Military Review

Why does Russia need an aircraft carrier

260

Perhaps there is no topic that causes more controversy than the advisability of creating aircraft carriers for the Russian naval fleet (Navy).


In general, three groups of opinions can be distinguished on aircraft carrier issues.

1.Russia is a continental power, it does not need a powerful ocean fleet, there are enough coastal ships, no larger than the corvette class, and a powerful coastal aviation.

2. Russia needs full-fledged aircraft carriers, nuclear or non-nuclear, but with horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, preferably with catapults.

3. It is enough for Russia to create light aircraft carriers, with a springboard and horizontal take-off and landing aircraft or with vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL).

All adherents of this or that opinion have their own argumentation. To begin with, let's try to consider the goals and objectives of a certain "spherical" Russian aircraft carrier, based on the concept of a superspecific classification of the armed forces (AF), considered by the author in the relevant material.

So, to solve the entire spectrum of tasks by the Russian armed forces (AF), the weapons and military equipment used can belong to four segments:

- Strategic Nuclear Forces (SNF);
- Strategic conventional forces (SCS);
- General Purpose Forces (SON);
- Expeditionary Force (ES).

Why does Russia need an aircraft carrier
The superspecific structure of the armed forces

Strategic nuclear forces


As part of the activities of the Strategic Nuclear Forces, the aircraft carrier must solve the tasks of ensuring the safe deployment of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces - to cover strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs) from enemy anti-submarine aircraft, and to detect and displace enemy submarines.


SSBNs in many ways have imaginary invulnerability - if it is not possible to ensure their secrecy, then they are just easy targets for the enemy.

The advantage of an aircraft carrier over coastal aviation is that it can operate at a greater distance than the latter. For example, if we decide to drive SSBNs closer to the shores of a potential enemy. It is necessary to understand that “closer” means at a distance of 2000–3000 kilometers - from such a distance a sudden decapitation strike can be delivered to which the enemy may not have time to react. This does not mean that we are going to do this, but sometimes demonstrating the possibility of implementing this scenario can cool someone's brazen, star-striped heads.


One of the advantages of SSBNs is the ability to approach the distance from which ballistic missiles of submarines (SLBMs) you can strike the enemy with a minimum flight time, along a flat trajectory

And from the point of view of organizing the protection of the deployment areas and patrolling SSBNs, the aircraft carrier will more quickly solve the tasks of displacing the enemy, since it will be located between the enemy and the patrol deployment zones, and not behind them.

In this case, the anti-submarine capabilities of the aircraft carrier will play a large role - the helicopters have less range and speed, while they fly from the coast to the patrol area, you see, it's time to go back. And on surface ships of the class corvette, frigate, destroyer (if it is not a Japanese "destroyer") and even a cruiser anti-submarine helicopters are few.


The aircraft carrier can cover SSBNs not only from anti-submarine aircraft and enemy helicopters, but also from submarines

Potentially, the deck wing of an aircraft carrier can carry tactical nuclear weapon, but the use of this opportunity can hardly be attributed to the tasks of the strategic nuclear forces. Although it is hardly worth giving up such an opportunity completely.

Strategic conventional forces


Here the situation is similar to what is written about the strategic nuclear forces, since the marine component of the SCS - nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (SSGN) cover is also needed when deploying. At the same time, since the range of cruise missiles (CR) is much less than the flight range of SLBMs, they will have to move closer to the enemy, which may require their cover somewhere in the straits or other nodal points of the world's oceans.

It is ineffective to use the aircraft carrier itself as an element of the SCS, its carrier-based aircraft will not be able to carry long-range precision weapons, and the essence of the SCS is to attack the enemy from a distance that minimizes or excludes the likelihood of a direct combat collision with his armed forces.

On the other hand, as with tactical nuclear weapons, there are nuances. For example, the US armed forces have adopted the JASSM-ER KR with a range of about 1 kilometers. This missile can be carried by tactical aircraft, including carrier-based aircraft. Also in the USA, a modification of the JASSM-XR with a range of 000 kilometers is being developed.


The stealthy cruise missile JASSM-ER and its anti-ship variant LRASM will be able to carry most of the US tactical and carrier-based aircraft

Russia desperately needs an analogue of this missile - the existing Russian long-range missile systems can only be carried by strategic aircraft. According to some reports, a range of about 1 kilometers will have one of the options for the upgraded Kh-000MK59 missile, but this information has not yet been confirmed, most sources indicate a range of the Kh-2MK59 of about 2 kilometers. The Kh-400 cruise missiles can be carried by almost all Russian tactical combat aircraft. If this information is confirmed, then carrier-based aircraft from the aircraft carrier will be able to act in the interests of the SCS.


The Kh-59MK2 missile and its possible placement in the internal compartments of the Su-57 fighter

General purpose forces


It is believed that it is in this role that the aircraft carrier is especially good - as the main strike force of the fleet.

This point of view has been popular since the Second World War, when aircraft carriers clearly showed that the time of battleships is over. At the same time, the emergence of anti-ship missiles (ASM) has cast doubt on the role of aircraft carriers as the main strike force of the fleet.

Yes, sometimes they talk about the problem of target designation, about the possibility of countering anti-ship missiles with electronic warfare (EW) and means of setting protective curtains, but the improvement of multispectral, combined homing heads (GOS), as well as revolutionary improvement of space reconnaissance assets, will make these problems irrelevant.


Aircraft carriers have seriously lost their advantages after the appearance of anti-ship missiles, and in the future the situation will only get worse

What does this mean in practice?

The fact that the creation of countermeasures for air strike groups (AUG) will always be easier than deploying your own symmetrical AUG. Moreover, it will be necessary to ensure parity, that is, an approximately comparable number of AUGs with approximately similar weapons in terms of characteristics. And this means that the economies, production and technological capabilities of the opposing states should be comparable, whereas with asymmetric solutions this is not required.

In other words, we can find a way to deal with AUG USA, especially near our borders, but we cannot create our own AUGs capable of withstanding the US AUG, at least for financial reasons.

Even if we build four full-fledged AUGs, comparable to the US AUG, precisely with the aim of opposing them, then the United States, or, for example, China, will always be able to do even more AUG in order to neutralize our efforts.

No, direct confrontation is possible, albeit meaningless, only with comparable financial and technological capabilities. Economically and technologically stronger opponents can be opposed only by asymmetric methods, including the use of nuclear and strategic conventional weapons.


The massive use of long-range anti-ship missiles, including hypersonic ones, in combination with advanced space reconnaissance assets, casts doubt on the viability of the AUG in military conflicts between highly developed powers

Moreover, the United States will never throw its AUG into direct confrontation with a strong enemy AUG, using the same asymmetric methods - delivering a massive LRASM anti-ship missile strike from a distance of about 1 kilometers.

Of course, at least carrier-based aircraft, at least tactical aircraft of the Air Force, can act as carriers of the LRASM anti-ship missiles, but, most likely, it will be upgraded B-1B bombers or promising B-21 Raider - only they can create the necessary density of the salvo.

On the other hand, threats to the national security of the Russian Federation are not limited to the likelihood of a war with the United States or China. There are opponents like Turkey or Japan.

At present, the RF Armed Forces are unlikely to be able to inflict a decisive defeat even on these countries; to defeat them, developed Strategic Conventional Forces are needed, that is, the ability to strike the entire depth of the territory of these countries without direct combat contact.

At the same time, as a means of the second echelon, aircraft carriers in solving this problem may well be in demand, although their role will not be critical - these countries are too close, it is easier to work on them with coastal-based aviation.

But even with countries like Turkey and Japan, the list of potential enemies of our country is not exhausted.

When pursuing an active foreign policy and economic expansion countries with rather limited military capabilities can become opponents of the Russian Federation, and the more unpleasant can be defeat from them in a military conflict, which can happen due to the geographical remoteness of these countries from our territory. Such countries will in no way be able to attack the territory of our country, but they can oppose the economic and political interests of the Russian Federation in their region, therefore actions against them must be attributed to expeditionary operations.

Expeditionary Force


A good example of how difficult it is to resist even weak countries far from their territory is the Falklands conflict between Great Britain and Argentina.

The level of development of the British armed forces significantly exceeded the level of the armed forces of Argentina, not to mention the fact that the UK is a nuclear power.

Nevertheless, the British could well have lost the battle for the Falkland Islands - what would have been the damage to national prestige?

Yes, of course, Great Britain could go and complain to the United States, whose expeditionary capabilities are enough to "roll into a pancake" a dozen Argentines, but that would be a serious national humiliation.


Aircraft carriers, even primitive ones, with primitive VTOL aircraft of that time, played an important role in this conflict, it can be assumed that without them Great Britain would most likely lose

Imagine a situation where we have a similar problem.

How are we going to solve it?

Who are we going to complain to?

Shall we ask China for help?

Strategic conventional forces, which we, as a single organizational structure, do not yet have, may not help. Even if we form them, that is, there is one nuance: the lower the level of development of the enemy, the less effective the Strategic conventional forces will be against him - what is there to spread with precision weapons?

