Military Review

Another 5 kopecks for the discussion about aircraft carriers. AUG or MRA?

146

1. General impression of the discussion



Recently, an intensive discussion of the need to build aircraft carriers has developed on the VO website. The intensity of the discussion is such that you are afraid that it would not come to hand-to-hand combat. But the opponents say almost the same thing. Supporters say: a great country needs an aircraft carrier. And the money for it, if you look, will be found. Opponents declare: the aircraft carrier would not damage us, but there is no money for it today, and in the foreseeable future it is not visible. And without money there will be no slipway, no workers, no AUG ships. Therefore, it is much more reliable to develop a naval missile-carrying Aviation (MRA), it will cost several times cheaper.

Both groups are well aware of each other's arguments. Consequently, the discussion boils down to questions of belief in a financial miracle "give / not give". Questions of faith do not lend themselves to rational analysis, therefore, instead of technical and economic issues, they begin to discuss globalist ones. For example, already now, it turns out, it is necessary to decide how, if something happens, we will bomb Sudan? One author claims that we cannot do without an aircraft carrier. Another says that there will be enough aviation - we will resume production of Tu-22m3. And from Khmeimim we will throw them with Calibers.

Such decisions are surprising - isn't there a lot of honor for Islamist groups? Waste Caliber on them, renew the long-range fleet and build aircraft carriers? That we have no cooks left who can solve issues without raising so much dust?

The largest volume is occupied by the political agenda - to what extent the influence of Russia should spread, etc. Do we really not have enough "politolukhov" on TV? The military solutions are impressive too. With one dashing throw we capture Svalbard, and from there we strike at the Greenland airbase Thule - and the North Atlantic is ours. Taking a breath, they begin their favorite pastime - develop an exchange of nuclear strikes.

We will have to disappoint such readers: this article does not cover nuclear scenarios. The author adheres to the point of view of A. Einstein: “I don’t know which weapon will be used in the third world war, but in the fourth there will be stones and sticks. " The Supreme Commander explained to us that we, as martyrs, would go to heaven, and they would simply die. Apparently, he knows the old way of winning a nuclear war - no missiles or a fleet are needed. We detonate all the warheads on our territory and immediately find ourselves in paradise, and they will die from nuclear winter and precipitation painfully and for several months.

Having left this brilliant performance, let's return to the boring specifics.

2. What aircraft carrier projects have already been announced? What are the budget requirements?


It is easier to discuss the question: by how much should the requests be reduced in order for the money to be given?

The requests turned out to be extremely varied. 3 projects appear: Varan, Manatee and Storm. Respectively 45, 80 and 100 thousand tons of displacement, carrying 24 + 16 UAVs, 60 and 90 aircraft.

The issue of the number of aircraft carriers has not been resolved either. First, should Kuznetsov be counted off or is it time to write him off? Most are inclined to believe that it resembles a suitcase without a handle. The initial amount for its repair of 60 billion rubles should increase due to the loss of the dock and the fire. However, MO is silent on how much it will increase. It's a pity for money - Kuzya is an obvious unlucky man. And even after repairs, it can only be used against militants or bantustans.

How many new aircraft carriers are needed? Most are in favor of two - for the Pacific Fleet and for the Northern Fleet. We build first one, and then on the same slipway - the second. Some require a third - to replace one of the two for the duration of the repair.

It remains to calculate the cost. Since the Ministry of Defense does not give figures, we will use the estimates of Andrey from Chelyabinsk “On the cost fleetthat Russia needs ”. Apparently, an estimate of 300 billion rubles is given for the medium aircraft carrier Manatee. What are the costs of the dock and infrastructure is unknown. Without serious costs for rebuilding the slipway, only Varan can be built, but its efficiency is also the lowest.

For any version of the aircraft carrier, you will have to build an AWACS aircraft, without which the aircraft carrier is blind. The helicopter AWACS Ka-31 cannot be seriously considered. Its airborne watch time (less than three hours, with longer flight preparation) and low flight speed with a rotating antenna make it too ineffective.

The Yak-44 was conceived in the USSR as a copy of the E2C Hawkeye. The development was not completed, and the prototype was never built. It is unrealistic to resume development - you cannot return those specialists. Who will make the engines is unknown. One cannot count on Motor Sich.

The radar situation is no better. A prototype in the 80s was developed and even installed on the An-71 aircraft. However, since then, 2 generations of radars have already changed on Hokai. The tube transmitter was abandoned. And the antenna, despite a similar appearance to the previous one, has become practically AFAR. The characteristics of detecting sea targets and noise immunity have increased significantly. From the element base used in the Soviet-designed radar, now there is nothing left. Therefore, the development of the radar also needs to start over.

The cost of development work and certification of the Yak-44 will probably be high. It is impossible to give an exact figure. But, taking into account the development of the engine, 100 billion rubles will not be an overestimate. For example, the Superjet cost much more. A batch of 10 Yak-44s will cost, according to Andrey's estimate, another 60 billion. We come to the sad conclusion - the price of each Yak-44 will be almost equal to the price of a corvette. It is undesirable to use the Yak-44 as a ground AWACS. First, it does not measure the elevation angle of the target. Secondly, the 7 ° * 21 ° radar beam width is too large. Because of this, the azimuth measurement error is also large. When tracking a non-maneuvering target, the error will be 0,35–0,5 °, and for a maneuvering target, 0,7–1 °. That is, you learn about the fact of a maneuver 20 seconds after it starts. In addition, the wide beam does not allow detecting small ground targets.

For jammers on the aircraft carrier, apparently, they will use ready-made carriers. For example, the Su-34. Then the cost of the R&D will be reduced to the cost of developing the REP (KREP) complex. Depending on the number of frequency letters, the price of OCD will vary. We will focus on 10-15 billion. The price of a serial producer is 6 billion. Andrey estimated Su-33 fighter-bombers (IB) at 3 billion apiece.

Summarize. Two manatees, together with air wings, but without ammunition and infrastructure, will cost no less than 1,1 trillion rubles. Now let's add the cost of the AUG escort. We do not have destroyers, frigates 22350 are inferior to Arlie Burke, so for AUGs we will have to use 3 frigates (40 billion each) and one torpedo nuclear submarine (40 billion), the price of auxiliary ships is unknown.

Operating costs are the hardest to estimate. In the 90s, the Americans published data that if Nimitz is not standing at the wall, but is actually being exploited, then the cost of AUG is $ 4 billion a year. Manatee is, of course, cheaper than Nimitz. And the maintenance of the crew does not cost us so much. But even if we spend 40 billion rubles on AUG per year, this will also impress the Ministry of Finance.

In GPV 2018–2027, the laying of an aircraft carrier is not provided. It is impossible to predict whether such a line will appear in the future GPV. When the final cost of the project approaches 1,5 trillion rubles, then you start to think that the opponents of the aircraft carriers are beginning to win. But what is their reasoning?

3. General conditions for the operation of naval missile-carrying aviation


The Tu-160m2 construction program is designed until 2035. Therefore, further we will consider the prospects for actions in the maritime theater of operations after this date. Then we assume that the initial conditions are as follows: Russia has no aircraft carriers, Tu-22m3, Tu-95 and Tu-142 have been written off due to their old age. 16 Tu-160s are still flying, but they are already close to the end of their service life. There are 50 TU160m2 and, probably, 10 new A-100 AWACS, and another 10 old A-50s are mothballed and are in reserve.

The fundamental disadvantage of the Tu-160, regardless of its novelty, is its increased visibility (see the article "Tu-160. Is it worth restarting production"). The visibility of the Tu-160 is almost an order of magnitude higher than the visibility of its prototype B-1b and approaches the B-52. Accordingly, he is not able to break through any air defense, including the AUG defense (see "The effectiveness of the air defense of an aircraft carrier strike group. Is a breakthrough possible?"). Its capabilities are the same as those of the B-52 - to bring missiles to a given safe area and launch them at an external control center. Who lobbied for the resumption of aircraft production 50 years after the start of its development? The Americans gave birth to the idea of ​​an airplane with variable wing geometry, and they killed it. Should we continue to cling to it in the 98st century, if XNUMX% of the time we fly subsonic?

If someone in the United States declared that it was necessary to produce B-2035 or B-52b by 1, then they would immediately begin to check for sanity. We, as the hero of "Mimino", it turns out, "cannot eat" if we lack the third component of the triad. How do the French manage to sleep well without the triad? China, with its powerful economy, only started talking about the triad after it had built a full-fledged navy. Kim Jong-un does not even have one full-fledged component, and Trump was more afraid of him than of us. Let psychotherapists answer such questions better, the mind cannot understand Russia. And we finally get down to business.

3.1. What quality of control center can be considered acceptable?


It should not be expected that in 2035, the current level of reconnaissance means available to the Russian Federation will provide a control center of an acceptable level, the launch of an anti-ship missile system on which it will be quite effective. Reducing the weight and size characteristics of the REB equipment will allow the enemy to place it on light UAVs, which will divert the anti-ship missiles to the side.

Passive interference is also improving. The clouds of dipoles are a thing of the past - modern GOS anti-ship missiles can get rid of their influence due to the difference between the speeds of the ship and the dipoles. The ship goes in one direction, and the wind carries the dipoles in the other. If, for example, we take an inflatable balloon with a diameter of 1 m and a length of 3 m, which contains inside corner reflectors made of metallized film, then it will be able to simulate a target with an RCS of up to 1000 sq. m.

If 3-4 such balloons are connected in a bundle (“sausage”) with a step of 10–30 m and the bundle is towed using a UAV at a distance of 400–600 m in front of the ship, the RCS of which is much less than the RCS of the bundle, then the seeker will retarget to the bundle. If there is a second bundle, it is advisable to carry it forward a few kilometers. These bundles can be offered for our corvettes and frigates. For ships "Stealth" the size of the balloons can be reduced by 3 times. You can do without the UAV and tow the bundle behind the ship, but the seeker is easier to recognize towed decoys located behind the ship than in front of it. The simultaneous action of active and passive interference leaves the radar seeker with little chance of choosing the right target.

Unfortunately, some experts do not take into account the interference and believe that for the launch of the anti-ship missile system it is enough that the target during the approach of the anti-ship missile system does not go beyond the search zone of its seeker. The typical width of the search area of ​​the seeker, depending on the RCS of the target, is 10–30 km. If the seeker is allowed to search for a target in such a strip, then it will capture any of the decoys in this strip, as long as the false target imitates a larger one than the EPR ships.

Hence, the conclusion follows - the anti-ship missile system should receive radio correction after turning on the seeker and with an error of no more than 0,5 km. It is desirable that the RK line would work in the opposite direction - it would transmit information about the detected targets to the carrier.

3.2. Possibilities of using Tu-160 against AUG


When attacking the AUG, the Tu-160 will be detected by the Hokai or IS officers on duty at a distance of 600-800 km from the AUG. And he will be able to get out of the horizon and detect the AUG only at a distance of 400-420 km. At this time, the security officers on duty will already go out into the attack.

Suppose that the Tu-160 has nevertheless reached the horizon and is trying to issue a control center for an anti-ship missile. At such a long range, it is already difficult to detect ships without interference, and the AUG will definitely turn on the interference. If the jammers have not yet been lifted into the air, then the ship's KREPs will turn on and create an illumination sector with a width of about 160 km on the Tu-20 radar indicator. If a couple of directors also act, then the zone in which the true targets are hidden by interference, and the false ones are visible, will expand to 50 km. Welcome! Start up your RCCs!

As an example, consider only the aviation version of the Onyx anti-ship missile system. Its weight has been reduced, compared to the ship's, from 3 tons to 2,5 tons, and its length - from 8 m to 6 m. In fact, this is Yakhont, the range of which has been increased due to the launch from high altitudes. GOS Onyx is capable of detecting large targets at ranges of more than 50 km. If you do not give the anti-ship missile high-precision radio correction and allow it to freely search for a target, then it will grab, for example, the signal from a remote jamming transmitter - a repeater installed on a UAV located at a distance of 10–20 km from the AUG. Passive decoys can also be caught. Then the anti-ship missile will not target, in general, any AUG ship. Not to mention correctly aiming at the main target. The only way to overcome the effect of interference and give an accurate control command to the anti-ship missile system is to reach the Tu-160 at a range of less than 100-150 km and open the situation with two planes at once, separated by tens of kilometers. Obviously, this scenario is unrealizable in the case of an AUG attack.

Only desperate optimists can hope that the anti-ship missile system will be able to not only highlight the aircraft carrier in the interference, but also, having flown past Arlie Burkes, at the end also overcome its air defense system.

Other RCCs are even less likely. The X-35 has a range of less than 300 km, that is, it will not reach the AUG. Zircon needs an accurate control center, since it must lock the target while still on the march, that is, at altitudes of 30–40 km. To descend to a lower altitude, for example, 10 km, and continue to search for a target, he will not be able to because of overheating. Let us also take into account the fact that it is difficult to detect a target at steep angles due to an increase in the reflections of the sounding signal from the sea surface. The plasma cloud around Zircon further complicates detection. When independently searching for a target, Zircon's high speed becomes a disadvantage, since it takes 5-10 seconds to make a decision to start a dive at the target.

3.3. Possibilities of using Tu-160 against KUG


The absence of Hawkeye AWACS in the KUG makes it easier for the Tu-160 to reach the horizon, but the amount of interference will not be much less than in the case of the AUG. Only jamming planes will be absent, but less powerful UAVs will be present.

