform their functions.

    Chinese and Hindus are not fools ?! why do they ask ...
  • Yuriy71
    Yuriy71 19 May 2021 15: 33
    0
    Build an Aircraft Carrier just for the sake of being - Stupid idea !!! Frigates, destroyers, or at least something close to this need to be produced! ... Airplanes, helicopters ... There are practically no deck-based pilots in Russia! You also need to learn them! So, that - this news - another "noodles" or provocation and - billions of greens thrown into the wind! Knowing at what pace the fleet is being built in Russia, it’s ridiculous to read about this!