They may not understand that they have been "smashed" - suffice it to recall Afghanistan, how many cruise missiles are needed to inflict unacceptable damage on this country?

By the way, this rule also applies to nuclear weapons.

And then you will have to act as an expeditionary force, in the ranks of which the aircraft carrier will play a rather important role.

If the potential enemy of the Russian Federation is not Somalia, where there are no normal armed forces at all, let alone aviation, then you can still do without aircraft carriers.

But what if the enemy is a little more advanced militarily, much like Argentina in the conflict with Great Britain?

For example, we give a loan to Venezuela, we supply weapons (which has already happened), as a payment we are given a concession for oil production. And then The United States will organize a color revolution in Venezuela or change the regime there by force to hostile to us, who will say that the previous agreements are no longer valid.

What are we going to do, let's sleep?

The presence of a powerful expeditionary force could force the new government to be more sympathetic to Russian interests, or it could also be “changed”. And aircraft carriers will play an important role in this.


Today Venezuela and I are friends and partners, but what will happen tomorrow?

Do not think that the United States is attacking the Russian expeditionary forces because of its “own” regime. No one will unleash a nuclear war because of some kind of backwater, in the end, it's just a business.

Ranking tasks


Perhaps the most priority task for aircraft carriers is the promotion of the economic and political interests of the Russian Federation in remote regions of the world, that is, participation in the work of the Expeditionary Force - after all, it was not for nothing that aircraft carriers were called weapons of aggression in the USSR.

The second priority task for a promising Russian aircraft carrier is solving problems as part of general-purpose forces, for example, when confronting countries such as Turkey or Japan. In this case, the aircraft carrier will act as part of the forces of the second echelon, after delivering a massive strike against the enemy by Strategic Conventional Forces.

An aircraft carrier can also be involved at the first stage, to strike with long-range precision weapons, without direct contact with the enemy, as part of the Strategic Conventional Forces (if there is appropriate armament for carrier-based aircraft).

And finally - the task of ensuring the deployment of Russian SSBNs.

With her, everything is not easy. On the one hand, Russia has created a powerful naval component of strategic nuclear forces, which must be protected by all available means. On the other hand, this maritime component is like “spending a lot of money in order to spend even more money later, so as not to lose money previously spent”.

The author has repeatedly considered the problem of the stability of the Russian strategic nuclear forces to a sudden disarming strike, and the most effective solution is the massive construction of protected missile silo launchers (silos) for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with one or two nuclear warheads (nuclear warheads), which, apparently, has already been realized in the PRC, and not at all the construction of SSBNs, mobile ground missile systems (PGRK) and heavy ICBMs with dozens of nuclear warheads on board.


China is building silos for ICBMs in a "square-nested" way - no aircraft carrier is needed for their defense

When the bias towards the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces is eliminated, and a limited number of SSBNs will be used only to create a threat to the enemy of inflicting a sudden decapitation strike, the involvement of aircraft carriers to ensure their safety will be required rather sporadically.

In the meantime, this task cannot be removed from the agenda of the Russian Navy.

conclusions


Aircraft carriers are by no means the highest priority target of the RF Armed Forces in general and the RF Navy in particular. At the same time, the Russian Navy has a certain need for this class of ships, primarily for using them in expeditionary operations, as well as for demonstrating strength, which nowadays is sometimes more important than performing real combat missions - this is our information age. ...

The appearance of a promising Russian aircraft carrier should be formed based on the real tasks that can be assigned to it, as well as based on the objective economic and technological capabilities of our country.
Author:
260 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 13 October 2021 18: 08
    +17
    Finally, a new fresh topic, otherwise it's all about tanks and aircraft. And then you are already tired of these publications about revolvers, short-barrels, etc. It's good that the author remembered about the aircraft carrier.
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 13 October 2021 18: 19
      +4
      Well, in general, the topic is being discussed, only in a new way. And, here are the "blind spots." The authors are in a hurry to print and submit the material.
      1. Civil
        Civil 13 October 2021 18: 41
        .
        And why not?
        1. Raise taxes a little.
        2. Order a project, do it for 10 years.
        3. Then another 15 years to build a luxurious, 100 tons displacement, parade aircraft carrier.
        All so as to be like people, but we cannot endure, as well as children with grandchildren. lol
        1. fa2998
          fa2998 13 October 2021 18: 54
          +6
          What the hell is an aircraft carrier? We have been repairing a diesel submarine for 7 (seven) years! When the country made an ordinary destroyer, 40 years ago? All our remakes are coastal babies. What is 100 thousand tons?
          Quote: Civil
          3. Then another 15 years to build a luxurious, 100 tons displacement, parade aircraft carrier.
          1. Observer2014
            Observer2014 13 October 2021 20: 48
            -6
            What the hell is an aircraft carrier? ...............
            yes Have we already raised the dock? Well, the one that "Kuzyu" served? Or did they build a new dock to begin with? Or at least laid on the stocks? laughing Well, when we start to raise it. Or at least we will start building one. Then ... in ten years. Maybe we will see our new aircraft carrier.
            1. bayard
              bayard 14 October 2021 10: 18
              +1
              Quote: Observer2014
              Have we already raised the dock? Well, the one that "Kuzyu" served? Or did they build a new dock to begin with? Or at least laid on the stocks?

              So aircraft carriers will not be built in Severodvinsk at all. And the dock is under construction. And not only for Kuzi.
              Quote: Observer2014
              Or at least laid on the stocks?

              In the "Zaliv" two UDCs are being built - in fact, light aircraft carriers (if for VTOL aircraft).
              Next, you can lay the AV, having saved up experience on the UDC.
            2. Xnumx vis
              Xnumx vis 14 October 2021 14: 24
              -3
              Quote: Observer2014
              Or at least laid on the stocks?

              What is howling and crying ????? The two newest universal amphibious assault helicopter carriers were laid down for the first time in Russia at the Zaliv shipyard in Kerch. One ship will be able to carry more than 20 heavy helicopters and carry up to 900 marines. Previously in the USSR and Russia, ships of this class were not built.
          2. aleks neym_2
            aleks neym_2 13 October 2021 21: 10
            0
            Three "Varshavyanka" 3 projects for the Pacific Fleet and others - IT WILL BE LITTLE, you are my skeptic ...
          3. I am not a robot
            I am not a robot 13 October 2021 21: 28
            +2
            and we make new boats pr 636 in 2,5 years
          4. Ratmir_Ryazan
            Ratmir_Ryazan 13 October 2021 21: 42
            -2
            Russia is now building corvettes for 5000 tons, large landing ships for 8000 tons and UDC for 40 tons.

            As soon as I complete the UDC, they will immediately lay down the aircraft carrier.
        2. antivirus
          antivirus 13 October 2021 19: 14
          -7
          about my minuses - not me, BANKERS AGAINST, THEIR INTERESTS ARE PROTECTED WITHOUT AV.
          as soon as Gref-Kostin needs to cover the offshore in Okiana, they will immediately go to the GDP and "in 3 years we will have UUU bln oiro in the xxx bank and protect our assets" or the oil fields of Rosneft and Lukoil.
          lobbyists are who beat their foreheads against the wall ???
          in terms of infrastructure development, we in the 30s of the 20th century - just started building highways without speed limits and there is still no high-speed rail (200-400 km / h) - there was no AB back then

          our Avs will appear after the construction of M12, M13 and M14.
        3. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 20: 37
          -5
          it is obvious that the aircraft carrier is neither now nor in the short term, and objectively it is not worth the money that can be squandered on it, there are no minesweepers, the country's air defense is also full of holes ... and even talking about the aircraft carrier is stupid, Very conditional, ... very conditional use from AB, very vague and stretching, but to be honest, no from AB. There is no benefit, one harm and loss ..... there are weapons that are really needed for which there is not enough money. Strategic Missile Forces SSBN VKS Air Defense, etc., all the weapons of the Russian Federation are more important than the Aircraft Carrier.
          1. I am not a robot
            I am not a robot 13 October 2021 21: 29
            +4
            cross out the air defense of the country from the manual, still not 90 now
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 22: 09
              -8
              Quote: Janerobot
              air defense of the country

              thank you made me happy
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 October 2021 16: 03
              0
              Quote: Janerobot
              cross out the air defense of the country from the manual, still not 90 now

              It will not be possible to delete it: our air defense system of the Aerospace Forces has been updated practically only in part of the air defense system. And with the same AWACS, there are even more problems than in the 90s - because the A-50 has become even smaller since those times.
          2. bayard
            bayard 14 October 2021 10: 13
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            very conditional benefit from AB, very vague and stretching, but to be honest, no from AB. There is no benefit, one harm and losses ..... there are weapons that are really needed for which there is not enough money. Strategic Missile Forces SSBN VKS Air Defense, etc., all the weapons of the Russian Federation are more important than the Aircraft Carrier.