The main danger for the Tu-160 is the Aegis air defense missile system. The firing range of the SM6 is estimated at 400 km, so it is dangerous to approach the KUG at a shorter distance to get a more accurate target control. Theoretically, it is possible to place a powerful KREP on the Tu-160 and, by organizing a flickering interference from two sides, swing the missile guidance loop, but given the increased visibility of the Tu-160 and its low maneuverability, it is better not to take such a risk.

What kind of radar is installed on the Tu160m2 was not reported, but the dimensions of the fairing make it possible to obtain a rather narrow beam with a width of 1,5 °, which corresponds to a search zone width of 10 km with a range of 400 km. Thus, interference located outside this width will be attenuated tens or hundreds of times. Since the KUG has no production planes, it can be assumed that the area covered by interference will be ± 5 km. Of course, it is easier for anti-ship missiles to search for a target in such a zone than in the AUG zone, but the destroyer's RCS is an order of magnitude smaller than that of an aircraft carrier, and it is easier to create false targets for camouflaging it.

The formation of the control center could be significantly simplified with the use of the A-100 AWACS aircraft, which, from a range of 450 km, would receive a significantly more detailed picture than the Tu-160. The AWACS radar beam has a width of only 1 °, which narrows the width of the search area to 7 km. A100 radar uses a range of 10 cm, in which shipboard KREPs do not work. The KREP of this range, placed on the UAV, has a much lower power than the shipborne one and it will be difficult for it to suppress the powerful AWACS radar. The main disadvantage of the A-100 AWACS is a small combat radius - 2000 km. It is extremely difficult to organize its refueling due to the huge fuel consumption - 6 t / h.

The result here is disappointing - the Tu-160 attack on the KUG will be ineffective.

3.4. Use of tactical aviation (TA)


It makes sense to use TA where the coastal complexes Bal and Bastion are missing. Let's assume that this is the first 500 km from the coast. On the other hand, the range of a TA usually does not exceed 1000 km from the airfield. Of course, refueling can also be used, but we still do not have enough Il-78, but how many will there be in 2035?

Let's look at a specific example.

3.4.1. TA actions against AUG


Suppose that the AUG approached our territory and is located 800 km from the TA airfield. We will assume that the question of the suspension of an anti-ship missile with a mass of 2,5 tons on Su aircraft has already been resolved. Then one Su can carry 2 aviation Onyxes. It remains to figure out how to give them a control center? For the commander of the AUG, the location of our airfield is known, so the AWACS Hokai will be moved 300 km towards the airfield and will be able to detect the Su at a distance of more than 600 km from the AUG. Therefore, it will be about gaining air superiority. It is advantageous for the AUG to engage in battles when our IS approach a range of 250-400 km. In this case, they will have the support of their own air defense systems, radars and jammers. The advantages include the ability for the AUG IS to take off with half the fuel supply. Consequently, winning aerial battles is possible only due to a large numerical advantage and is associated with large losses. If the battles took place at a distance of 500-600 km from the AUG, then the advantage would be on our side.

The beam width of the radar on Su aircraft exceeds 2 °, therefore, the quality of the control unit delivery, even from a range of 300 km, is no better than that of the Tu-160 with a range of 400.

The situation can be improved by using a pair of AWACS A-100. They should be located at a distance of 450 km from the AUG at an altitude of 12 km, which corresponds to the horizon range. The distance between the A-100 pair along the front should be 150-200 km. This will make it possible to determine with high accuracy the position of the placed jammers. The range of 450 km ensures the non-defeat of the SM6 missiles. But to protect against the enemy's IS, you will have to use a pair of IS, which will ensure the protection of AWACS from UR AMRAAM. AWACS is capable of detecting these URs immediately after starting with IS.

Since light UAV directors usually emit interference in only one wavelength range, the interference for IS and for AWACS will be emitted by different directors. Joint processing of signals received by AWACS and IS will make it possible to separate the issued directors from the true targets. The effectiveness of air combat between IS when controlled from AWACS will also increase significantly.

If we assume that, as a result of the battle, it will be possible to bring our IS to the line of 300 km and get a control center, then the quality of such a control center from an information security system will not be better than a control center from an AWACS, therefore it is easier to provide security for AWACS and get a control center from them, unfavorable conditions. In the event of a massive IS attack specifically against AWACS, the A-100, having noticed the attack, can simply step back under the cover of its IS. The IS officers on duty from the airfield or coastal air defense systems will help to finally repel the attack. Then the AWACS returns to a range of 450 km, and the number of available sorties on the aircraft carrier is reduced. Since the accuracy of the control center will be approximately ± 4 km, a lot depends on the availability of the GOS RCC's ability to dump a picture of signals and interference on the IS.

3.4.2. Using TA against KUG


The absence of AWACS and IS of the enemy allows you to get a more accurate control center using IS. The main danger to IS is the Aegis air defense missile system, which is capable of intercepting IS flying below the horizon. Therefore, it is possible to approach the KUG, for example, at a distance of 150 km, only at low altitude, when the KUG's radar does not yet detect the target.

To obtain such a more accurate control center, you will have to form a reconnaissance group of 4 information security, armed with the R-77-1 missile defense system. The first two ISs follow at an altitude of no more than 1 km, with the task of reaching the line of 150 km and, having made a "slide", reconnoitre the IBM. The distance between the IS along the front should be 30-50 km. Aegis radar will detect the first IS and launch missiles at them. Having completed reconnaissance in 5–10 s, the first IS descend below the horizon and fly to the side. Having lost the target, the Aegis radar switches the missiles into over-the-horizon mode and turns on their seeker. Then the second IS, located 15-20 km further than the first, turn on the radar and detect the missile defense at a distance of 60-70 km. Further, the second IS tie the trajectory of the missile defense system and determine whether the missile defense system can intercept the first IS or whether it is directed towards the place where the slide took place. In case of danger, Ur R-77-1 are launched in the direction of the missile defense system, and the IS return back.

4. findings


Due to the lack of a series, the construction of aircraft carriers will be very expensive. The French also failed to bring the reliability of a single aircraft carrier to the required level. Looking at Kuzya, do you think we will somehow succeed? Two medium-sized aircraft carriers, taking into account the cost of development and infrastructure, will cost 1,5 trillion rubles. The actual operation of two AUGs costs at least 80 billion rubles a year. Even if the construction of AUGs takes 20 years, then instead of that, you can build a full-fledged destroyer per year.

The rejection of aircraft carriers in favor of naval missile-carrying aviation also does not solve the problem of the far sea zone. When attacking AUG Tu-160m2, due to increased visibility, it will not be able to reach the horizon and issue a control center, without which an anti-ship missile attack is ineffective in conditions of interference. When attacking the KUG, Tu160 will be able to reach a safe range of 450 km and form a control center. But a detailed picture of the KUG, due to interference, cannot be obtained at such a distance. Therefore, the effectiveness of launching anti-ship missiles, although it will be higher than with the attack of the AUG, will still be small.

In the near sea zone, it is much safer to use TA instead of Tu-160. When attacking the AUG TA, it can receive an inaccurate CO on its own, but it is much safer to use a pair of A-100 AWACS for reconnaissance. When attacking a KUG, AWACS is not required. Conventional IS are capable of reaching a range of 150 km and forming a more accurate CU than AWACS.

It follows that the tasks of the MPA will be very limited, and the cost of 50 Tu-160 plus the cost of 10 A-100 will be at least 900 billion rubles.

As a result, you don’t understand what to choose: two aircraft carriers will perform some tasks, but they are very expensive, the MPA is cheaper, but it has little combat capability, and the tasks for it need to be tortured. In BMZ it is much more efficient to use TA.

The leader of the peoples to the question "left or right deviation is worse" - answered: both are worse. Apparently, we will also have to resolve the issue of AUG or MRA. A third way is needed.

The author has already proposed one of the options in articles about the concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser and AWACS aircraft. But these questions are not the subject of this article, since it is necessary to put forward the concept of increasing the combat effectiveness of the entire surface fleet. At the same time, we will have to take into account that the surface fleet is clearly not a favorite among our leadership.
Author:
146 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 28 May 2021 18: 19
    +14
    So many "five kopecks" have already been inserted into this dispute that if they were melted down, it would be possible to build an aircraft carrier! wassat
    1. Anachoret
      Anachoret 28 May 2021 18: 27
      -3
      free spearmen will not miss their five cents))
      the main thing is that ultimately the fleet was and was combat-ready)))
    2. Thrifty
      Thrifty 28 May 2021 19: 31
      -6
      An article about the fact that there are a bunch of problems, and they cannot be solved simply because. ....! That is, the author chose such a direction of discussion, how to highlight all the problems when creating an aircraft carrier, but there are no ways to solve them? The Yankees would even have a pie with such an approach, not like a destroyer, but about an aircraft carrier, I am silent - they would never have been built! There is only one question - the Kremlin's DESIRE to allocate money for the construction of aircraft carriers, of which 4 -2 are needed for the Pacific Fleet, and 2 for the Northern Fleet. And the problems with proper funding can be solved, the fleet should receive aircraft carriers in the foreseeable future.
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 28 May 2021 20: 16
      +13
      Peter - Menshikov:
      I am sending one hundred rubles
      For the construction of ships.
      As you get, give an answer:
      Are you going to build, or not?
      Menshikov - Peter:
      Received one hundred rubles
      For the construction of ships.
      Ninety three rubles
      I drank and yes about the Kamasutrili.
      Seven rubles left
      For the construction of ships.
      As you get, give an answer:
      Far to build, or not?
      1. Artemion3
        Artemion3 28 May 2021 20: 39
        0
        The money for the aircraft carrier went to the 2014 Olympics
      2. region58
        region58 29 May 2021 03: 07
        +10
        Quote: Nagan
        Far to build, or not?

        Listen to my royal decree:
        I am much ready for reprisal!
        So that before the winter cold
        I had a hundred ships.
        And you will make me sad -
        I'll chop off my head in an instant.
        Who drank with, who ****
        Build ships with them.

        Nothing to do, they took a knife.
        Scribbled a blueprint
        And they raised a fuss -
        Dust - not visible a mile away.
        Everyone is sweating, no one drinks.
        Look: so here it is - the Russian fleet!
        (C).
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 29 May 2021 07: 24
          +9
          Aleksashka has been gone for a long time
          The king became a monument, but
          New Menshikov Men
          Everything is ready about Kamasutritsa.
          What do they need the fleet of their native land,
          They would have money from the treasury
          Would take away clean
          Everything to personal accounts.
  2. Bez 310
    Bez 310 28 May 2021 18: 20
    +4
    "When you say ..., the impression is that you are delusional."
    1. NIKN
      NIKN 28 May 2021 18: 52
      +3
      Quote: Bez 310
      "When you say ..., the impression is that you are delusional."

      I agree. And this is all I have to take purely on faith? Some fantastic personal arguments, moreover, seasoned from the ceiling, both financial and technical calculations ...
    2. Undecim
      Undecim 28 May 2021 22: 15
      +2
      It is strange that women's nongovernmental organizations such as the Center for Promoting the Business Activity of Women in Conditions of Unemployment are still not involved in the discussion of the issue of aircraft carriers.
  3. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 28 May 2021 18: 24
    +14
    I'm embarrassed to ask - where did the range of the Hokaya radar station come from? 600 - 800 km. - what kind of transmitter is there? And what, on the Tu - 160 there is no jamming system to drown out the "hockey"? the author "pulls by the ears", what he wants to voice. Everything else just doesn't notice.
    1. makmak
      makmak 28 May 2021 19: 27
      +8
      I subscribe to the question. And also the interceptors have a speed like the Tu160 and there is no reaction time, no satellites, AWACS, fleet, radio interception, submarines .... The proud loner White Swan against AUG without tasks in the open ocean.
    2. aagor
      29 May 2021 10: 38
      +2
      600-800 is obtained as the sum of 300 km + 500 km - the detection range of such a highly visible aircraft as Tu-160
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 29 May 2021 13: 24
        0
        And if the "carcass" comes from the other side? Or is he obliged to fly where the mattress mats are comfortable? The maximum speed of the Tu is 160 - 2200 km / h, for the hornet - 1900 km / h. How will he intercept? Will the pilot contact by radio and ask you to fly slower?))))
      2. S. Smirnov
        S. Smirnov 29 May 2021 19: 39
        +20
        And I don't quite agree with this
        Without serious costs for rebuilding the slipway, only Varan can be built, but its efficiency is the least

        In my opinion, the infrastructure of the Zaliv CVD in Kerch is quite suitable.
        And for the rest, yes - no catapult, AWACS aircraft, new deck, and most importantly - budget funds are not enough
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 29 May 2021 22: 49
          -1
          as a pinzhak I will say - chief in AUG supply and naval base. it's not $ 500 billion
          a disposable AB is not needed. he must live at 10-30-50 years old and overcome all the intrigues of enemies "with a slight movement of the hand."
          MFA is the main pillar of AB. not "naval traditions" ..
          let MZakharova express her opinion and the ambassador to Nigeria-Australia.
          AUDACITY SECOND HAPPINESS. TRAINING THE MFA AND OLIGARCHS IS NECESSARY FOR EFFECTIVE USE IN THE WORLD WITH SUCH STRUCTURE.

          AB AND ALL AUG IS NOT A DEMOSTRATOR OF WELD SEAMS OR LAMINIUM AND COMPOSITES WING SU57-a for intimidation.
  4. Egor53
    Egor53 28 May 2021 18: 42
    -8
    The author of the article is a clear supporter of the AUG.
    Russia does not need aircraft carriers in principle.
    And the American AUGs cannot fight against Russia. If the US AUG approaches the Russian coast closer than 700 km, then it can be destroyed from the coast. At the same time, the planes from this AUG to our shores simply will not reach our shores - they will shoot them down on the way.
    US AUGs are only suitable for the war with the Papuans.
    1. Osipov9391
      Osipov9391 28 May 2021 18: 55
      +14
      Oh, come on. Have you forgotten the Far East in the region of Kamchatka and the Pacific Ocean? This is how the US AUG is ideally used against Russia, more precisely against the facilities of the Pacific Fleet, which is already (except for the nuclear submarine) barely breathing - there are only a few really combat-ready ships there and all outdated samples.
      And the AUG will operate in the second wave of the strike - the first is Tomahawks from submarines and strategic aviation. When they suppress the air defense forces and part of the strike assets, then the AUG aviation will join.
      And this aviation will also cover the deployment areas of its fleet from our aviation. Although there is no such word at the Pacific Fleet at all. (See Vozdvizhenka)
    2. region58
      region58 29 May 2021 03: 18
      +6
      Quote: Egor53
      US AUGs are only suitable for the war with the Papuans.

      Ask about Fleetex-82. I think you will learn a lot of new things.
    3. Ryusey
      Ryusey 31 May 2021 18: 25
      +2
      Russia, in principle, does not need you, but this does not prevent you from living, and your opinion does not interfere with aircraft carriers.
  5. knn54
    knn54 28 May 2021 19: 05
    +4
    -The author has already proposed one of the options in articles about the concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser and AWACS aircraft
    By and large, this option came to the USSR (project 1144).
    And without the PAK DA strategists, DBA's prospects are not very bright.
  6. Xlor
    Xlor 28 May 2021 19: 06
    -3
    Aircraft carriers were excellent weapons in WWII.
    It is also an excellent weapon for bombing some Papua New Guinea or the Ivory Coast ...
    It is also an excellent target for cruise missiles, aviation and submarines (at the same time, I understand that aircraft carriers are accompanied by air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships)
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 31 May 2021 18: 27
      -1
      This stupidity turns out to be contagious.
  7. Osipov9391
    Osipov9391 28 May 2021 19: 09
    +8
    The author is very optimistic. But you need to call things directly.
    If we leave everything with the Naval Aviation as it is today, then in 2025-2026 it will be possible to put an end to it and transfer the remaining few new aircraft to the Aerospace Forces.
    We look at the facts:
    1. Prospects for leaving the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" from repair are rather vague. If it comes out in a few years, then by that time almost all of the Su-33s will have developed a resource and will be decommissioned. The remaining MiG-29K will not do the same with their range. In addition, while the ship is stationary, specialists, including experienced pilots, leave the deck aviation. They have not been flying from the ship for a long time, they are degrading, and so there are only a few of them. Most likely this topic will be closed. There is nothing more to base there. The MiG-29K will most likely be “fired” ashore completely. Su-33 production is paralyzed.
    2. Anti-submarine aviation will cease to exist. Il-38 and Tu-142 will be massively written off, although there are very few of them left. There are even fewer modernized ones. Absolutely outdated against American Poseidons and even promising Japanese PLO aircraft. And here is a very deplorable situation;
    3. There will be no more naval missile-carrying aircraft. There are very few Tu-22M3 left and they will not fly for long. They will be needed in the videoconferencing. There is no adequate replacement. There are, of course, promising variants of the Su-34. But even this will not solve the problem - there is a weak combat load and range against the Tu-22M3. And the new Su-34s will also be needed by the Aerospace Forces.
    So, with this approach and this situation, our Naval Aviation will not exist for a very long time. Only new fighters Su-30SM and MiG-29K. But there are few of them and most likely they will become part of the VKS.
    State Duma deputies and the military should ask the authorities harshly about such a state of the fleet.
    Why in 20 years they could not create an anti-submarine aircraft on the Tu-214 platform and why did they curtail the production of the Su-33 in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. It could still be done. At least a couple of pieces a year. Then the meaning of the aircraft carrier and its modernization would be of some kind for sure.
    1. Alexander Lysenko
      Alexander Lysenko 28 May 2021 19: 15
      -1
      SU-34 has a low load ???
      1. Babay Atasovich
        Babay Atasovich 28 May 2021 20: 41
        +2
        Et like about A-Yin-Two, which has been plowing a maximum load of 47 tons on paperwork since 1.5, and in 93 he witnessed the transfer of this miracle with a ton of overweight from Central Asia to Shakhty! These are the maximum carrying capacity, here is the double range without hanging tanks, here is the secret of increasing the range of "calibers" from the declared 500 to the known 1.5-2 t.km, and maybe 5 unknown! wink
      2. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 28 May 2021 23: 37
        +2
        If we compare the Kh-22 and Kh-32 missiles, their weight and the load of the Tu-22M3, then the Su-34 loses a lot. Several times.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Lair
      Lair 28 May 2021 20: 05
      +4
      Quote: Osipov9391
      If we leave everything with the Naval Aviation as it is today, then in 2025-2026 it will be possible to put an end to it and transfer the remaining few new aircraft to the Aerospace Forces.
      We look at the facts:
      1. Prospects for leaving the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" from repair are rather vague. If it comes out in a few years, then by that time almost all Su-33s will have reached the end of their life and will be decommissioned. The remaining MiG-29K will not do the same with their range. In addition, while the ship is stationary, specialists, including experienced pilots, leave the deck aviation. They have not been flying from the ship for a long time, they are degrading, and so there are only a few of them. Most likely this topic will be closed.

      A very correct comment. I believe that the first step is to repair Kuznetsov and use him as a combat training aircraft carrier. We cannot lose the modest aircraft carrier that we have, otherwise it will be possible to forget about the construction of aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation for 30-40 years for sure. And, of course, we urgently need to develop a project for a new anti-submarine aircraft and a helicopter, without them, our fleet will have nothing.
      1. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 28 May 2021 23: 47
        +3
        Do not forget that this aircraft carrier already has 2 THREAD training complexes in Yeisk and Crimea. Billions of rubles were spent on their construction and maintenance. And why are they now if there is no ship?
        And they began to build Yeisk even before the Crimea returned. Therefore, we have both.
        And if we lose this ship (it is advisable to postpone the repair of all other ships for the sake of him alone), we will forever lose not only deck but also Naval aviation as a whole. Forever and ever.
        The production of the Su-33 heavy fighter and its two-seat version (it was almost ready) was restored. On the basis of dozens of Tu-214s with a resource that the airlines have abandoned and they are worth, it is possible to create an anti-submarine aircraft.
        There is not even a naval aviation school to train personnel for the naval aviation.
  8. Luminman
    Luminman 28 May 2021 19: 16
    -3
    Can anyone explain to me why lift the plane from the deck of the ship, when from the same ship (or submarine) you can hit the target with a rocket?
    1. Avior
      Avior 28 May 2021 19: 39
      +3
      the aircraft, unlike this missile, can be used as air defense, for reconnaissance and for attacking mobile targets on the coast.
      in general, a more flexible tool
    2. Lannan Shi
      Lannan Shi 28 May 2021 20: 23
      +10
      Quote: Luminman
      Can anyone explain to me why lift the plane from the deck of the ship, when from the same ship (or submarine) you can hit the target with a rocket?

      Why aviation on land? The rocket can be mounted on a tractor and can be fired from it. And the tractor will be a little cheaper than the same SU. And the tractor does not need an airfield. Solid benefits. AND?? Is aviation in principle not needed?
      1. Luminman
        Luminman 29 May 2021 07: 53
        -4
        In addition to special aircraft, such as aerial photography, transportation of goods and military personnel and some special tasks, it is not really needed ...
        P.S. Was it used a lot during the war in Karabakh?
    3. malyvalv
      malyvalv 29 May 2021 03: 36
      +1
      The rocket is disposable. The plane is reusable. The cost of a rocket launched from a ship is several times more expensive than that launched from an airplane. Well, the stock of missiles on the avik is dimensionless compared to the cruiser.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 7 June 2021 00: 29
        0
        the comparison is not correct, even if we take purely shock functions and lead to a common denominator, then it is far from the fact that the rocket will be more expensive, because you need to take into account the probability of the destruction of the pilot and, therefore, its cost (and this is much more expensive in time and money than the electronics of the rocket)

        but in general the comparison is meaningless
    4. PSih2097
      PSih2097 29 May 2021 10: 33
      0
      Quote: Luminman
      Can anyone explain to me why lift the plane from the deck of the ship, when from the same ship (or submarine) you can hit the target with a rocket?

      who will allow the same ship (or submarine) to the launch range, then do not forget about the control center ...
  9. Warhead-xnumx
    Warhead-xnumx 28 May 2021 19: 30
    +1
    Let's imagine a situation that we have, for example, here and now there are three full-fledged aircraft carriers with aviation and trained crews. Where should we send them and for what purpose?
    1. Bumblebee_3
      Bumblebee_3 28 May 2021 20: 17
      +5
      BCh-5 (Andrey)
      To the shores of Cuba. And also to conduct exercises there on the landing of troops and the destruction of missile defense and air defense.
      How do you like that?
      1. Warhead-xnumx
        Warhead-xnumx 28 May 2021 20: 32
        +2
        Fine. We decided on the place. And now to understand the purpose of these exercises off the coast of Cuba? Do you think America (Zionists, globalists, imperialists .... underline the necessary) will be scared?
        1. Bumblebee_3
          Bumblebee_3 28 May 2021 20: 39
          +2
          BCh-5 (Andrey
          Well, if so, what is the purpose of the exercises of American (British) ships in the Black Sea? Reflection of Iranian missiles? Is it not against Iranian missiles, installed a missile defense system in Europe? It is clear for Iran!
        2. Bumblebee_3
          Bumblebee_3 28 May 2021 20: 42
          +1
          BCh-5 (Andrey)

          Quote: CU-5
          Do you think America (Zionists, globalists, imperialists .... underline the necessary) will be scared?

          They will not be scared, they will waggle.
        3. Babay Atasovich
          Babay Atasovich 28 May 2021 21: 01
          +4
          If you name one "Admiral Boshirov", and the second "Admiral Petrov" and conduct exercises under the code "NovicEk" - not only the United States, the entire West may immediately surrender !!! laughing
    2. Luminman
      Luminman 29 May 2021 07: 54
      0
      Respect! You can't say more precisely!
  10. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 28 May 2021 19: 38
    +3
    On the one hand, he seems to think correctly.
    On the other hand, we will have one aircraft carrier, and what will it change?
    Will he dramatically increase the combat capability of the fleet in the face of complete numerical superiority of the enemy?
    It is unlikely if everything else remains as it is (i.e. no, and soon even this will not be left). And to achieve even an approximate hint of parity is not realistic for us in the foreseeable future.

    Here's what I completely agree with the author, so it's about the resumption of the construction of the TU-160 - nonsense.,
    But I don't see any problems with target designation - we are building 22 normal drones, we attach each one to the AUG, from time to time we change them without losing sight of the wards ... and voila, there is always information that is accurate and up-to-date. In a peaceful period, there can be no attacks on them,