            And if we consider AB as air defense / missile defense lines taken out to sea?
            After all, in fact, AB is (if we consider the AV air defense / PLO medium VI option) an air regiment at a floating airfield + an air defense brigade on an air defense missile system of escort ships.
            But they will provide an anti-submarine line at the same time.
            If we move away from the concept of "super-aircraft carriers" in favor of AV air defense / anti-aircraft defense of medium VI, then they will no longer be so burdensome, but they will cope with the tasks quite well.
            And the Navy, with their appearance, will receive real combat stability, the ability to fight at sea, to provide its own air defense / missile defense at long lines, the ability to fight low-altitude targets at a great distance from the order, and not at a dagger distance, as now (from low-altitude anti-ship missiles).
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 October 2021 16: 07
              +1
              Quote: bayard
              And if we consider AB as air defense / missile defense lines taken out to sea?

              And in this case we are faced with a huge technical problem, for the solution of which we will not be able to rely on Soviet experience. The name of this problem is a carrier-based AWACS aircraft and the means to support its takeoff and landing operations.
              For a full-fledged air defense aircraft carrier group needs to have at least 4 AWACS aircraft on board.
              1. bayard
                bayard 14 October 2021 23: 17
                -1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And in this case we are faced with a huge technical problem, for the solution of which we cannot rely on Soviet experience. The name of this problem is a carrier-based AWACS aircraft

                It is precisely on the Soviet experience that one should rely, because in the USSR a program for the construction of 4 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the "Ulyanovsk" type was launched, and two types of catapults (steam and electromagnetic, as a reserve for the competition) and the carrier-based AWACS aircraft Yak were developed for them. -44.
                Moreover, both catapults were successfully tested, the choice fell on a steam catapult, and one such catapult was supplied to complete the "Admiral Kuznetsov", but ... the decision to install it was still postponed and it remained at the Nikolaev Shipyard.
                The Yak-44 was fully developed, a complete set of technical documentation was transferred to the manufacturer, but they did not have time to translate it into a flight model - the traitors destroyed the country. But its full-size model was tested on the Kuznetsov deck (fitting tests). He had the revolutionary D-27 engines with a capacity of 14 hp, which theoretically made it possible to take off even without a catapult, using only a springboard.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                For a full-fledged air defense aircraft carrier group needs to have at least 4 AWACS aircraft on board.

                It will probably be difficult to keep four such aircraft on the AV medium VI - they take up a lot of space, but there is an alternative - to supplement the two deck-based AWACS aircraft with two more AWACS helicopters. And the AWACS helicopters will also have to be revived, at least to equip them with such UDCs, and at the moment we are building 4 new UDCs of two types.
                In order to return to these programs, it is enough just to get the technical documentation from the archive and put it into operation. True, avionics, including radar for the Yak-44, will have to be developed from scratch, but this may be a variation of what is being prepared for the A-100 program. And actually the Yak-44 AWACS aircraft itself will be in demand not only by carrier-based aircraft, but also by the Aerospace Forces for the fullest provision of such aircraft with front-line aviation regiments for the successful fight against low-altitude inconspicuous targets in all threatened directions, as well as for full-fledged and high-quality control of the war in the air. ... In the Aerospace Forces alone, the need for such aircraft is at least 50 pieces. , and together with the needs of the Fleet - at least 100 pieces.
                And this is not counting the need for larger AWACS A-100 aircraft, which were planned to be purchased by 50 pieces.
                So the demand for such aircraft (Yak-44) is sufficient even on the domestic market, and if it works out, then it will also be exported.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 15 October 2021 14: 39
                  0
                  Quote: bayard
                  It is precisely on the Soviet experience that one should rely, because in the USSR a program for the construction of 4 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the "Ulyanovsk" type was launched, and two types of catapults (steam and electromagnetic, as a reserve for the competition) and the carrier-based AWACS aircraft Yak were developed for them. -44.
                  Moreover, both catapults were successfully tested, the choice fell on a steam catapult, and one such catapult was supplied to complete the "Admiral Kuznetsov", but ... the decision to install it was still postponed and it remained at the Nikolaev Shipyard.

                  Dream, dream ...
                  The working catapult was of the same type - steam, developed by the Proletarskiy Zavod. She successfully passed factory tests, after which all work on the catapults was terminated by directive.
                  No one was going to put it on Kuznetsov - because by the insistence of Ustinov and Amelko, the catapults were excluded from the project of the fifth TAVKR even at the stage when this project had the number 114342 - the second ship of project 11434.
                  In September 1981, when visiting the Kiev aircraft carrier at the Zapad-81 exercises, after the report of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy on the gradual improvement of the aircraft under construction and subsequent aircraft of this type from ship to ship, the Minister of Defense allowed to increase the displacement of the aircraft carrier pr. 114342, in comparison with the aircraft carrier "Baku" under construction, by 10 tons (with a corresponding improvement in its TTE, aimed at increasing the combat efficiency).
                  After that, the Navy proposed that SMEs, during the development of the reduced technical project 114342, carry out studies to further improve its TTE by increasing the total number of LACs from 40 to 50 vehicles, replacing the Basalt SCRC with the Granit SCRC, strengthening the structural protection and changes in other basic elements during an increase in displacement by 10 tons. Among the aircraft based on the ship, it was proposed to provide, in addition to the SK / VVP Yak-000, the Su-41K, MiG-27K and RLD aircraft with the provision of their takeoff from a springboard with two runways. The issue of a catapult for this ship was removed. Moreover, the General Staff raised the question of the cessation of all work on the creation and development of catapults.
                  After the Nitka’s repeated visits by various commissions of the Ministry of Defense, with the participation of N. N. Amelko, the catapult intended for flight tests of aircraft and training pilots to ejection take-off was excluded from the equipment of this complex and only the technological (called the booster device) required for testing, calibration and verification of aerofinishers. Work on the creation of catapult take-off aircraft, begun in 1972, was curtailed.

                  At the end of 1980, at the insistence of D.F. with the exclusion of prototypes of catapults from the composition of its equipment.
                  © Morin A.B. "Heavy aircraft carrier of the project 11435 Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov."
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 15 October 2021 14: 57
                    -1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Dream, dream ...

                    Even though she was experienced, she was. Although Ustinov mainly relied on the Yak-41.
                    And nevertheless, there should have been two such catapults on the "Ulyanovsk", but it was still under construction, and there should have been 4 such AVs.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 15 October 2021 14: 45
                  0
                  Quote: bayard
                  In order to return to these programs, it is enough just to get the technical documentation from the archive and put it into operation.

                  And immediately find yourself in a situation where 90% of the names specified in the product specification are missing. As well as most of the subcontractors.
                  The simplest question - where to get the engines for the Yak-44? The same D-27, which are now "the development of the ZMKB" Progress "named after academician A. G. Ivchenko" and "the production of PJSC" Motor Sich "?
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 15 October 2021 15: 08
                    -1
                    So it is necessary to return the Ukrainian SSR to the Russian Federation, since it did not demarcate its borders and the UN has no idea where this state is (from a legal point of view). There is no need to confuse yourself and fall in ashes - the southern Russian lands are waiting for their liberation, and there is everything that we lack for sustainable development.
                    And these are not only aircraft engines, but also marine engines and gearboxes for them - the widest line of gas turbines and gearboxes for any type of combat (and not only) ships.
                    And a lot of other things that are interesting to us, but they are not in demand.
                    Including Nikolaev shipyards.
                    The fact of the matter is that H. Clinton was absolutely right when she said that without Ukraine Russia would never be able to become a great (super) power again.
                    Life has already confirmed this.
                    And the people were waiting.
                    And "you will have aircraft carriers."
                    And if we remain patient, when the Americans took Ukraine away from us, then the Europeans took the Baltic states, then Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia ... then we will get a worthy fate.
                    I'm against .
                    1. Drugov
                      Drugov 21 October 2021 19: 40
                      0
                      What about Putin?
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 22 October 2021 02: 28
                        -1
                        Everything has already been done with him, do not think about it.
                3. Eroma
                  Eroma 21 October 2021 01: 03
                  0
                  I read the news that an AWACS UAV was created in Russia, so everything is not so bad with AWACS
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 21 October 2021 14: 30
                    -1
                    Firstly, it was just a mock-up, and a mock-up of a glider, not an RLV.
                    Secondly, the radar of this UAV has a fixed bidirectional antenna, that is, the view is not circular. And this is suitable for radar patrol in the border zone or the front line, but not for monitoring the air situation over water areas, where it is the all-round visibility that is important.
                    Thirdly, to use an AWACS UAV to control the war in the air (navigational control of fighter and strike aircraft can be complicated by the violation / jamming of communication channels. When the navigator is sitting in the AWACS aircraft itself and controlling the aviation, it is more reliable.
                    But for controlling airspace in remote areas, such UAVs will be very useful. If they ever appear.
                    1. Eroma
                      Eroma 23 October 2021 14: 12
                      -1
                      I will not argue about the reality of the UAV AWACS, I myself do not know, it's good that the work is going on.