    Although, what am I talking about, we here "lancet" rejoice like a miracle ...
  11. Normal
    Normal 28 May 2021 19: 46
    +3
    The preamble is wonderful. Especially about the bombing of Sudan. The start is promising.
    Something will come next.
    Let's get started .....
  12. Basarev
    Basarev 28 May 2021 19: 46
    -6
    Simple thought. We cannot cope with AUG. And even if we throw corpses with a fence, NATO has ten more of them. Does it make sense to try? The air is lost, the ocean is lost, the electronics are lost, space is lost ... All that remains is dry land, but most of our tanks have not gone that far from the Iraqi ones. Guerrilla? The rancor who ate in counter-partisanship, from the Arab countries to Afgan, NATO members, most likely, will make us here too. And what to fight for? For the capital of the oligarchs? Will it not turn out that NATO rule will be easier for the country and the people than the oligarchic yoke? Is it worth fighting when there is no opportunity to win from the very beginning and, despite all efforts, the enemy will win anyway? If you surrender, the enemy will take too. Only without the huge sacrifices and destruction inherent in war. That is, if in both cases we do not win, the order of the invaders is unlikely to be worse and the only question is the number of victims that can be avoided - is it not better to surrender, to win peacefully?
    1. nonsense
      nonsense 28 May 2021 20: 11
      +4
      laughing You and the AUG are going to fight "hand-to-hand" or what? - No, in that case, everything should be exclusively grown-up! Those. nuclear weapons... By the way, after several explosions of nuclear charges at an altitude of 100 km, this very "electronics" from NATO and everyone else will also be lost throughout the theater of operations! (EMP, however ...) So you can be sure - and they (NATO ) also does not win ... And the determination of the state. guidance on the use of nuclear weapons must be maintained at the highest level. And military doctrine should clearly indicate these measures ...
      PS: for the record: if you haven't noticed, then we, the USSR, have already surrendered once! As a result, the losses (both human, economic / resource) from this step were much higher (at times!) Than from the hostilities on Soviet territory during World War II ... So not a step back! So that later it would not be excruciatingly painful from missed opportunities ...
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 28 May 2021 20: 41
        +9
        That is, you admit that in a conventional war we will lose without a chance? And about the end of the USSR ... I have slightly different thoughts. It was not the evil west that ruined the country It's just that the Soviet economy was deeply unprofitable. Enterprises worked for a warehouse, released uncompetitive waste. Plus, the enterprises themselves have an outdated machine park, there are even a lot of German trophies. No organization of labor, whole departments where aunts drive tea ... Plus, these enterprises are hung with a bunch of obviously unprofitable objects that do not bring profit and do not even participate in production, I mean sanatorium camps. Plus, enterprises are regularly robbed, all the time they overwhelm the socialist camp, allied republics and national entities within the RSFSR with nishtyaks. Here is the bureaucratic apparatus bloated beyond all measure, moreover, the nomenklatura did not refuse benefits to itself - and dared to hypocritically call the people to asceticism. Returning to factories and products, it turned out that when no one began to support the factories, their poor products could not withstand the competition, and the factories naturally disappeared. Yes, their own rich people, former loyal party members, also had a hand, but, you see, the West is not involved here anywhere, the United States has nothing to do with it.
        1. nonsense
          nonsense 28 May 2021 21: 42
          -3
          what other "conventional war"? - There are no such!
          PS: hmm ... I have been observing a difficult case ... For the last thirty years you have not been taught anything ... For you, the United States is still white and fluffy ... The dream of reason is evident ...
        2. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 7 June 2021 00: 45
          0
          Basarev (Arseny) I put a minus for "everything is lost" of the first post, and put a plus for the rationality of the second post, and answering your question from the first post I will say this (in the context of your first point of view) "you need to consider the army and the navy as a means obtaining large preferences (benefits) in the global geo-political-economy ".
        3. Glad
          Glad 13 June 2021 21: 15
          0
          And about the end of the USSR ... It was not an evil West that ruined the country.

          I agree with this unconditionally.
          It's just that the Soviet economy was deeply unprofitable ... they released uncompetitive garbage ... their poor products could not withstand competition

          Truth? I wonder who told you this ... ghm ... false information? At the time of the collapse of the USSR, it was the second largest economy in the world. The USSR's GDP was about 20% of the world (the United States is now less than), the external debt of the USSR in 1985 was $ 29 billion (the United States had 1 trillion 823 billion in the same year) If we take the USSR GDP (GNP, as it was then called in the USSR) in 1928 for 100%, then in 1988 it was 7651%. In the late 80s, we experienced a slowdown in economic growth. Growth in 1988 amounted to "only" 4% (And how much do you know about the RF now? If not, then take an interest).
          Most of Russia's infrastructure came from the USSR. Plus a hydroelectric power station, plus a nuclear power plant.
          Our great Bizdin Elbasy of All Russia at every corner never ceases to talk about hypersound and about aviation. True, he is modestly silent that the reserves of today's achievements were laid in the USSR. The USSR had an ocean-going fleet. Where did it come from in a country with a "loss-making" economy? And the aviation? And space? And the socialist camp? Was this all of the losses financed?
          Where the story about the allegedly unprofitable Soviet economy came from is clear. It was necessary to lie to the gentlemen of the privatizers when they were taking sweet pieces into their pockets. But why repeat these lies now?
          As for the poor products ... So poor Soviet trucks and cars still roam the roads. But Russian cars are somehow not enough ... More and more foreign cars, yes foreign cars ... Apparently, because of the highly efficient Russian economy. Sure sure...
          The bureaucratic apparatus, overblown beyond all measure, is also here, and the nomenklatura did not refuse benefits to itself - and dared to hypocritically call the people to asceticism.

          You are confusing something. It is now constantly urged to be patient, but they say that we need to understand everything correctly. In the "unprofitable" USSR, there was no need to raise the retirement age.
          And you don't seem to be aware of the number of officials either. There are much more of them in the Russian Federation than there were in the USSR as a whole, and the benefits of the Soviet nomenklatura cannot be compared to what those in power now have.

          So let's not talk about the "unprofitable" Soviet economy. For all her shortcomings, she was self-sufficient. But the economy of Russia is not such, alas ...
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 14 June 2021 08: 57
            -1
            Indeed. The Soviet economy was unprofitable. There is a very simple indicator: if a product does not succeed in the Western market and personally in the American market, it means that it is shit. A really good product will not be held back by any barriers - neither duties, nor political prohibitions. And I don't see that the volume of sales of Lada was comparable to that of Ford. You can also recall something else: I saw beautiful diagrams where the consumption of meat and butter in the USSR was much higher than in the developed countries of Europe ... But in fact, there were huge queues for the blue bird. So trust the propaganda about the second economy of the world less. What is the use of the size of GDP and economic growth, when a citizen has been standing in line for decades for a poor Khrushchev and no less poor Zhigul. So, per capita GDP is more honest, and it is nominal (GDP based on PPP is also a lie - according to it, Colombia is almost catching up with Germany, it's ridiculous). Here is the huge militarization of the economy - in the States it did not exceed the average NATO 2% of GDP. In the USSR, there is a legend that it was 30. And still they could not cope and the main emphasis was placed on nuclear weapons. Although it seems to be perfectly clear: if you cannot win a war with conventional weapons, then nuclear weapons will not help. And if you can, then nuclear is redundant and unnecessary. But we have inflated a weapon of retaliation out of him, just like one failed artist. That is, there is a pyramid of parasitism: the soldier ate the citizen, the nuclear was devoured by the soldier. And the army itself was not so effective: hazing, fellowship, officers' arbitrariness - all this has been going on since Soviet times. In the west, there is definitely no such abomination, there the soldiers do not paint the grass. Now about the officials. Senior citizens remembered the Stalinist times, when officials were regularly thinned out. The oldest remembered tsarism when the apparatus was very small. That is, they had something to compare with, many in their lifetime found a sharp rise in the bureaucracy after Stalin's death. And now there are even more of them, really.
            1. Glad
              Glad 16 June 2021 23: 16
              0
              E-he-he ... Your evaluation criteria are interesting ... "Poor Khrushchevs" ... And the communal apartments that were before the Khrushchevs, do you want? And they gave Khrushchev free of charge. And now, like, a mortgage for 25 years with real prospects of being left without an apartment if you lose your job, this is probably a grain of good ... Well, oh well. It's not about the criteria.
              You see, what a thing, at different periods of its history in the USSR there was a different economy. And again, it has NEVER been unprofitable. Modern "privatizators" are still devouring what was founded under the USSR.
              Now about a different economy. I don’t know about you, but I managed to catch the economy of the 80s at a quite conscious age. I had to "smell" both the deficit and not the optimal organization of production and the hazing of the army, by the way, too. I, by a sinful deed, in my youth, thought that it had always been this way. Throughout Soviet history. But when he rummaged in the sources, and asked his relatives and friends, the picture turned out to be completely different.
              The economy that we all saw in the 80s was "presented" to us by Khrushchev. It was he who began to destroy the economic system that was built by 1929 and worked very effectively. For example, economic growth from 1929 to 1955 averaged just under 14% per year. This is despite the fact that when calculating the average indicators, the years of the Second World War were also taken into account. Growth of 14% per year for over 25 years! Now we can only dream of this in sweet dreams.
              Further ... There was no shortage. Since there were artels and personal subsidiary plots (in the countryside), that is, the private sector. Yes, they provided less than 20% of the total gross output, but at the same time provided up to 90% of the commercial variety. In the USSR, for a very long time, state-owned factories did not make children's toys at all. The need for them was completely covered by the artels. Moreover, the artels also carried out government orders. Do you know that during the Second World War, Sudaev's submachine guns (PPS-43) were also produced by the Primus artel? After the war, one of the artels, commissioned by the state, produced electronics for the military industry. Collective farmers used their own money to buy tanks and aircraft for the front. That equalization in income, which I saw in the 80s, did not exist at that time. In the economy, inventive and rationalization activities and money for inventions and rac were encouraged in every possible way. the offers were not paid very small. Production planning was carried out centrally in physical terms (tons, pieces, liters, etc.) with the subsequent infusion of the necessary funds into the economy (because the money was our own, they printed it themselves, and did not use someone else's, as it is now). And so on and so forth.
              And the competent organization of the economy gave a sharp leap in the development of the country ...
              With the arrival of Khrushchev, everything changed. Artels and similar farms in the village were destroyed. A period of general state control and leveling began. Until the mid-80s, the country's economy was rolling on the same growth that was achieved by the mid-50s. And then the inertia of this growth ended ... And ... We have what we have ...
              Yes, I almost forgot. About the fact that the USSR was the second economy in the world. This is not propaganda. They are not satisfied with Soviet economic research - read Western ones. But the fact that in the USSR the militarization of the economy was 30% is just propaganda for the illiterate. No economy, even if it is a diamond, will not be able to withstand such a share of unproductive expenses. As the saying goes, don't read liberal newspapers before dinner.
              And "Zhiguli", by the way, were exported very well. Including in the cap. countries...
              1. Basarev
                Basarev 17 June 2021 08: 54
                0
                These are all numbers that are very divorced from reality. Real economic growth is when a citizen can afford more and better quality for the same amount. For example, prices and salaries do not change. But at the same time, last year a person could not afford to go to the sea, but this year he can. And not pathetic Turkey-Egypt. This is real economic growth, not an abstract number in a newspaper.
    2. Bumblebee_3
      Bumblebee_3 28 May 2021 20: 33
      +1
      Basarev (Arseny)
      Hmm. Sir, what are you talking about now? With your thoughts it was necessary to surrender Leningrad, at the mercy of the winner? Do you really think, having lost in the Second World War, we would drink Bavarian beer and drive Mercedes?
      I will also tell you, they are fighting for the Motherland! They fight, knowing that they will die. This is not accounting for you.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 28 May 2021 20: 52
        +2
        They are not the same thing at all. The Reich longed to destroy us and even enslave us, the entire people. The West, too, does not burn with motherly love for us, but the States have never had such cannibalistic plans for the country and the people, believe the propaganda less. The difference is roughly the same as between Philip and Alexander's views on Persia: Philip had an option of the Reich - to explode into those lands and commit massacre and robbery ... And in the eyes of Alexander, Persia was a valuable prize that should be tried to be kept as less damaged as possible. Little joy in reigning bare ashes. So the West also had exactly the view of Alexander - the United States needs a strong and rich satellite, if only because much more (in absolute terms) of the colonial tax can be levied from the second economy of the world than from the bottom of a hundred. Again, a strong country in its vicinity maintains a solid order, which is much more beneficial than the pacing gangs that hate the civilized way of life.
        1. Babay Atasovich
          Babay Atasovich 28 May 2021 21: 17
          +2
          So the West also had exactly the view of Alexander - the United States needs a strong and rich satellite, if only because much more (in absolute terms) of the colonial tax can be collected from the second economy of the world than from the bottom of a hundred.

          laughing laughing laughing EBNovskaya RF - this is a complete confirmation! yes laughing
        2. Babay Atasovich
          Babay Atasovich 28 May 2021 21: 58
          +1
          Again, a strong country in its vicinity maintains a solid order, which is much more beneficial than the pacing gangs that hate the civilized way of life.

          And what would not relax - here's Chechnya, Karabakh, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and a base in Kyrgyzstan? wassat good
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 28 May 2021 22: 05
            +1
            Sorry, but it looks like you didn't get it the first time. I just painted: the horrors of the nineties were not included in the plans of the West. This is all our snatchers have done to the country. They are also guilty in Chechnya, Karabakh and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. And the West even tried to help the common people, I think it will not be very far from the truth if I say that Bush's legs saved some from starvation.
            1. Babay Atasovich
              Babay Atasovich 28 May 2021 22: 49
              +3
              This is all our snatchers have done to the country. They are also guilty in Chechnya, Karabakh and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
              Yes Yes Yes!!! Those very shadowy railways that eluded Andropov, pushed Humpbacked and, with the help of the charitable fluffy West, threw the Power, democratically planted EBN and tactfully climbed into ALL government structures, helping to improve the remnants of the economy! .... you understand, there are almost no children here, people saw with their own eyes what was happening and how! Many have friends, former friends, relatives, and just acquaintances in the civilized West, who have experienced the difference between the Worlds with their own eyes and on themselves. Rubbing in will not work. No.
            2. Babay Atasovich
              Babay Atasovich 28 May 2021 22: 58
              -2
              I suppose it will not be very far from the truth if I say that Bush's legs saved some from starvation.

              I also watched this interview with Bush, when he talked about the free sent legs, so that people would not die. Only you keep quiet that he also scolded his fellow tribesmen for the destruction and plundering of the country, tk. here you have almost quoted him

              Again, a strong country in its vicinity maintains a solid order, which is much more beneficial than the pacing gangs that hate the civilized way of life.
              This does not mean that fluffiness has been proven. request
        3. nerd.su
          nerd.su 28 May 2021 22: 48
          +3
          Quote: Basarev
          The West, too, does not burn with motherly love for us, but the States have never had such cannibalistic plans for the country and the people, believe the propaganda less.