                      And about the reliability of communication, so what's the difference to whom to jam the connection: UAV, or an AWACS aircraft? The result is the same pictures from AWACS mute in both cases laughing
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 20: 30
              0
              Quote: bayard
              provide their own air defense / missile defense at distant lines

              where and why?
              1. bayard
                bayard 14 October 2021 23: 22
                -1
                Quote: vladimir1155
                where and why?

                Wherever the Russian Navy has to operate.
                Namely :
                - in areas of combat deployment of NSNF (so-called bastions),
                - on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet for the construction of air defense / anti-aircraft defense lines placed in the sea, where the base aviation can no longer cover, or cannot do it quickly enough (the so-called response time to a threat),
                - in the DMZ when performing tasks to ensure the regime of freedom of navigation of the domestic merchant and commercial fleet,
                - to ensure the stability of the expeditionary forces (and it was decided to create such forces) in the DM and OZ.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 23: 40
                  0
                  - in areas of combat deployment of NSNF (so-called bastions),

                  that is, off the coast of California, at the North Pole? = neither one nor the other is impossible
                  - on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet for the construction of air defense / anti-aircraft defense lines placed at sea, where the base aviation can no longer cover, or cannot do it quickly enough (the so-called response time to a threat), = it is impossible there is no possibility of finding ships there for a long time , there are almost no ships themselves (there are 6 of them on the Northern Fleet, 7 on the Pacific Fleet)
                  - in the DMZ, when performing tasks to ensure the regime of freedom of navigation of the domestic merchant and commercial fleet = if in peacetime, mrk and frigates will fit, but there is nothing in the military, there are no ships
                  - to ensure the stability of the expeditionary forces (and it was decided to create such forces) in DM and OZ = expeditionary forces are not and are not expected, there are no delivery vehicles, no personnel for them, there is no economic and technical possibility of logistics for them, there are no tasks so far away
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 15 October 2021 00: 47
                    -1
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    that is, off the coast of California, at the North Pole?

                    No, in the Barents and Okhotsk seas.
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    = impossible there is no possibility of finding ships there for a long time, there are almost no ships themselves (there are 6 of them on the Northern Fleet, 7 on the Pacific Fleet)

                    22350 in service 2, 8 more units under construction.
                    Frigates pr. 22350M are planned for construction 20 - 24 pcs.
                    In a year or two, Adm. Nakhimov and Adm. Kuznetsov will come out of modernization.
                    BPE 1155 and Sarych SF are undergoing modernization.
                    By the end of the decade, when the UDC is completed, there will be a sufficient number of new and modernized ships in service.
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 15 October 2021 08: 38
                      -2
                      Quote: bayard
                      in the Barents and Okhotsk seas

                      there is no point in placing SSBNs in the Barents and Okhotsk Sea, discard this Timokha idea caused by despair and thus the absence in the north of the ships of the first or third rank that are so necessary there, standing at the wall in Sevastopol Vladivostok and Baltiysk for the sake of maintaining admiral posts ... if SSBNs according to you should shoot from the coast, then it can simply be replaced with YARS, which then invest a billion, no, the combat mission of SSBNs is to shoot from the American and Canadian coast
                    2. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 15 October 2021 08: 47
                      +1
                      Quote: bayard
                      22350 in service 2, 8 more units under construction.
                      Frigates pr. 22350M are planned for construction 20 - 24 pcs.
                      In a year or two, Adm. Nakhimov and Adm. Kuznetsov will come out of modernization.
                      BPE 1155 and Sarych SF are being upgraded

                      fact = that there are two frigates that are being built 8 = total 10 units in 10 years, .... in 10 years all 1155 for scrap, a couple of 1135 for scrap, a couple of hawks for scrap, buzzards for scrap = total minus 4 ships of the second rank. .... first rank = add Nakhimov (taking into account the fact that, in general, he already has 10-12 years left), subtract Moscow Ustinov Varyag, we get that there will be one alternately (and one under repair) cruiser in the Navy, and by 2035 it can be unambiguous cross out the first rank of NK forever ...... kuzya? even if they make this ship of prestige and worship of sectarians from a totalitarian destructive sect of witnesses, the aircraft carrier will be a symbol at the wall with zero combat value, because there is no escort for it and will not be, there are no tasks
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 15 October 2021 13: 09
                        -1
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        so necessary there are ships of the first or third rank standing at the wall in Sevastopol, Vladivostok and Baltiysk for the sake of preserving the admiral's posts ..

                        ?? Do you think that the Black Sea Fleet has few tasks and that its ships are inactive?
                        Or maybe it seemed to you that our Pacific Fleet is oversaturated with ships?
                        And on Kamchatka not based exactly the same SSBNs as on the Northern Fleet? And you don't need to cover them?
                        Maybe Japan is a paranoid peaceful country and does not want our land (for the beginning of the islands)! And she and she does not have one of the most powerful and modern fleets of the modern world?
                        And the American, Japanese and God knows what submarines do not stalk like at home in our essentially inland waters?
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        if SSBNs according to you should shoot from the coast

                        In case of extreme need, you need to be able to shoot from the pier, so as not to die in vain from the first blow. Sineva, Liner, and Bulava have enough range. But in general, they must shoot from their positional areas, determined by them from above.
                        And it's not off the coast of the United States and Canada.
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        can be simply replaced with YARS,

                        And what time will this replacement be released to the state?
                        Maybe something useful is better for this money?
                        According to the idea, NSNF should not participate in the first (preventive / retaliatory-on-counter) strike, and should survive the first strike on their territory (which the mine and soil complexes most likely will not survive), and deliver a second massive strike, finishing off the military and civil infrastructure enemy.
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        no, the combat mission of SSBNs is precisely to shoot from the American and Canadian coast

                        Sit down, "two." So you were allowed to.
                        "Ash" with "Calibers" and "Zircons" will be sent under the enemy's shore, and the business of "Boreyev" and "Dolphins" will survive and finish off the enemy from a safe area.
                        And the security of this area should be ensured by the ships of the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet.
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        fact = that there are two frigates that are under construction 8 = total 10 units

                        They forgot about the Black Sea 11356. Although they are not so-so frigates, they are still better than nothing. And they also lost sight of the fact that during this decades at least 2 similar (22350.1) ships will be laid, built and commissioned. As well as the two 22350Ms expected to be laid in the new boathouse, will also be completed by the end of the decade.
                        Therefore, the new frigates by the designated moment will be:
                        - min. 10 + 3 + 2 (22350M) = 15 pcs.
                        - swing. 10 + 3 + 2 (22350.1) + 2 (22350M) = 17 pcs.
                        This is all according to the existing and approved plans.
                        If additional measures are taken, and they are possible and desirable, then there may be more ships.
                        Plus two nuclear cruisers after the cap. repair and modernization. And one aircraft carrier.
                        Severomorsk "Sarych" in 2025 will come out of repair and modernization and will serve after that for another 10 - 15 years. And why not serve if the boilers were changed, the turbines were repaired, the avionics and not only were updated. The Pacific and Baltic "Sarychi" will of course be written off.
                        As will be written off in 10 years and "Moscow", and most likely "Varyag". But the North Sea "Atlant" will serve longer, because recently passed the cap. repair and modernization.
                        But at the same time, there will already be a whole herd of project 22350M on the stocks and in the completion, because they will be built at several shipyards at the same time. And in the first half of the next decade, all of them (20 - 24 pieces) will already be in service.
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        ... Kuzya? even if they make this ship of prestige and worship of the sectarians from the totalitarian destructive sect of the aircraft carrier witnesses will be a symbol at the wall

                        Why would a repaired ship, with new boilers, repaired turbines and fully modernized, stand at the side? I think that in winter he will go to the Mediterranean and there intensively train deck aviation pilots, and from spring to autumn he will be based in the north, participating in combat services. His main role is a training deck for the preparation of air groups of future aircraft carriers.
                        Otherwise, there was no point in saving him for that kind of money.
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        because he does not and will not be accompanied, there are no tasks

                        And the accompaniment will be more than enough for him, it is listed by me above.
                      2. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 15 October 2021 14: 54
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        "Ash" with "Calibers" and "Zircons" will be sent under the enemy's shore, and the business of "Boreyev" and "Dolphins" will survive and finish off the enemy from a safe area.
                        And the security of this area should be ensured by the ships of the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet.

                        Of course, the rockets will be farther away from the American coast than the ash trees, but closer to America than to their bases, although the ash trees are sharpened for many other tasks, but it is certain that our surface ships will not be in the positional strike areas of the submarine
                      3. bayard
                        bayard 15 October 2021 15: 19
                        -1
                        Surface ships will ensure the exit of SSBNs from bases to patrol areas, not allowing enemy submarines to escort our SSBNs immediately from the bases. And to disperse (with the forces of base and carrier-based aviation) the enemy's anti-submarine aviation.
                        After the submarine is withdrawn to the area, it is possible to be on duty at the approaches to it, in order to prevent enemy surface ships during the threatened period.
                        And dreaming about hiking under the American shores ... it's certainly nice. Just what will be done at this time by whole herds of "Elks" and "Virgins", as well as a flock of "Wolves" that lurked in the Norwegian fjords?
                    3. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 19 October 2021 21: 31
                      0
                      Quote: bayard
                      As will be written off in 10 years and "Moscow", and most likely "Varyag". But the North Sea "Atlant" will serve longer, because recently passed the cap. repair and modernization.

                      you are an incorrigible optimist, I envy your youth, ... overhaul should be carried out every 10 years, finished in 2016 (recently already 5 years), he still has 5 years left ... let's see if 15 will pull (if they can find money for repairs) or they will write it off already In 5
                    4. bayard
                      bayard 19 October 2021 22: 09
                      -1
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      overhaul should be carried out every 10 years,

                      Average .
                      Medium renovation after 10 years.
                      "Ustinov had a major overhaul."
                    5. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 19 October 2021 23: 46
                      0
                      Quote: bayard
                      Medium renovation after 10 years.
                      "Ustinov had a capital"

                      here the difference is vague, do not understand what was done and how they called it, replacement of engines, and radio electronics, probably still painting the case, that's all that was done
        4. IC
          IC 20 October 2021 04: 48
          0
          Merchant or commercial fleet is the same thing. Vessels of such a fleet flying the Russian flag have practically not been in the DMZ for a long time.
          1. bayard
            bayard 20 October 2021 05: 12
            -1
            I know that all the vessels of the domestic oligarchs have offshore registration, but the vessels that are currently being built at Zvezda and in Korea must have Russian registration.
            And it is not so important whose registration of the vessel carrying domestic cargo in such (planned) quantities.
            And this is LNG, Arctic oil and Yakut coals. The volumes will be enormous.
            Quote: IMS
            Merchant or commercial fleet is the same thing.

            I know this, I wrote it as soon as possible for imagery.
  • Lannan Shi
    Lannan Shi 13 October 2021 21: 11
    +9
    Quote: Civil
    And why not?
    1. Raise taxes a little.

    Suggest a recipe? Take the Russian Forbes list, top 100. Raise their taxes, at least up to 35-50% accepted in the world. Although most of it would be worth raising to 99. And even to the wall with confiscation. But okay, let's dwell on the average taxes on Earth. At the exit, you will receive an amount sufficient to build half a dozen not even aviks, but full-fledged AUGs. And I do not know about you, but personally, I can easily survive the fact that all sorts of Potanins and Michelsons will pay for the army and navy, and not exclusively for their Wishlist. yes
    1. 75 Sergey
      75 Sergey 13 October 2021 21: 55
      +3
      Mikhelson takes gas from Gazprom for $ 270 and resells it in Europe.
      The question is, where does he pay taxes?
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 21: 58
      -4
      Quote: Lannan Shi
      let's dwell on the average taxes on Earth. At the exit, you will receive an amount sufficient to build a half dozen

      how simple it is with you! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trgrNJsuEC4 despite the fact that you don't understand a thing, all this list is a Forbes setup, all these oligarchs are tied with loans and debts and more than you, the difference is that they owe billions, and you owe millions because they took out a mortgage. Why? because the "average taxes on the ground" and taxes in the Russian Federation, too, just for a long time more than 100 percent, that is, everything stolen in 90 has long flowed from the hands of local oligarchs into the hands of the true masters of the world, into the hands of those who print money (private owners of the US Federal Reserve ), only they can survive in conditions of tax levels above 100 percent (because they just print as much as they want). and you will not dispossess them, because it is their interests that are guarded by the US Navy and Army, NATO, Australia and Japan. In their hands are the shares of large companies all over the world, SP2 was built on their money, on their money we are costing gas carriers and you will have apartments on a mortgage, and it is impossible to get out of this circle, because you are already accustomed to the indesite refrigerator, to bananas for 49 rubles, which is not a fret Lada, and Renault, because it is to them that we sell gas and oil, and in general they may not buy if they do not want to. Russia became a member of the global world at the hysterical desire of the population, and you like it, because you are fed nourishingly. but it is impossible to solve this problem (if anyone considers it a problem) for two times, you are the first and yell where the bananas have gone?
      1. Lannan Shi
        Lannan Shi 13 October 2021 22: 24
        +3
        Quote: vladimir1155
        despite the fact that you do not understand a thing,

        Laponka, let's take NLMK, for example. As far as I remember ... There are 5,9 billion shares. Of these, 80% are in fox, i.e. 4,8 billion. In 2021, 28 reps have already been paid per share. Or roughly 135 billion. This is already what was left purely for the pocket, for drinking / taking a walk. With the Chinese, for example, 35% for revenues in the field of industry, + 27 billion for the budget. And at the end of the year and all 35. Or 0.5 billion dollars. With just one impudent muzzle. And from 100 .... Avik could have been laid in the spring. And the next one is another. And then again and again. And every little thing, like frigates and nuclear powered ships, and at all ... Between times, and especially not counting. But the problem is that we do not live in China. It is there that the foxes are allowed to breathe while they work for the good of the state. And we have strictly the opposite. The country is given a bit of a breath, so that it does not die at all, and so ... All for the good of the foxes.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 22: 37
          -4
          Quote: Lannan Shi
          In the presence of 5,9 billion shares. Of these, 80% are in fox, i.e. 4,8 billion

          paw you are not careful, not from citizen Lisin, but from the company associated with him "The lion's share of the funds - about $ 1,7 billion - will go to Vladimir Lisin's Fletcher Group Holdings Limited, which owns 84% ​​of NLMK's shares."
          "Fletcher Group Holdings Limited sold 128 million shares of the group through an accelerated collection of applications. After the completion of the transaction, Fletcher Group Holdings Limited will own 79,3% of the authorized capital of NLMK, and the number of securities in free circulation, respectively, will reach 20,7%." have to sell shares !!! and it is not known at all what share of Lisin personally in the shares of "his" company, and so the whole world, for example Henry Ford, lost the Ford factories during the life of the founder ...... https://ria.ru/20181221/1548336611.html
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 22: 43
            -4
            Today, the Novolipetsk metallurgical giant, which produced the first pig iron on the “red day of the calendar” on November 7, 1934, is 85,5% owned by the Cypriot quasi-offshore company FLETCHER GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED. The presence of the prefix "quasi" is dictated by the fact that Cyprus is not an offshore company today, although all the "heavenly" conditions for foreign entrepreneurs on the Island of the Sun have been preserved. Nevertheless, our oligarchy is greatly offended when he is poked with an offshore Cypriot residence permit.
            The Cypriot Fletcher is 89,5% owned by Fletcher of the Bahamas - FLETCHER INDUSTRIAL EQUITY FUND LIMITED. It is curious that the second largest owner of the Bahamian offshore (9,2%) is quite a respectable company Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas. She also owns 9,0% of shares of the offshore property of NLMK. I would like to convey ardent greetings to the builders of the first five-year plans, who erected once popular and now offshore industrial churches to the delight of their current formal (businessmen) and informal (government officials) owners.
          2. Lannan Shi
            Lannan Shi 13 October 2021 22: 48
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            and it is not known at all what is the share of Lisin personally in the shares of "his" company,

            Oh yeah .... It changes things immediately and strongly. If Mr. Lisin bought a part of the shares in a gasket company to some Mr. Li Xi Qing from China, then there is no need to pay taxes. This is from Chinese shares, a Chinese metallurgical company, to the budget of China, Mr. Chinese Li Xi Qing will pay 35%. and 15 is enough for us. Russia is a generous soul. yes
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 23: 00
              -2
              Quote: Lannan Shi
              If Mr. Lisin bought a part of the shares in a gasket company to some Mr. Li Xi Qing from China, then there is no need to pay taxes. This is from Chinese stocks,

              in general, I support you, but I don’t see a way for you and me to change something or influence the situation, Washington is comfortable with Lisins from which you can squeeze out the property drop by drop and which they have on the hook. And the arrival of the new Stalin is a miracle, it does not depend on us
      2. sleeve
        sleeve 14 October 2021 06: 31
        0
        What do you suggest? No bananas? And preferably tomorrow, to see the "fruits" in time?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 23: 45
          -1
          Quote: sleeve
          What do you suggest? No bananas? And preferably tomorrow, to see the "fruits" in time?

          I have nothing to offer you, I am the same as you, and I survive as a small business, at the level of a specialist's salary, retired ... pray to God to have mercy on us
          1. sleeve
            sleeve 15 October 2021 03: 00
            0
            Wow. I have not heard such a recipe for socio-economic implementation for a long time. God is not up to us, because the country is not particularly threatened. It's all by yourself ...
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 22: 04
      -2
      Quote: Lannan Shi
      at least up to 35-50% accepted in the world

      this is for the townsfolk and narrow-minded TV listeners, the true masters of the world do not pay taxes at all (but they give loans to the US government) because shares are not taxed, and offshore companies are for them, not for you, ... on the contrary, they imposed an inflation tax on the whole world and live by them ...... do you think the Rothschilds are bad? no worse than you! they were just lucky to be born in their family, they finance the whole world and remove taxes from all over the world, well, who should do this? Well, not Lennan Shea should do it!
    4. for
      for 13 October 2021 23: 20
      -2
      Quote: Lannan Shi
      Raise their taxes, at least up to the accepted in the world 35-50%.