          That is, the now known plans for an attack by the USSR such as "Dropshot" are inventions of propagandists? Or are they, in your opinion, not man-eating enough? Or maybe you think that later and not yet declassified plans are more humane?
          Quote: Basarev
          The states need a strong and rich satellite, if only because it is possible to collect much more (in absolute terms) colonial tax from the second economy of the world than from the bottom of a hundred.

          First, the United States and China will have to figure out who has the first economy and who has the second. Then decide who will pay the colonial tax laughing
          Quote: Basarev
          Again, a strong country in its vicinity maintains a solid order, which is much more beneficial than the pacing gangs that hate the civilized way of life.

          Judging by the events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. everything is exactly the opposite. It is much easier to bargain with gangs of barmaley than with a strong state. And the gesheft is much higher.
          1. smaug78
            smaug78 29 May 2021 13: 33
            -2
            That is, the now known plans for an attack by the USSR such as "Dropshot" are inventions of propagandists? Or are they, in your opinion, not man-eating enough?
            And also, what did Rabinovich sing? Themselves were not interested at once it is evident ...
        4. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 29 May 2021 02: 48
          +1
          Quote: Basarev
          The states need a strong and rich satellite, if only because it is possible to collect much more (in absolute terms) colonial tax from the second economy of the world than from the bottom of a hundred. Again, a strong country in its vicinity maintains a solid order, which is much more beneficial than gangs pacing back and forth, hating a civilized way of life.

          Extremely funny.
          Realities show that a strong satellite or gangs of savages, the states do not care. Gangs have been a priority lately.
        5. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 29 May 2021 21: 34
          +3
          Quote: Basarev
          trust propaganda less
          you are a perfect victim of western propaganda
          “The war will end, everything will be settled and settled. And we will throw everything that we have: all the gold, all the material power to fool and fool people! The human brain, the consciousness of people are capable of change. Having sowed chaos there, we will imperceptibly replace their values ​​with false ones and make them believe in these false values. How? We will find our like-minded people, our allies in Russia itself. Episode after episode, the tragedy of the death of the most rebellious people on earth, the final and irreversible extinction of its self-consciousness, will be played out, grandiose in its scale. For example, we will gradually erase its social essence from art and literature; we will wean artists and writers - we will discourage them from engaging in depicting and researching the processes that occur in the depths of the masses. Literature, theaters, cinema - everything will portray and glorify the most base human feelings. We will in every possible way support and raise the so-called artists who will plant and hammer into human consciousness the cult of sex, violence, sadism, betrayal - in a word, any IMMORALITY. In government, we will create chaos and confusion. We will imperceptibly, but actively and constantly contribute to the tyranny of officials, the prosperity of bribe-takers and lack of principle. Bureaucracy and red tape will be elevated to virtue. Honesty and decency will be ridiculed and will not be needed by anyone, will turn into a relic of the past. Rudeness and arrogance, lies and deceit, drunkenness and drug addiction, animal fear of each other and shamelessness, betrayal, nationalism and enmity of peoples - above all, enmity and hatred of the Russian people - we will deftly and imperceptibly cultivate all this, all this will flourish as a double color. And only a few, very few will guess or even understand what is happening. But we will put such people in a helpless position, turn them into a laughing stock, find a way to slander them and declare them the scum of society. We will pull out the spiritual roots, vulgarize and destroy the foundations of national morality. We will shatter thus, generation after generation. We will take on people from childhood, adolescence, and the main stake will always be on YOUTH - we will decompose, corrupt and corrupt her. We will make cynics, vulgarities and cosmopolitans out of her. This is how we will do it! "- Allen Dulles Plan for the destruction of Russia" Reflections on the implementation of the American post-war doctrine against the USSR ", 1945. Last updated May 22, 2020 History

          Source: https://ru.citaty.net/tsitaty/622542-allen-dalles-okonchitsia-voina-vse-utriasetsia-i-ustroitsia-i-my-b/
        6. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 29 May 2021 21: 43
          +2
          Quote: Basarev
          States need a strong and rich satellite

          I haven't read such nonsense for a long time .... why should the Americans have competitors, any strong competitor, so they released the Chinese out of control, and now they bite their elbows ... are you by any chance a protasevich young man? or stalking from Urengoy "... you were brainwashed ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEKd96Dc_6U
          Speaking several years ago, Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of England, dropped a cryptic phrase: "According to the world community, it is economically expedient to live in Russia for 15 million people." The translator thought he misheard and translated 50 million. But Thatcher immediately corrected him. There were another 150 million of us at that time. Where are the other 135 million? And the rest will go under the real knife of madness, lack of culture, debauchery, drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

          Two years ago, this very Madeleine Albright, who was then the US Secretary of State, came to our country in person and, speaking, dropped the same mysterious phrase: "According to the world community, it is economically expedient to live in Russia for 15 million people." Where are the other 130? There were 145 million of us already then. As you can see, the misanthropic program has just set a course for its implementation.
        7. Bumblebee_3
          Bumblebee_3 31 May 2021 13: 55
          -1
          Basarev (Arseny)
          Quote: Basarev
          The states need a strong and rich satellite, if only because it is possible to collect much more (in absolute terms) colonial tax from the second economy of the world than from the bottom of a hundred. Again, a strong country in its vicinity maintains a solid order, which is much more beneficial than gangs pacing back and forth, hating a civilized way of life.

          What are you, completely beguiled the coast? This is when amers needed a strong satellite? Please give examples. They needed unquestioning obedience! And nothing more. That is why they drove the indigenous population to reservations differently into the ghetto. They gave a lot to develop Cuba, Panama, Grenada? Is everything thriving and smelling there?
    3. makmak
      makmak 28 May 2021 21: 17
      -1
      Basarev
      Many have surrendered, but few have been defeated. soldier
    4. Normal
      Normal 28 May 2021 21: 40
      +9
      Quote: Basarev
      Isn't it better to surrender, to win peace?

      Well of course not.
      And the point is not even "is it better to give up", but in
      "Will the enemy conquer anyway"?

      Will not conquer.
      There is no need.
      We are already pumping oil and gas to the West, and we send the proceeds overseas.
      All this hysteria about the inescapable aggressiveness of the West just to justify sitting in a "besieged fortress" under the eternal domination of the lacking-alternative-knee-lifter.
      The United States in the early 50s of the XX century had hundreds of nuclear bombs and their carriers, while the USSR did not have a single bomb suitable for combat use and not a single delivery vehicle. But for some reason the United States did not begin to realize its absolute and indisputable advantage, although it had the opportunity to destroy all large and medium-sized cities of the USSR with practically impunity. Why are they going to conquer us now, when there is no longer such an advantage?
      There are no fools in the west to fight the Russians, because everyone there knows that we can fight better than do anything else. We have a peaceful life worse than a war. We go to war - yes, voluntarily and in line. Women in tears, and men in a dance. They went to Donbass so that the authorities got scared.
      Not. They will not conquer. There are no fools to fight with us on our territory.
    5. PSih2097
      PSih2097 29 May 2021 10: 37
      0
      Quote: Basarev
      That is, if in both cases we do not win, the order of the invaders is unlikely to be worse and the only question is the number of victims that can be avoided - is it not better to surrender, to win peacefully?

      1. Intruder
        Intruder 30 May 2021 16: 12
        -1
        Well, if only among the victims .., then maybe all the same!?:
  13. Jonny_Su
    Jonny_Su 28 May 2021 19: 47
    +2
    A very good article, without forcing out extreme scenarios. If the question rested on costs versus effects, it would be even better to consider the marginal cost efficiency from the situation of 2027: if, for example, there are no minesweepers at the Pacific Fleet, and then AUG escort ships, there will be no effect from AB. That is, this is the top of the military food chain, until we saturated the floors below, it will not work. With all the greater power in the case of a full-fledged environment.
    1. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer 28 May 2021 20: 10
      -1
      The bottom of the food chain, Russia can still produce, but the top is no longer there. If Kuzyu is now written off, then another aircraft carrier will appear in 10-15 years. And the situation in the world may change by autumn or winter. And it turns out that "Kuzya" is really needed.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 29 May 2021 02: 59
        +2
        Quote: TermNachTER
        And the situation in the world may change by autumn or winter. And it turns out that "Kuzya" is really needed.

        Funny.
        The need for "Kuzi" was clearly shown by his Syrian campaign - the whole world amused.
        It is better to have a dozen aircraft on the shore and a couple of really combat-ready ships near your shore than something incomprehensible, it is not clear where, but it is clear why.
        That's when the country will be able to produce and maintain a full-fledged AUG and a full-fledged patrol aviation, and a full-fledged naval strike aviation ... and full-fledged bases for all this, then yes, the Asian carrier will be very useful (I don't know, it's true for what, but it will probably be) ...
        And so, one separate ship without escort ships, support ships, without aviation, without submarines, without a base ...
        Laughter and sadness.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 29 May 2021 08: 16
          0
          Citizens were seeded, the level of knowledge of which is Wikipedia. The newest British type of aircraft carriers have constant problems - why not laugh?))) Because the British can not be?
          Clever thought. The situation can change at any moment, in any direction.
          1. Jacket in stock
            Jacket in stock 29 May 2021 08: 21
            +1
            Quote: TermNachTER
            The newest British type of aircraft carriers have constant problems - why not laugh?))) Because the British can not be?

            How are we not laughing?
            We laugh a lot.
            Just that we care about the British, let them do what they want and for what they have enough money, we are here about our fleet.
            1. TermNachTer
              TermNachTer 29 May 2021 09: 21
              0
              Well, you said that you laughed at "Kuzey". And I propose to laugh at the French misunderstanding. Everyone has problems and difficulties, but for some reason the French and British do not abandon aircraft carriers - probably bad ones?))))
              1. Babay Atasovich
                Babay Atasovich 29 May 2021 10: 40
                0
                laugh at a French misunderstanding
                notice - "a very expensive misunderstanding! wink
              2. Jacket in stock
                Jacket in stock 29 May 2021 11: 07
                0
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Everyone has problems and difficulties, but the French and British for some reason, do not abandon aircraft carriers - probably bad ones?

                I don't know, we can be bad, but we can know why they need them. Bombing Sudan, for example.
                Thailand also has an aircraft carrier, so what?
                1. TermNachTer
                  TermNachTer 29 May 2021 13: 08
                  0
                  If the misunderstanding is an aircraft carrier, then I am a Spanish pilot. The Spaniards are the best aircraft carrier builders in the world. they have vast experience in this matter.
              3. smaug78
                smaug78 29 May 2021 13: 35
                -2
                And I propose to laugh at the French misunderstanding.
                To hell with him, that his own hut burned down, the main thing is that the neighbor's cow died.
                1. TermNachTer
                  TermNachTer 29 May 2021 13: 46
                  0
                  Not. What I mean is that even though de Gaulle spent most of its service at the pier, the French are building another aircraft carrier to replace it. Probably bad. Russia will write off Kuzya tomorrow, the day after tomorrow it will need an aircraft carrier - where to get it? All Soviet (Russian) aircraft carriers were built in Nikolaev. Even with all the necessary construction takes 3 - 5 years. And if from "zero", then even scary to think. Therefore, as one popular character said: "There is no need to rush, slyusha, yes, there is no need to rush)))
          2. Jacket in stock
            Jacket in stock 29 May 2021 08: 29
            +1
            Quote: TermNachTER
            ... The situation can change at any time,

            Yes, it can.
            But "Kuzya" cannot react at any moment. And it will not be able to for a very long time, most likely never.
            But a couple of frigates built with the funds that went into the abyss of its repair and near-aircraft activities, such as the construction of as many as two simulators, and a full-fledged regiment of coastal dryers and several normal patrolmen and / or AWACS, which could have been instead of an indistinct air wing, here they surely, on occasion, could change the situation at any moment.
            1. TermNachTer
              TermNachTer 29 May 2021 09: 41
              0
              Russia builds frigates, but all aircraft carriers were built in Nikolaev. When will they learn? In 10 - 15 years. And before that? You are a clairvoyant, do you know what will happen in a year, two, five or ten? Therefore, it is better to let it be, but not needed than necessary, but it is not.
              1. Jacket in stock
                Jacket in stock 29 May 2021 10: 22
                +1
                Quote: TermNachTER
                When will they learn? In 10 - 15 years. And before that?

                What about before?
                We do not have an aircraft carrier now, and in 10 years there will be none if we do not learn. There is no need to be clairvoyant.
                Or do you seriously "Kuzyu" think that he is and will go into battle?
                Not funny.
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Therefore, it is better to let it be, but it will not be needed than it will be needed, but it is not.

                Who would argue, it is better to be rich and healthy. Only this is not about us.
                1. TermNachTer
                  TermNachTer 29 May 2021 10: 25
                  0
                  55 tons of steel and alloys are hard to miss. The repair will be over and he will be in service.
                  1. Jacket in stock
                    Jacket in stock 29 May 2021 11: 00
                    +2
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    55 tons of steel and alloys are hard to miss. The repair will be over and he will be in service.

                    Steel and alloys are not at all important there.
                    The main stuffing and air wing.
                    Even if the equipment is harassed, there are no AWACS planes, the fighters are ancient, there are no helicopters, there is no ship group - no destroyers, no submarines, no tankers and transports. What kind of system will he get into? Where is this system?
                    There is not even a base for him now.
      2. Jonny_Su
        Jonny_Su 29 May 2021 22: 35
        -1
        Kuzya is needed, but the usefulness of 2 new ABs is questionable right now. If "the situation changes" (this is the American AUG, which directly threatens the Northern Fleet of Russia?) By the fall of 2030, then we will get an unfinished AB and an otherwise naked fleet.
  14. Babay Atasovich
    Babay Atasovich 28 May 2021 20: 22
    +1
    wassat ... I am far from the Navy, in another Akiyan I was running around, but I watch with interest the skirmish on this topic. Question: if the AUG cannot come close to the coast with an equal adversary for normal operation, then is it not expensive for the PR of these vessels for the war with the Papuans? And if we consider that their component from the total mass of flyers, used in the war with Iraq, did not make the weather, then they should be, because "It is very cool" ??? fellow
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 29 May 2021 21: 05
      0
      Quote: Babay Atasovich
      Question: if AUG cannot come close to the coast with an equal adversary for normal operation, then isn't the PR of these vessels costing too much for the war with the Papuans? And if we consider that their component from the total mass of flyers, used in the war with Iraq, did not make the weather, then they should be, because "It is very cool" ???

      it is clear that there is no sense at all in aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation ... there are no tasks ... so they suck out of the finger, which they just do not invent, then protect Kaliningrad ... then Africa, then the deployment of AUG in the ice near Canada, then the arrival of AUG to the shores of California ..... aircraft carrier sectarians are ready for anything for the sake of their blind faith in AB, their idol
  15. Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 28 May 2021 20: 25
    +2
    Opponents say: the aircraft carrier would not damage us, but there is no money for it today, and in the foreseeable future it is not visible

    Nothing like that. Real opponents deny the need for AB in principle, relying on omnipotent submarines, calibers, "Poseidons" (emphasize the necessary)
  16. Artemion3
    Artemion3 28 May 2021 20: 27
    +3
    Money appears every year, but goes somewhere not there: for Raspiliada, ballet in space and other poetry ...
  17. Artemion3
    Artemion3 28 May 2021 20: 33
    +1
    Quote: Luminman
    Can anyone explain to me why lift the plane from the deck of the ship, when from the same ship (or submarine) you can hit the target with a rocket?

    The range seems to be longer, but the new missiles almost caught up
  18. KCA
    KCA 28 May 2021 20: 33
    +4
    Some kind of rotation of a spherical horse in a vacuum, the author easily completed the program of modernization of the TU-22M3 into M3M, gave the functions of anti-ship aviation to strategic missile carriers, hung mythical Onyxes on them, calling them actually export Yakhonts, we have gathered at the Indians " Bramos "for the SU-30 to buy? I tried on even the light X-160 for the TU-2M35, but completely deleted the X-22M and X32 from the arsenal, why are they, specialized heavy air-launched anti-ship missiles?
  19. Normal
    Normal 28 May 2021 20: 34
    +2
    Of course, I am a layman in this area and am not able to assess the stated from the point of view of compliance with the real development of the proposed scenarios.
    But.
    I liked the article. It is accessible and informative for me.
    Thank you.
  20. Artemion3
    Artemion3 28 May 2021 20: 52
    +1
    In the USSR, 949 loaves were built to fight AUGs, Kuznetsov was conceived for the deployment of SSBNs
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 7 June 2021 01: 07
      0
      a rather dubious necessity, because if "someone" tries to destroy some significant part of the SSBN, then this automatically means the beginning of a war and a volley of nuclear weapons. The main thing here is to have a sufficiently large number of SSBNs so that there is no possibility of "mowing down by chance" (to prevent the enemy from disguising their actions as "accident").
  21. Marachuh
    Marachuh 28 May 2021 20: 53
    +4
    There is no anti-submarine aviation, no submarines with vnau, no minesweepers, no destroyers, no airborne battleship, no normal torpedoes ... but a lot of other things are still missing. But for many years they have been drummed into us that without a floating airfield we will all die out. I can already imagine how many hundreds of yards will be asked for development, the same amount for the adaptation of production, the same amount for construction ... then they will make, remodel, complete, test and put into operation for 20 years. Then we will spend the same amount of money on the development of carrier-based aircraft, its purchase and training of pilots and crew. And when, in 30 years, we get all this, it turns out that all reasonable ones have long written off their buckets and are betting on long-range hypersound. So maybe we will finish first a full-fledged series of "Pot" and "Superpot". Then a series of "Varshavyank" or "Lad", "Ash", minesweepers in the required quantity. We will finish the torpedoes and underwater robots to fight mines. On the basis of the Be-200 we will make a fighter against submarines, and on the basis of the MS-21 we will make an inexpensive AWACS aircraft. Let's create a new opposite helicopter. We will make modern anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft defense corvettes. Several helicopter carriers. But only then you can think about the aircraft carrier.
  22. bk0010
    bk0010 28 May 2021 21: 03
    +2
    How many new aircraft carriers are needed? Most are in favor of two - for the Pacific Fleet and for the Northern Fleet. We build first one, and then on the same slipway - the second. Some require a third - to replace one of the two for the duration of the repair.
    A dozen. Just so that at least one aircraft carrier in the fleet was at sea.
    For any version of the aircraft carrier, you will have to build an AWACS aircraft
    If we undertake to build an aircraft carrier, then we should build a complete set of carrier-based aircraft, and not just AWACS.
    For jammers on the aircraft carrier, apparently, they will use ready-made carriers. For example, the Su-34.
    There is no deck version of the Su-34, the Su-34 cannot be based on an aircraft carrier.
    10 new AWACS A-100
    Doubtful: the sanctions knocked down this plane.
    The fundamental disadvantage of the Tu-160, regardless of its novelty, is its increased visibility.Accordingly, it is not able to break through any air defense, including the AUG defense
    Tu-160 will not be in naval aviation. Never. This is a strategic missile carrier. The fact that the Tu-142 is similar to the Tu-95MS does not at all mean that it is one plane.
    The Americans gave birth to the idea of ​​an airplane with variable wing geometry, and they killed it.
    EMNIP, the idea of ​​an airplane with a variable wing geometry was killed by computers, which made it possible to calculate such an integrated center section, which is well suited for both subsonic and supersonic.
    Should we continue to cling to it in the 98st century, if XNUMX% of the time we fly subsonic?
    And if, without this feature, the plane will be shot down, and 2% at supersonic will allow "to save the majesty from all sorts of unnecessary meetings"?
    If the seeker is allowed to search for a target in such a strip, then it will capture any of the decoys in this strip, as long as the false target imitates a larger one than the EPR ships.
    Smart, multichannel heads have now begun to be made (see LRASM). You can't fool her that way.
    As an example, consider only the aviation version of the Onyx anti-ship missile system.
    But he is not. The Indians have, but we do not.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 29 May 2021 10: 43
      0
      Quote: bk0010
      A dozen. Just so that at least one aircraft carrier in the fleet was at sea.

      especially in the Caspian and Baltic ... laughing good
      There is no deck version of the Su-34, the Su-34 cannot be based on an aircraft carrier.

      Su-33KUB (Su-27KUB) - similar ??? (the dimensions are almost the same, and the mass of the Su-34 is leveled by the engines)


      1. bk0010
        bk0010 30 May 2021 00: 34
        0
        Quote: PSih2097
        especially in the Caspian and Baltic ... laughing
        They will not have enough, 6 for the Northern Fleet, 6 for the Pacific Fleet.
        Quote: PSih2097
        Su-33KUB (Su-27KUB) - similar ??? (the dimensions are almost the same, and the mass of the Su-34 is leveled by the engines)
        For a carrier-based aircraft, a lot of things need to be changed (a larger wing, a reinforced fuselage, reinforced landing gear, internals that are resistant to humid and salty air, otherwise short circuits will begin soon, and then the plane will rot). None of this was done for the Su-34.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 30 May 2021 10: 02
          0
          Quote: bk0010
          For a carrier-based aircraft, a lot of things need to be changed (a larger wing, a reinforced fuselage, reinforced landing gear, internals that are resistant to humid and salty air, otherwise short circuits will begin soon, and then the plane will rot). None of this was done for the Su-34.

          I mean that there is a backlog, and a decent one - which means that they will not start from scratch.
        2. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 7 June 2021 01: 19
          0
          Quote: bk0010
          Quote: PSih2097
          Su-33KUB (Su-27KUB) - similar ??? (the dimensions are almost the same, and the mass of the Su-34 is leveled by the engines)
          For a carrier-based aircraft, a lot of things need to be changed (a larger wing, a reinforced fuselage, reinforced landing gear, internals that are resistant to humid and salty air, otherwise short circuits will begin soon, and then the plane will rot). None of this was done for the Su-34.

          1) landing gear legs should be reinforced to work from the ground and shitty concrete
          2) the insides must already be resistant to water and salt to work from coastal and island airfields
          3) a large wing and a reinforced fuselage either already exist or it is easy to put on the Su-34 (fortunately, it is based on the MFI concept),
          There, if anything is needed, then engines with UVT, and so the Su-34 is originally a super-low-altitude super-maneuverable front-line bomber. Another thing is that it is desirable to have a large aircraft carrier with large hangars and lifts in order to use land-based aircraft (Su-34)
  23. Artemion3
    Artemion3 28 May 2021 21: 07
    +3
    Quote: Marachuh
    On the basis of the Be-200 we will make a fighter against submarines, and on the basis of the MS-21 we will make an inexpensive AWACS aircraft. Let's create a new opposite helicopter.

    But this is interesting. We really need an analogue of Poseidon's mattress patrol to fight the submarine.
  24. husband
    husband 28 May 2021 21: 25
    +1
    Let us compare the impact potential in terms of the available resources in the assessments of the capabilities of the AUG and the MPA.
    The country is limited not only in material, but also in engineering, design and production areas.
    The cost of 4 AUG will be 4,5 trillion rubles. And taking into account the real KOH, our Navy will be in service only in the best case, 2 AUG.

    The same 4,5 trillion rubles can be produced together:

    SU-57 (price 2,5 billion) 600 pcs
    A-100 (price 15 billion) 40 pcs
    IL-78M-90A (price 5 billion) 60 pcs
    TU-160M ​​(price 15 billion) 60 pcs (of course it is outdated, so it is better to produce PAKDA instead)

    Plus 1,2 trillion will remain for the technical re-equipment of production facilities, an increase in the payroll of workers, the arrangement of airfields and service systems.

    How many US AUG are able to withstand this?

    Plus, we have an operational concentration of striking power in a threatened direction.
    NOT for weeks in case of 5 fleets and fleets spread across all our seas.
    And within 24-48 hours.

    Plus, we also have the ability to use these forces in any land theater of operations.

    Plus, we have a solution to the problem of the Boeing P-8 Poseidon and other NATO submarines for the safe exit of our SSBNs to the launch areas.
    1. dranthqu
      dranthqu 29 May 2021 02: 48
      +1
      > The cost of 4 AUG will be RUB 4,5 trillion. And taking into account the real KOH, our Navy will be in service only in the best case, 2 AUG.
      So the AUG does not need to be kept at sea all the time. Well this is not an SSBN :) There was a task for several months - they sent to carry it out. Therefore, in fact, almost all countries have 1-2 such ships. Russia itself does not need more than 1-2.

      > Plus, we have a solution to the problem of the Boeing P-8 Poseidon and other NATO submarines for the safe exit of our SSBNs to the launch areas.
      Suppose we want to provide a continuous view of the Bering and Okhotsk seas. To do this, you need to continuously keep 2 aircraft in the air. From Wikipedia: "A-100 is capable of staying in the air at a distance of 1.000 kilometers from the base for up to 6 hours." Assuming one flight per day, we get 8 aircraft. Taking 0.25 aircraft KOH from the ceiling, we get 32 ​​A-100, which roughly corresponds to 16 22350 frigates. The latter will provide similar airspace control if we are talking about peacetime, but at the same time they will additionally provide high-quality ASW and can, if necessary, be used for other tasks.

      In general, you propose to solve very narrow problems with very specialized tools. Yes, for these tasks (AUG attack) these tools (Tu-160M) may be more effective than more universal ones. But for all other tasks with this approach, you will have to create your own tools.

      Moreover, Gorshkov's fleet and how quickly it ceased to be effective, perfectly shows the ineffectiveness of relying on highly specialized systems.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 29 May 2021 20: 58
      0
      Quote: sot

      The same 4,5 trillion rubles can be produced together:

      SU-57 (price 2,5 billion) 600 pcs
      A-100 (price 15 billion) 40 pcs
      IL-78M-90A (price 5 billion) 60 pcs
      TU-160M ​​(price 15 billion) 60 pcs (of course it is outdated, so it is better to produce PAKDA instead)

      Plus 1,2 trillion will remain for the technical re-equipment of production facilities, an increase in the payroll of workers, the arrangement of airfields and service systems.

      How many US AUG are able to withstand this?

      Plus, we have an operational concentration of striking power in a threatened direction.
      NOT for weeks in case of 5 fleets and fleets spread across all our seas.
      And within 24-48 hours.

      Plus, we also have the ability to use these forces in any land theater of operations.