      I am afraid that in the end we will pay these increases.
    5. Bolt cutter
      Bolt cutter 19 October 2021 22: 16
      -1
      Raise their taxes, at least up to the accepted in the world 35-50%
      They dump together in Switzerland and Cyprus and pay already there at Swiss (or Cypriot) soft rates.
  • I am not a robot
    I am not a robot 13 October 2021 21: 27
    +7
    and here they are fighting with Putin, and the question can be answered whether you need an aircraft carrier or not, it's still a military forum
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 13 October 2021 21: 52
      +4
      Needed. But - not an aircraft carrier. And at least four. A pair to the North and the Far East. One at a time - it does not canal, on the example of Kuzi it is clear that they will repair more than serve. So think about it - will the new Russian Federation be able to pull four aircraft carriers, their maintenance and the necessary support? To get one valid AUG at two required theaters?
      1. I am not a robot
        I am not a robot 13 October 2021 22: 18
        +2
        then you will need 6: 2 repairs, 2 preparation and 2 campaign like the Americans
        what are the tasks for them?
        1. bayard
          bayard 14 October 2021 09: 53
          +3
          Quote: Janerobot
          what are the tasks for them?

          Air defense and anti-aircraft defense of naval groupings, as well as ensuring the combat stability of the Fleet in the DMZ while ensuring freedom of navigation for the domestic merchant and commercial fleet.
  • Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 13 October 2021 21: 40
    +5
    Do not whine, everything that Russia spends on an aircraft carrier remains in our economy, because we do not buy it, but build it ourselves.

    That is, about 10 billion dollars that will be allocated for its construction will go to Russian shipbuilding plants, Russian metallurgical enterprises, enterprises producing equipment for an aircraft carrier. This money will be received by engineers and workers who will build an aircraft carrier, and then spend this money on goods and services produced in Russia.

    So, from an economic point of view, the construction of an aircraft carrier is to stimulate the economy and industry.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 22: 18
      -5
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      from an economic point of view, the construction of an aircraft carrier is to stimulate the economy and industry

      only you can't buy potatoes with this money? and support agriculture ... or order a lot of TU160 and su57 with this money?
      1. Ryusey
        Ryusey 14 October 2021 07: 32
        0
        Well, enough of demagoguery, or does the manual put it in a rigid framework?
      2. bayard
        bayard 14 October 2021 09: 43
        +1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        only you can't buy potatoes with this money?

        Can . yes
        Workers of shipyards and all cooperative enterprises, having received their wages, will go to the store / market / to their neighbor's dacha, and buy potatoes, cabbage, beets, meat, milk and whatever their soul wants and there is enough money for that.
        After all, this is essentially the investment of the population through employment.
        After all, how many new jobs will be required.
        Quote: vladimir1155
        and support agriculture

        The best support for agriculture is to increase the demand and purchasing power of the population.
        How can the population increase this ability?
        That's right - to find a job, with decent wages.
        Quote: vladimir1155
        .or order a lot of TU160 and SU57 for this money?

        You won't be able to order a lot of Tu-160M2.
        Rather, it will work out to order, but not to build. There are more than 5 of them in the Union. did not build a year, and now it is more than 2 - 3 pieces. a year and do not promise ... For several years we learned to cook the center section with electronic welding. Have learned like. But by the end of the decade, no more than 10 - 15 units will be built. And for 10 pieces. the contract has already been signed and the funds have been allocated.
        The situation is exactly the same with the Su-57 - 76 units. already two or three years as ordered, but only ONE was built. Until the end of the year, it may be (or maybe NOT to be) 2 more pieces will be delivered.
        In addition, in the case of the construction of AB, willy-nilly it will be necessary to build carrier-based aircraft. yes
        And this is again new jobs and life-giving financial flows along all chains of cooperation.
        The more ambitious the plans, the more injections into their own economy. The more jobs and, as a consequence, the greater demand in the domestic market (preconditions for the growth of food production and consumption).
        Unexpectedly, unexpectedly, TRILLIONS fell on the head of the budget of the Russian Federation. bully
        So why shouldn't the ambition be hit?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 20: 36
          -1
          Quote: bayard
          You won't be able to order a lot of Tu-160M2.
          Rather, it will work out to order, but not to build. There are more than 5 of them in the Union. did not build a year, and now it is more than 2 - 3 pieces. a year and do not promise ... For several years we learned to cook the center section with electronic welding. Have learned like. But by the end of the decade, no more than 10 - 15 units will be built. And for 10 pieces. the contract has already been signed and the funds have been allocated.
          The situation is exactly the same with the Su-57 - 76 units. already two or three years as ordered, but only ONE was built. Until the end of the year, it may be (or maybe NOT to be) 2 more pieces will be delivered.
          In addition, in the case of the construction of AB, willy-nilly, it will be necessary to build airplanes.

          how easy it is for you to write yourself that it is impossible to build airplanes according to your own, and right there the magic wand pink pony = AB at the wave of your tail ... and the planes will start baking like pies ..... but what about the RPKSN and nuclear submarines and submarines and minesweepers, you also need a wave of the tail of a pink pony = AB? ... or is it better to postpone dreams about av until the time when nuclear submarines appear minesweepers and frigates in sufficient numbers
          1. bayard
            bayard 15 October 2021 00: 39
            -1
            It is fashionable to start the construction / laying of the first AB not earlier than 2024 - 2025, when the building berths of the "Zaliv" become free, and the acquired competencies will allow us to take on this task.
            We are fully capable of building carrier-based aircraft, and new orders will only stimulate the industry, but with the release of the Tu-160 there are quite understandable purely technical, technological and qualification limitations.
            The minesweepers are under construction, the Kalina are being produced in series, the SSBN and Yaseni-M are handing over rhythmically.
            The frigates were laid down in a fairly large series, and the new series is even larger (I'm talking about the 22350M).
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 15 October 2021 08: 33
              -1
              Quote: bayard
              The minesweepers are under construction, the Kalina are being produced in series, the SSBN and Yaseni-M are handing over rhythmically.
              The frigates were laid down in a fairly large series, and the new series is even more (I'm talking about 22350M)

              these are all blue dreams, take off your rose-colored glasses, the decommissioning of old Soviet planes, ships and submarines in a couple of years will already outstrip the introduction of new ones, the service life of almost all of them has almost exceeded 30 years, they have gone to the last ten, planes do very little and slowly, failure in entire directions of the PLO AWACS ... and you keep dreaming about your unnecessary aircraft carrier
              1. bayard
                bayard 15 October 2021 14: 28
                -1
                Quote: vladimir1155
                these are all blue dreams, take off your rose-colored glasses

                I hate this color. And I myself see more problems and failures. But there are also objective capabilities and capabilities of the industry. We can build the same carrier-based aircraft - MiG-29K, MiG-35K \ KUB. For AV medium VI, they are just optimal. For their construction, you will not have to perform labor and technological feats.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                the decommissioning of old Soviet aircraft, ships and submarines in a couple of years will already outstrip the introduction of new ones,

                The tactical aviation fleet has been significantly updated, new contracts have been signed for the Su-30SM2 and Su-34M, and the contract for the Su-57 is also in operation.
                If you are talking about Long-Range Aviation, then of course yes, the launch of the Tu-160M2 series is delayed, but the first fuselage was welded and assembled. If we did it without jambs, then now we can expect a couple of such "Swans" a year somewhere from 2023. The weather will not do much, but the repairs and modernization of the Tu-160 and Tu-95, all recent years have been carried out regularly and according to at least the Tu-95 will still serve.
                But with the military transport aviation we have a complete blockage. Moreover, absolutely in all weight categories.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                failure in entire directions of AWACS PLO.

                I myself often write about this.
                Vega failed everything.
                But at least in recent years, the same submarines (Borei and Ash) have been commissioned regularly, and if the pace continues, then it is these categories that will be updated.
                But all the ship repair programs have failed, and first of all the MAPL ... In fact, only the last years have been engaged in this and everything is going neither shaky nor shaky.
                But for the construction of surface ships, our propulsion curse seems to end - the power plant for project 22350 went into series and are already being installed in the hulls. If everything continues like this, then the frigates will finally go to the fleets quite rhythmically - at least two pieces a year (until they start building on other shipyards).

                Of course, you can also fail these undertakings. There is no such case that officials are not able to fail. But then it is better not to look into the future at all.
                Then the RTOs, so beloved by you, will not save you.
                And ferrying old ships from place to place.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 15 October 2021 14: 59
                  -1
                  Quote: bayard
                  Of course, you can also fail these undertakings. There is no such case that officials are not able to fail. But then it is better not to look into the future at all.

                  yeah, I have to agree with you ....., but still there is a possibility of moving unnecessary ships from the bf and the black sea fleet to the north
      3. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan 14 October 2021 10: 40
        +2
        This money will be received by engineers and workers of shipyards, they will go to the store to buy potatoes, cabbage, carrots and bread - here is support for agriculture by building an aircraft carrier.