      Plus, we have a solution to the problem of the Boeing P-8 Poseidon and other NATO submarines for the safe exit of our SSBNs to the launch areas.

      it is obvious that investments in aviation are dozens of times more effective,
  25. kind
    kind 28 May 2021 21: 28
    -2
    I am a person far from the navy, but my opinion is that if there are no good planes in the country, then aircraft carriers are needed.
  26. out of habit
    out of habit 28 May 2021 21: 40
    +1
    To detonate all the warheads in oneself is suicide, that is, hell. Those who have suffered a violent death go to paradise. GDP spoke about it.
  27. sevtrash
    sevtrash 28 May 2021 21: 44
    +1
    Russia has no money for a couple of AUG and the entire infrastructure and service and maintenance. As well as there is no money in all other countries of the world, except for the United States and China. Indeed, perhaps someday there will be some new superweapon against the AUG. And now the triad is the most important thing, the rest is too expensive. And there are enough problems with her.
  28. Artemion3
    Artemion3 28 May 2021 21: 53
    +3
    Quote: Babay Atasovich
    wassat ... I am far from the Navy, in another Akiyan I was running around, but I watch with interest the skirmish on this topic. Question: if the AUG cannot come close to the coast with an equal adversary for normal operation, then is it not expensive for the PR of these vessels for the war with the Papuans? And if we consider that their component from the total mass of flyers, used in the war with Iraq, did not make the weather, then they should be, because "It is very cool" ??? fellow

    Here I am about the same, mattresses adjusted their AUGs to Iran and North Korea, but, having estimated the likelihood of losing at least one, they got away.
    1. Babay Atasovich
      Babay Atasovich 28 May 2021 23: 05
      +1
      But the crowd boldly dealt with Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, where now the peoples live happily in complete democracy!
  29. YOU
    YOU 28 May 2021 21: 57
    +4
    Well, here again the suffering of Hamlet "to be or not to be". Far-fetched facts and complete fictions. 1. I grab the cons of the "aircraft carrier lobby" but in the USSR the problem of aircraft carriers was solved by long-range aviation. Previously, the Navy had its own. Now assigned to strategists. And Tu-22M3M, and "Daggers" and X-35, and "Bastions", and much more if you think about it, this is all for "who" ???
    2. The very fact of aircraft carriers is, in principle, controversial today. The Americans have already wondered whether they need so many aircraft carriers, but if they remember the composition of the carrier-based aviation of 1980-1995, and now for those who think you can understand everything.
    3. The USSR was able to resolve issues in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and if you think a lot else where, and without any AUG. But how he began to build them, and ..... So, as the famous movie hero said, "The devastation is not in the toilet, but in the heads." For those who think everything said, for the rest, learn history.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 29 May 2021 20: 52
      +1
      Quote: YOU
      So, as the famous movie hero said, "The devastation is not in the toilet, but in the heads." For those who think everything said, for the rest, learn history.

      all right, first of all, why is the question of DMZ being raised? Of course, if we are talking about Africa, then there MRA is not effective against ships, but surface ships are even less effective there, at least the plane can physically fly and return, and the AUG is just so cumbersome and requires so much that it cannot reach Africa .. In general, the totalitarian destructive sect of aircraft carrier witnesses is so weak in brains that it does not understand the simple truth of no money !!! , but people like AUG are worth, there will never be money ... and they still have not understood, but what is the task of the fleet in the Indian Ocean? and in general, does AUG have any tasks for the Russian Federation ?, ...... they do not.
  30. dranthqu
    dranthqu 29 May 2021 02: 09
    -1
    MRA is a highly specialized instrument... In practice, the MPA is able to perform only one task - the fight against large surface ships, and not everywhere, but only where there is enough range. That is, this is a "defensive game"

    In turn, aircraft carriers are a versatile tool, who is able not only to heroically die in an apocalyptic battle, but also to solve the usual political tasks of peacetime and during the notorious local low-intensity conflicts that are now going on constantly... Yes, it's expensive. But once created, this tool will prove to be more than 1,5 times more useful than the MPA.

    By technique:
    1. Deck DLRO. In my opinion, there is about one realistic option: to try to negotiate with the Chinese, to join the project of the deck-based Xian KJ-600 (clone C-2 Greyhound / E-2 Hawkeye, first flight last August) and supply our own electronic stuffing. The alternatives in the form of the revival of the Yak-44 or the creation of a DLRO UAV will obviously turn into a long-term construction.
    2. Fighters / Jammers / etc. as I understand it can be done on the basis of the same platform. I suspect that the fastest way will be to depress the Su-30SM ("Su-30SMK"). The rest of the options are either completely outdated (Su-33, MiG-29KUB), or it will not be clear when (conditional Su-57K). There is less sense in discouraging the Su-34 than the Su-30, since at the exit, instead of a universal platform for different tasks, we will get a narrowly specialized aircraft. This option is supported, for example, by the experience of the Americans with the F / AE / F-18 Super Hornet.
    3. MRA. The most interesting thing is that if, on the one hand, you follow the path of freezing the Su-30SM, and on the other, you learn how to hang anti-ship missiles from it, then you can assemble a couple of regiments on the basis of ordinary land aircraft. As a result, in theory, there should be a significant unification with the deck version in terms of weapons, navigation and training.
    4. Security ships. Indeed, there are no options other than 22350. In case of successful construction of 22350M in sufficient quantities, you can gradually switch to it. These ships are needed regardless of the aircraft carriers.
    5. Lost moment: naval helicopters and UAVs. In any case, they will have to be created for 22350 (M).
    6. The number of aircraft carriers. I believe that no more than two and according to the principle "we build the first, then on the same slipway the second" based on the construction time of up to 10 years.

    In general, it seems to me that the comparison of the cost of AUG versus the cost of MPA in the article is somewhat incorrect. The main reason is that almost all the components of the AUG, except, perhaps, the aircraft carrier itself, the carrier-based version of the multipurpose fighter and the carrier-based DLRO aircraft, in any case, will have to be created at least to ensure the stability of the NSNF.

    In addition, the indicated operating cost of 80 billion per year significantly overlaps with the spending on the operation in Syria - creation and the operation of Khmeimim and the work of aviation from it.

    Thus, I believe that the choice in favor of abandoning aircraft carriers is fully consistent with the saying "the miser pays twice." And so far this is confirmed both by numbers and by the experience of all countries that have at least some significant fleet over the past 75 years.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 29 May 2021 09: 12
      +1
      Quote: dranthqu
      and put your electronic stuffing.

      So in it and the plug, in the electronic filling.
      There is no it, there is nothing to insert. Why do you think the A-100 never took off?
  31. kig
    kig 29 May 2021 02: 46
    +2
    For some reason, all the disputants forget about such a seemingly inconspicuous side of the matter as logistics and provision of everything necessary at sea. Do we have tankers and suppliers who can supply the AUG with everything it needs in the ocean? Let's say an aircraft carrier is nuclear (which is far from a fact) and does not need fuel. And his escort? And all ships will need many other completely unheroic things, including toilet paper.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      Alexander Vorontsov 30 May 2021 12: 14
      0
      Quote: kig
      For some reason, all the disputants forget about such a seemingly inconspicuous side of the matter as logistics and provision of everything necessary at sea. Do we have tankers and suppliers who can supply the AUG with everything it needs in the ocean?

      Repeatedly pointed out this point to the supporters of aircraft carriers.

      The impression is that by all means, this moment is carefully avoided.
      I heard two "answers".
      Timokhin's side - "it is not necessary" to have the capacity to quickly maintain an aircraft carrier.

      From Andrey's side from Chelyabinsk - the infrastructure will be useful for other ships.

      The answer was something like this
      1) Refueling 1 aircraft carrier is like refueling 50 (!!) Tu-160 AT ONCE (up to the "neck")
      In my calculations, I have always appealed the third of the planes, i.e. if we have 50 Tu-160s, then we can count on 16 vehicles at a time (+ -).
      What other ships need such refueling capacity? Yes, none.

      Or take a banal food ration - supplying 1 aircraft carrier with food is like supplying 120 Varshavyanoks with them.
      Or 30 frigates "Gorshkov".
  32. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 29 May 2021 07: 23
    +4
    I would first learn to build a UDC ... and take a look at the experience of the Turks in equipping the UDC with various shock and reconnaissance UAVs and helicopters of the required size.
  33. Xlor
    Xlor 29 May 2021 08: 06
    +1
    Quote: CU-5
    Let's imagine a situation that we have, for example, here and now there are three full-fledged aircraft carriers with aviation and trained crews. Where should we send them and for what purpose?

    To the shores of Papua New Guinea or Burkina Faso. In a word, to where the people still run with spears and rusty flintlock guns, which they inherited from Magellan or Vasco de Gama ... lol
    1. smaug78
      smaug78 29 May 2021 13: 37
      -3
      To the shores of Papua New Guinea or Burkina Faso.
      Are there really American AUGs there? Or do you think Iraq is the Papuans?
  34. ban
    ban 29 May 2021 10: 27
    +1
    Andrey, they wrote about the cost of maintaining AV.
    And the Tu-160? You will be very surprised ...
  35. Ben from Bulgaria
    Ben from Bulgaria 29 May 2021 14: 30
    0
    IN THE EYES OF BULGARIA GENERALS AMERICAN SOLDIERS PERFORM EXERCISES AT FACTORIES IN BULGARIA! I am ashamed of the gas flushing and the betrayal of the Bulgarian politicians in front of the cows!
    https://afera.bg/%d0%bf%d1%80%d0%b5%d0%b4-%d0%bf%d0%be%d0%b3%d0%bb%d0%b5%d0%b4%d0%b0-%d0%bd%d0%b0-%d0%b1%d1%8a%d0%bb%d0%b3%d0%b0%d1%80%d1%81%d0%ba%d0%b8-%d0%b3%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b0%d0%bb%d0%b8-%d0%b0%d0%bc/
    SOFT SLAVERY
    Today American soldiers invaded the Bulgarian enterprise. The teaching was! Obviously, they are learning to kill on the other side of the planet, and I cannot remember what interests they have on other continents. And the hare of Bulgarian politicians, under whose kind eyes this crime against Bulgaria is being committed, no longer surprises me. What surprises me is when every Bulgarian government over the past three decades has been appointed and approved by Kozyak!
    In fact, today we are slaves again. Yes, we have no visible chains, slavery is mild at first glance, but we have no more rights in our own country than the serfs in the Ottoman Empire. Cowboys define our government, define our values, define our history, define what our children should learn, indicate which of their enemies to expel or arrest in our (or rather their) country.
    .
    Elena Guncheva

    American soldiers attacked a production facility in the Plovdiv area
    Author: NOVA TV
    https://glasove.com/categories/skandalyt/news/amerikanski-voynitsi-atakuvakha-proizvodstven-tsekh-v-plovdivsko
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 30 May 2021 07: 02
      0
      Bulgarians have come to this consciously and are happy about it ... ... if you tell them that they are training fighters to participate in Donbas (for example), then there will be even more pride. They also felt fine with the Germans.
  36. Artemion3
    Artemion3 29 May 2021 20: 20
    +1
    Despite the obvious difficulties, I am in favor of building an aircraft carrier in today's situation, when Kuznetsov is still breathing.
  37. grumbler
    grumbler 29 May 2021 21: 14
    +3
    (not special, only imho)
    Apparently, we will also have to resolve the issue of AUG or MRA. A third way is needed.

    That is why, for the "transitional period", how to build full-fledged AUG ...
    [and in the course of discussions even amateurs, as I understood, - for which more thanks to Timokhin, Vorontsov, Konovalov and others, and to the author of this article in particular, - that there is no sense at all to talk about an aircraft carrier per se. There is no "aircraft carrier", but there is an AUG - a cluster that includes cover ships, supply ships, submarines, with an aircraft carrier as a core. This is followed by the "outer layers of the onion": logistics in the form of docks, overseas bases and transcontinental supply chains (surface / submarine transports, air transport). Information support (satellite constellations, aircraft repeaters, ground communication and correction stations around the world). That's what "aircraft carriers" are. And without any of these elements, the whole system is significantly depreciated, despite the incredible cost] ... and perhaps it is better to focus on:
    - Radical improvement of naval aviation. Without her cover, NK, submarines will not be able to work.
    - Tasks PLO, AWACS, surveillance, search and rescue, etc., from manned aircraft to shift to swarms of UAVs.
    - To calculate once again the prospects of using manned VTOL / SUVP aircraft from aircraft carriers (possibly in combination with mooring UAVs - "tugs", "active aerodynamic deck") as a strike force of naval aviation to protect the areas of duty of our NK and submarines
    - This will presumably reduce the requirements for the runway length and the overall dimensions of the aircraft carrier.
    - And therefore it will allow the use of "surrogate aircraft carriers" on the basis of standard modular UDC (which must be initially designed for these purposes). And this is exactly the same large batch for a variety of needs (transports, tankers, hospitals, rescue ships, "expeditionary" ships, helicopter carriers and UAVs, etc.), but much cheaper and more versatile (to the point that civil and military ships can be built on one "platform").
  38. Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 29 May 2021 21: 35
    +2
    Guys Tu-160 is a WEAPON CARRIER.
    Its task is to deliver weapons to the launch line. And that's all.

    There is no need to engage in obviously unnatural things comparing 1 aircraft with a strike GROUP ... the key word. By grouping.
    DIFFERENT TYPES OF VESSELS. Each of which fulfills its role.


    Tu 160 can FAST deliver missiles of impressive size to anywhere in the world.
    This is his task.
    Now for the missiles.

    As an example, consider only the aviation version of the Onyx anti-ship missile system. Its weight has been reduced, in comparison with the ship's, from 3 tons to 2,5 tons, and its length - from 8 m to 6 m.

    Yes, the size of the compartment is 12 meters and we will consider 6 meter missiles.
    Why not one meter? Why are these half-measures?

    This is Timokhin's craving for everything small, and since on Su-type airplanes ... you cannot hang anything more than 6 meters, it was about the aviation version.
    No accelerator.
    But the Tu-160 CAN carry larger missiles.

    I understand that the task of many authors is to "FORCE" the Tu-160 to fly into the zone where it will be shot down.
    And do not care that he has a compartment of 12 meters.
    An ingenious plan. Just super ...

    PS
    In the future, stealth drones will aim a salvo at the terminal site via satellites and a relay rocket.
    The role of the Tu-160 will end with the launch of missiles from the 1000-2000 km line "on the move".
  39. zloybond
    zloybond 29 May 2021 21: 50
    0
    There is no glow. There are simply people whose opinion no one asks, but it is necessary to chat about it, sort of like swinging the topic.
    1. agond
      agond 29 May 2021 23: 29
      +1
      Or maybe a ballistic missile like the Chinese DF-21D flies from the depths of the continent towards the sea and looks out for AUG in the ocean from an apogee height of 500-700 km, then it begins to decrease while continuously adjusting its trajectory and so on until it enters the dense layers of the atmosphere, dense it overcomes layers without adjustment in a time period of less than 1 minute, during this time a ship with a length of 350 m at a speed of 15 m / s will not be able to leave the design point of the missile fall, of course the missile can be shot down on approach by the AUG ships, but if two fall on the aircraft carrier a dozen crowbars of the anti-tank type, only larger, then it will be a waste of work.
  40. dgonni
    dgonni 29 May 2021 23: 08
    +1
    Well this is.
    It is better to be beautiful and rich, this is certainly good.
    In my opinion, you need to build on reality!
    There is Kuzya! What no one but it is available!
    It's easy to get on pins and needles. The question is in the training system of the aircraft carrier's crew as well as the flight wing!
    Yes, there are problems. However, if Kuzi is not there, then the history of those flying from the ship will end.
    How does a British proverb say there? It takes 3 years to build a ship, 300 years to build a tradition!
    Kuznetsov was built after realizing the inferiority of Kiev and others like him, non-aviation carriers, with a pennant guarding wing!
    Therefore, Kuznetsov was commissioned and to work out the technology of takeoffs and landings as well as tactical use in the form that it is.
    The next aircraft carriers should be built in parallel with the creation of the basing infrastructure and, moreover, on proven basic elements.
    The nuclear power plant is similar to submarines. + In the preparation of oil bags. Well, in the same vein further.
    But you will not quickly form and prepare a deck team for the reception of aircraft and their release.
    And the efficiency of the aircraft carrier depends on their work.
    And if this school is interrupted. That recovery will cost a huge loss of time and resources.
    P.S. To understand what the technology of taking aircraft to the deck is, you just need to read the Amer history of the development of their air wing.
    How one type managed to shove more aircraft onto a flawed aircraft carrier. And at the same time ensuring their fast takeoff and landing.
    Yes, everything has changed. But the principles remained!
    In general, if Kuznetsov is done now? We will be able to talk about aircraft carriers in 50t years!
  41. EMMM
    EMMM 29 May 2021 23: 41
    +2
    Everything, of course, sounds beautiful and convincing. There are so many technical details that no one needs, but the main question is not voiced: "What is the goal, and how does it agree with the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation?"
    The times of World War II have passed, and the AUG has become a weapon of weakening states against very weak ones.
    Imagine a raid from the American AUG on the territory of Russia. The roof is moving ... And what will come of it? ..
    Further, there are very inconclusive comments about YES, especially about "Bears". I am sure that these machines will outlive the author of the article for many years.
    1. Artemion3
      Artemion3 30 May 2021 02: 45
      +1
      In the USSR, 949 loaves were created to combat AUGs and were quite successfully tested. Today, for the price of one aircraft carrier without an air wing, you can build 4 Ashes, so the conclusions suggest themselves.
  42. Skipper
    Skipper 30 May 2021 13: 28
    +1
    The author probably forgot about MKRTs Liana. And also about the fact that the Tu-22M3 or Tu-160M ​​will launch anti-ship missiles / KR out of the reach of both enemy aircraft and missiles.
  43. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 30 May 2021 14: 09
    +1
    More 5 cents into a discussion about aircraft carriers. AUG or MRA?

    On these dimes of the members of the discussion club of AUG amateurs, one could already lay something real.
    1. Artemion3
      Artemion3 1 June 2021 16: 53
      0
      For example, submarines
  44. Intruder
    Intruder 30 May 2021 16: 02
    -2
    The Supreme Commander explained to us that we, as martyrs, would go to heaven, and they would simply die. Apparently, he knows the old way of winning a nuclear war - no missiles or a fleet are needed. We detonate all the warheads on our territory and immediately find ourselves in paradise, and they will die from nuclear winter and precipitation painfully and for several months.
    These phrases made my day, today ... especially - we are in heaven, and all the "other" geopolitical partners have been excruciatingly long for months !!! laughing good At least, somewhere ... we can be the First, it's a pity the truth that - only in Paradise!
    1. Kushka
      Kushka 31 May 2021 17: 42
      +3
      (Toast) -The man went to heaven. He walks, looks - birds of paradise, bushes - longing.
      Signed up for an excursion to hell. And there ........ in the bushes there are barrels of wine and mugs,
      around naked women running around ... I came to the former gu in indignation - how is it possible,
      All my life, no, no, and it's the same here! And they - all their life ah-yay and they can here too!
      To which I received an answer - they have mugs with holes there, and women without holes!
      So let's drink to the fact that we always have mugs without holes, and women ...
      (well, you get it)
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 31 May 2021 17: 45
        0
        So let's drink to the fact that we always have mugs without holes, and women ...
        (well, you get it)
        Mutually ... the main thing is that the entrance ... are in the right places drinks
  45. Kushka
    Kushka 31 May 2021 17: 57
    +2
    Quote: Artemion3
    Despite the obvious difficulties, I am in favor of building an aircraft carrier in today's situation, when Kuznetsov is still breathing.

    I heard this story a long time ago:
    When the Yapas at Pearl Harbor flooded a certain part of the US fleet,
    some big American navel has gathered their gurus
    (like our Tupolev, Lyulka - old, honored, redeserved,
    laureates of all kinds of awards) and said that the United States needs in a short time
    replenish what was lost in types and quantities, but with new weapons.
    How many years do you need to complete this task? They say -10.
    The US doesn't have that much time. You're all fired!
    And these old fighters have yachts, horses, estates. They work a day, two rest,
    rest on their laurels, as they say. And young people have been stepping on their heels for a long time,
    talented, but ... poor and very, very eager to have a yacht, horses and
    everything else, so we are ready to work 24,5 hours 7,5 days a week.
    In short, by the appointed time, everything they had planned had been built.
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 31 May 2021 18: 10
      +1
      And young people have been stepping on their heels for a long time,
      talented, but ... poor and very, very eager to have a yacht, horses and
      everything else, so we are ready to work 24,5 hours 7,5 days a week.
      In short, by the appointed time, everything they had planned had been built.
      In another part, they came up with a simple idea - "sharazhs" and "mailboxes", and also, over the course of several years, raised the level in some advanced fields of science and technology ... good
      1. Kushka
        Kushka 31 May 2021 18: 45
        +2
        Well, Humpback, where can we go without him, and like everything else-
        mediocre-for PR, created "youth" design bureaus at car factories,
        (and the guys had some pretty good ideas).
        My father worked in Agricultural machinery and there were also bad ones
        rumors about the general designer of Soviet grain harvesters,
        three times Hero of Labor, etc. (I don't remember my full name anymore) - he is categorically
        rejected (or rather pushed) the ideas and projects of the young. In particular,
        it seems that the guy from Dnepropetrovsk himself designed and built
        sample "rotary" (without parts with reciprocating motion),
        combine (similar to the GDR), an order of magnitude more productive than the existing ones.
        which, with a yield of 35 centners and above, switched to 1 km per hour, despite the fact that
        already on the way were wheat with a yield of 70 centners.
        They "academically" gouged the guy's project and pushed it further ..
        1. The comment was deleted.
  46. EvilLion
    EvilLion 2 June 2021 11: 24
    0
    Should we continue to cling to it in the 98st century, if XNUMX% of the time we fly subsonic?


    And with the landing gear retracted. Stop clinging to the chassis.

    ... If, for example, we take an inflatable balloon with a diameter of 1 m and a length of 3 m, which contains inside corner reflectors made of metallized film, then it will be able to simulate a target with an RCS of up to 1000 sq. m.


    And the men don't even know, they are doing all kinds of missile defense systems. And all you need to do is inflate the balloons on time.

    It makes sense to use TA where the coastal complexes Bal and Bastion are missing. Let's assume that this is the first 500 km from the coast.


    The key mistake here is that no aircraft carrier needs to be drowned; in the event of the destruction of its wing and especially the New Year tree in the dark at night, such as the Hawkeye hanging 300 km from our airfield, the AUG loses its combat effectiveness. And then all he has to do is hang the sausage from the airships. And the air wing itself will fly to our air defense, otherwise we can assume that the air wing was frightened, which means that our air defense has fully completed the task.
  47. Conjurer
    Conjurer 2 June 2021 13: 11
    +1
    You read all this and are surprised - it seems that in Moscow Region we have only fools. So many weapons have been riveted, but nothing can be used. Well, either the author knows little about the real capabilities of our weapons and the plans of the Ministry of Defense.
  48. Alexey Z
    Alexey Z 2 June 2021 20: 26
    0
    Quote: Basarev
    That is, you admit that in a conventional war we will lose without a chance? And about the end of the USSR ... I have slightly different thoughts. It was not the evil west that ruined the country It's just that the Soviet economy was deeply unprofitable. Enterprises worked for a warehouse, released uncompetitive waste. Plus, the enterprises themselves have an outdated machine park, there are even a lot of German trophies. No organization of labor, whole departments where aunts drive tea ... Plus, these enterprises are hung with a bunch of obviously unprofitable objects that do not bring profit and do not even participate in production, I mean sanatorium camps. Plus, enterprises are regularly robbed, all the time they overwhelm the socialist camp, allied republics and national entities within the RSFSR with nishtyaks. Here is the bureaucratic apparatus bloated beyond all measure, moreover, the nomenklatura did not refuse benefits to itself - and dared to hypocritically call the people to asceticism. Returning to factories and products, it turned out that when no one began to support the factories, their poor products could not withstand the competition, and the factories naturally disappeared. Yes, their own rich people, former loyal party members, also had a hand, but, you see, the West is not involved here anywhere, the United States has nothing to do with it.

    It looks like modern Russia ...
  49. Antokha
    Antokha 3 June 2021 19: 26
    -1
    And on VO any goof can rivet an article? And then the hands itch. laughing
    If anything, it's a laugh at yourself, and not at the respected author))
    I join the jokes about 5 kopecks, and I make a proposal that I have already voiced: let's create a fund and save real money there. Let's see what we save up for. Can we save 10 billion? This is 10 trillion per million people. Even during the war they did it. Okay, minus for now, and I'll write another comment.
  50. Antokha
    Antokha 3 June 2021 19: 48
    0
    From time to time there is an artificial narrowing of the dispute about aircraft carriers. Only two things are discussed: price and efficiency (need). And in both aspects, there are a lot of unprovable assumptions. I have already thrown in the third aspect. It's about technology. Correctly it was said here that AB is the tip of the iceberg, and it is necessary to saturate the lower floors. And this is what is being done now.
    We are trying to imagine a situation in which we are building the upper floor without having the lower ones. However, this happened in the USSR many times, and this option is realizable. But is it worth doing? Sometimes, for the sake of technology, yes. This is an outstripping development, and the state has always been its locomotive. Now the state is doing it well in many industries, including the navy, so AB is next in line.
    We are lagging behind in terms of processors, but colossal efforts are being made to reach the required level. This is the construction of the upper floor at once, because we do not have a market for the constant sale of domestic processes and computers for accumulating money for gradual development. Priorities have been set, engineers are plowing. There will be several iterations and we will bridge the gap here.
    In other industries, we have the correct progressive development. For example, we are building huge processing plants, and we have begun to build ports. It can be seen that we are on the path of constant increase. This is how the Americans built and are building their fleet. They have a foundation, and they can develop aircraft carriers, and even build unsuccessful experimental ships to test new technologies. We do not yet have such a base. But.
    The strategist must look far ahead. The author views the future as a process of wilting, while the norm is development. And if today we cannot build an AB, then the idea of ​​it needs to be laid for the future, and not to describe money or terms in years, and not even combat effectiveness from the point of view of modern fleet and aviation, but the conditions (the state of the country, the fleet, and finance too), under which such construction can and should begin.
    In other words, the level of development of domestic technologies and production capacity should determine what we will aim at in the next step. Specificity on the enemy, combat capabilities, etc. - oddly enough, a secondary question (minus here). As soon as the industry says: "We will build an AV or AUG in the normal time frame, no question," the military will quickly tell you how to start all this correctly. Maybe at that moment it won't even be AB, because the power of production will give the military freedom.
    Now the country is simply pumping up muscle mass. We are not pitching yet, but we need to look ahead now.