        Among other things, shipbuilding enterprises, like workers with engineers, like the business services and goods they use, they all pay taxes (profit, VAT, income, property, etc.), that is, the state will return part of the money spent on the aircraft carrier through taxes - here's more money for the Tu-160 and Su-57 and everything else.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 20: 38
          -1
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          they will all pay taxes (on profit, VAT, income, property, etc.)
          won't get paid, it's impossible to pay everything
      4. Aleksey80
        Aleksey80 22 October 2021 14: 12
        0
        only you can't buy potatoes with this money? and support agriculture ... or order a lot of TU160 and su57 with this money?

        You can see how our and Chinese sailors risked their lives when, after the exercises, they passed through the Sangar Strait (Tsugaru) on October 18, 2021. If we had a full-fledged aircraft carrier in service, the risk would be minimized. You think about money and agriculture, but you don't care about our army. How correctly answered this question in Constantinople:
        How will you play chess with your colleagues who have a full set of pieces, but you have pawns and a pair of bishops? Or one rook? But today in our naval kit we don't even talk about the queen. We have at most one boat - this is "Admiral Kuznetsov". And that one is under repair. Yes, several elephant frigates that are capable of solving something from combat missions. The rest is pawns. And how to play with this set against a full-fledged set that rivals have?

        You cannot direct the frigate to the point you need and keep it there until the right moment. This ship has a maximum of 30 days of autonomy. - So, to reach a certain point and return - he has 15 days. And for this you need to guess so that at the right moment you will be in the right place. And if a combat mission is set in some areas far from our shores, then it is not a fact that we will have any basing capabilities there or material and technical supply capabilities.
    2. bayard
      bayard 14 October 2021 09: 50
      +1
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      So, from an economic point of view, the construction of an aircraft carrier is to stimulate the economy and industry.

      That's right.
      That's just to build 100-thousand-ton atomic monsters for 10 billion dollars. not worth it - it takes a long time, and it is too difficult for a fragile industry.
      But our industry is quite capable of building AV VI 45 - 000 tons. And for the normal organization of services in two theaters of operations (fleets), we need at least 50 (six) aircraft carriers. We cannot build so many atomic monsters by definition, but gas turbine middlings with 000 fighters 6-24 AWACS planes and a dozen helicopters, 2 pcs. it is quite possible to build it in 4 - 6 years.
      Without straining the budget and not setting unsolvable tasks for the industry.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 14 October 2021 07: 31
    -1
    Well, if you consider yourself to be a terpily, bear with me, but our state does not bother me.
  • bayard
    bayard 14 October 2021 09: 14
    +1
    Quote: Civil
    And why not?

    Indeed, why not?
    Quote: Civil
    1. Raise taxes a little.

    stop No new taxes! In fact, one sudden increase in world prices for gas, oil and coal has already brought the treasury (!) Enough funds to build a group of 6 (six) AV medium VI (45 - 000 tons) on gas turbines and with catapults. Just money fell from the sky for such a thing. But the year is not over yet. repeat
    But these ABs still need air wings with AWACS aircraft and basic infrastructure.
    For the sake of the basic infrastructure, it is enough to wait for the end of the current year and it will drip by itself ... But for financing the construction and deployment of air wings, as well as for the development (renewal of the Yak-44 project) AWACS aircraft and their construction ..., as well as escort ships to them (4 destroyers, project 22350M + one tanker, one integrated supply ship and a sea tug for each AUG), you will have to wait for such bonuses one more year. yes And if the bonuses from the next year are still not enough ... then a small fraction can be taken from the next year. yes And that's all. The entire amount is ready (this is about 60 billion dollars in enemy currency). bully
    If we take into account the fact that the program for the construction of six aircraft carrier groups and all that is due to them, when building AB at two shipyards at the same time, should be completed within 15 - 17 years ... then all these 15 - 17 years the Russian economy will enjoy earning these $ 60 billion for their own good, for the joy of people (salaries, bonuses, jobs ... high-tech by the way, as Solntseliky promised). And the budget will deal with completely different, not related to aircraft carriers, affairs and expenses.
    Taking into account that all these funds (approximately $ 4 billion a year) will continuously INFLUENCE the Russian economy, and not lie in offshores, working for the hostile economy, we can summarize that this program will serve not only for the benefit of Defense Country, but also for the benefit of the development of its economy. smile I would even say that it will work for the good of the economy as an INVESTMENT PUMP. yes bully
    And this is not a joke of humor, but a completely working scheme that has more than once led the US economy (and this economy is an example and model for the new Russian Federation) from the next economic crisis.

    Someone will ask, "Are such expenses justified specifically on the fleet, especially the aircraft carrier?" smile
    And I will answer.
    More than . yes
    For as the author of the article rightly noted, we need AV not only to protect the areas of combat deployment of NSNF forces in the so-called. "bastions", but also for expeditionary needs.
    But these needs are not only, but rather not so much in pacifying certain "regimes" on distant shores, but to ensure the FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION of our merchant and commercial fleet in the World Ocean. Today, unprecedentedly ambitious programs for the construction of such a fleet are being implemented - supertankers of the Afromax class, super gas carriers of the ice class, the next in turn is the construction of ocean-going dry cargo ships of the super class, for the development of the largest coking coal deposits in Yakutia has begun, which China VERY wants to receive on a LONG-TERM basis (35 million tons per year, the contract has been signed) and India (an application has been made for the supply of 45 million tons of such coal per year). And this is not everyone. For the export of these coals, a new railway, a new coal port and a city / village will be built with it (on the shores of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk) ...
    As you understand, all this wealth must be PROTECTED. And not only ports and coal warehouses, oil terminals and LNG terminals ... but also routes for their delivery to consumers.
    And our consumers are mainly in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean.
    Moreover, Yamal LNG is increasing its capacity, and is no longer alone in this fertile field - Rosneft has also joined the race for LNG projects, because otherwise it cannot sell its gas and has to pump it back into the reservoir. belay ... how irrational it is ... Therefore, new LNG plants are being built and will be built in the future.
    And if so, then new gas carriers will be built ...
    But Gazprom is not a miss. smile
    He also built gas-liquefying capacities for himself, and not somewhere out there - on Kulichki, but quite himself in Ust-Luga and Novorosiysk ... right on his own pipe. yes
    And what ? If in the "off-season" less gas is taken through the pipe, so do not pump it? angry
    Gazprom decided not to be like that - let's download it!
    And liquefy.
    And they are already courting a number of clients from ... the Southern Hemisphere ... Brazil, for example, for the conclusion of LONG-TERM contracts (at least 15 years) for the supply of LNG.

    And now what ??
    Leave all this honest business without proper protection and protection ???
    Yes, not in life!
    And then there were also trillions of crazy ones ... repeat
    We urgently need to build the Oceanic fleet and aircraft carriers for its combat stability. soldier
    For business safety is the first concern of capitalism.

    Where to build?
    In the "Zaliv".
    And a little later - on the "Star" Bolshekamennaya.
    Escort ships - at several shipyards at once:
    - Admiralteyskikh in St. Petersburg,
    - in "Yantar" Kaliningrad,
    - at the Amur Shipyard (immediately after the completion of a series of corvettes, which have already planned to build more or less quickly),
    - possibly in the "Zaliv" - optional, if the capacities are allowed or if they are expanded (there is such a possibility).

    Will we be able to?
    If you take it seriously, and not for the sake of "mastering" - completely.
    We already make gas turbines and travel gearboxes ourselves. Catapults for AB, AWACS aircraft (Yak-44) - all the documentation is in the archives, you can get it.
    And if for an interesting case they will also pay justly, then the staff will be found / educated / returned.
    Will the authorities want it?
    Even if he does not want to (it is always more pleasant to mess around), then the interests of business ... or rather the interests of BUSINESS - WILL MAKE.

    hi Good day everyone.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. bayard
        bayard 14 October 2021 13: 52
        0
        I'm sorry, I did not get it . Are you suggesting to me "Constantinople" to see?
        I am busy . request
        1. Aleksey80
          Aleksey80 14 October 2021 19: 05
          +1
          Constantinople have the same position as you, I liked your and their article on the Russian Aircraft Carrier, but we need to do this. Unfortunately, I do not know how to create a link in a message. You have to select with the cursor and copy.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 19 October 2021 17: 01
      0
      Quote: bayard
      In fact, one sudden increase in world prices for gas, oil and coal brought the treasury already (!) Enough funds to

      increasing the tribute from the occupation administration to the American yoke by 50 percent from 7 percent of GDP to 10 percent of GDP
      1. bayard
        bayard 19 October 2021 21: 15
        -1
        Are you talking about sad things again?
        And even if this is so (and this is partly so), then the available funds in some ZRV will be enough for 10 (ten!) Such programs, NWF - for 2 - 3 such programs. This is if we talk about a one-time allocation of funds. But you need only $ 4 billion each. in year .
        The management has an itch that went to waste - cities in Siberia, infrastructure projects in the same place, for only one tidal power plant. in Kamchatka they want at least 200 billion dollars. burn ... But there are no consumers there ... hydrogen belay are going to be mined.
        The question was - "Is there money for this?"
        The answer is MORE THAN.
        And how to dispose of them is the tenth thing.
        Only now the rapid construction of a huge merchant fleet entails the need for its protection.
        Not corvettes.
        Not boats and RTOs.
        And quite a oceanic warships.
        The very course of things leads to this.
        And although they plan all this in a crooked and paranormal way, the very nature of things contributes to the revival of the military fleet.
        hi
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 19 October 2021 21: 22
          0
          Quote: bayard
          Are you talking about sad things again?
          Even if this is so (and this is partly so), then the available funds in some air defense forces will be enough for 10 (ten!) Such programs, the NWF - for 2 - 3 such programs.

          ......
          Quote: bayard
          Only now the rapid construction of a huge merchant fleet entails the need for its protection.
          Not corvettes.
          Not boats and RTOs.
          And quite a oceanic warships.
          The very course of things leads to this.
          And although they plan all this in a crooked and paranormal way, the very nature of things contributes to the revival of the military fleet.

          you contradict yourself ... well, not to guard the convoys with aircraft carriers? 11356 is quite enough for this ... and by the way, all the money that you donated is not for you and not for me to distribute (I would have thrown them on the submarine missile submarines DZPL minesweepers of the air forces of the air defense missile forces and others, but definitely not on the pointless tub udk av) we are with you we simply cannot dispose of them, and those who can give them to the Americans ... and you mean AB ??? unnecessary and useless!
          1. bayard
            bayard 19 October 2021 22: 05
            -1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            you contradict yourself ... 11356 is quite enough for that

            11356 total 3 pcs. and they are on the Black Sea.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Well, not by aircraft carriers to guard the convoys?

            And if it is necessary to break the blockade?
            If the water areas through which traffic flows become the arena of hostilities or military confrontation? Introducing its own KUG with AB in such an area for stability and guarantees of freedom of navigation is the very thing.
            AB is a tool for a wide variety of applications. And it's good for the one who has it.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            (I would have thrown them on RPKSN nuclear submarines Dzpl minesweepers

            So already thrown, how much more then?
            And the minesweepers are under construction.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            VKS RVSN Air Defense and others,

            There is enough allocated for the air defense, production capacities are being used, equipment is going to the troops according to plan. The Strategic Missile Forces are numerically limited by contracts, and the testing and commissioning of Sarmat are delays that are not related to funding. There are technical reasons.
            Videoconferencing? Well, money was allocated for the construction of 10 Tu-160M2, so what? Kazan creaks, tries, but cannot yet. But for 250 million dollars. allocated for each.
            But they cannot yet.
            So not everything depends on money. You also need abilities.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            but definitely not on a senseless tub udk av)

            Well, but this is precisely what those who have the ability and the right to dispose of - have ordered.
            And they are building.
            UDC.
            And AV intend to build, but they will start in a few years.
            Quote: vladimir1155
            give them to the Americans ...

            Is it only the Americans?
            And what about the British, Europeans, China, Japan?
            This is if we talk about whose debt obligations they are investing in.
            And the money was withdrawn from the FRS.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 14 October 2021 15: 30
    0
    clause "O" to return everyone from Offshores and pay money to the Russian Federation ...
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 13 October 2021 18: 20
    -4
    But what about ekranoplanes ???
    1. aleks neym_2
      aleks neym_2 13 October 2021 21: 05
      +2
      An ekranoplan? Forget this topic:
      1st: it is smaller than an aircraft carrier of any rank
      2nd: faster than any aircraft carrier
      3rd: very quickly found in the sea
      4th: requires more energy than an aircraft carrier
      5th: he doesn't need a lot of security
      6th: mobility: mulberries are here, tomorrow who knows where
      Continue further? If so, come up with arguments against yourself.
      (I hope the humor is understood ...)
  • Sandor Clegane
    Sandor Clegane 13 October 2021 18: 30
    +5
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    It's good that the author remembered about the aircraft carrier.

    that's for sure, but more debate is caused by articles about Israel)))
    I am a supporter of aircraft carriers and I am not ashamed to say this, but I do not see the point in describing the need for these ships and carrier-based aircraft 1000 times ... this is already the 10th article in half a year on this topic, opponents cannot be convinced, we cannot be broken)))) ))) Well, there will be only one fact - the Russian Navy will order construction? !! and that means there is a need, well, and drank the dough - this is in the housing and communal services, there every day and budget money is sawed and citizens in the amount of 1-2 RTOs at a cost
    example - in Teploenergo 6 lards are pumped in every year (in my city), but apart from 3 new boiler houses + 6 reconstructions, nothing has been done over the past 6 years, the main pipes do not change, only an emergency gang
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 19: 02
      +4
      Well said, colleague. But why did not the author say that most of the supporters of the construction of aircraft carriers see the need for them, first of all, as in air defense aircraft carriers? Indeed, even on land, the air defense system is already in the case when the enemy's air forces failed to contain our aviation.
    2. Cosm22
      Cosm22 13 October 2021 19: 40
      -1
      Instead of describing and sucking on the topic 1000 times, one could limit ourselves to one phrase: Russia, neither today, nor in the foreseeable future, is not able to build an aircraft carrier, close in performance characteristics at least to Nimitz.
      All other arguments on this topic are idle fictions.
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 22: 20
      -4
      Quote: Sandor Clegane
      except for 3 new boiler houses + 6 reconstructions over the last 6 years

      I suggest you voluntarily give up heating in favor of an aircraft carrier
      1. Sandor Clegane
        Sandor Clegane 14 October 2021 07: 27
        +3
        Quote: vladimir1155
        I suggest you voluntarily give up heating in favor of an aircraft carrier

        I wrote to you that you are a troll, besides, a person very far from the Navy, you personally wrote to me that AB is cutting the dough (although they did not even begin to design it), but the fact that resource-supplying organizations are sawing both the budget and your money, and every day you don't give a damn, you consider money that does not exist yet - there is no logic
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 08: 08
          -5
          Quote: Sandor Clegane
          resource-supplying organizations are sawing both the budget and your money, and every day you do not care

          I don’t give a damn, but resource-supplying organizations still do not have super-profits, this is not oil to pump, if you offer a way to manage something without sawing one or the legs of the budget, then we will listen to you
          1. Sandor Clegane
            Sandor Clegane 14 October 2021 08: 16
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            if you suggest a way to control something without sawing

            already done, not on paper, but in practice
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 08: 18
              -4
              Quote: Sandor Clegane
              in practice

              Would you like to share your experience or is it weak?
              1. Sandor Clegane
                Sandor Clegane 14 October 2021 08: 20
                +1
                Quote: vladimir1155
                Would you like to share your experience or is it weak?

                Forgive me for not feeding the trolls, those who know me at VO know what I do and how I do it, that's enough for me, and of course the opinion of the people for whom I work is important!
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 08: 22
                  -4
                  Quote: Sandor Clegane
                  what i do and how i do it

                  well, in general, there is nothing concrete to tell you, and only puffing up your cheeks, "we know swam"
                  1. Sandor Clegane
                    Sandor Clegane 14 October 2021 08: 46
                    +2
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    well, in general, there is nothing concrete to tell you, and only puffing up your cheeks, "we know swam"

                    I owe you? then - off! the scheme without sawing works for me - but your trolling seminars on VO are not interesting to me
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 08: 50
                      -5
                      Quote: Sandor Clegane
                      I owe you? then - off

                      Well, not for me, there are numerous VO readers interested in your wonderful and working scheme, why are you offending them? even members of your own sect of aircraft carrier witnesses, ... you probably don't have any scheme, you bluff, it's weak for you to create it ... weak, ... because you know that they will lead you out into the open for a couple of times
                    2. Sandor Clegane
                      Sandor Clegane 14 October 2021 09: 07
                      +2
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      Well, not for me, there are also numerous VO readers

                      do not lie, who are interested in writing in a personal and answered everyone
                      to my joy in tears - AB will design and build as many as 3 pieces, the decision was made with a delayed start, so you can start crying
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      you probably don't have any scheme, you bluff, it's weak for you to create it ... weak, ... because you know that they will lead you to clean water for a couple of times

                      envy is a sin! better silently envy - my scheme is as simple as 2 times 2, but for you Jesuits who believe in AV as a pelvis, such a decision simply does not come to mind from the word at all
    4. Ryusey
      Ryusey 14 October 2021 07: 35
      -2
      And besides delirium, is your brain able to give birth to anything else?
  • fif21
    fif21 13 October 2021 23: 03
    -4
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    It's good that the author remembered about the aircraft carrier.

    I will only note that aircraft carriers are an obsolete aircraft delivery vehicle. Does the Russian Federation have colonies? Is the Russian Federation preparing for wars of conquest? Why then refueling planes in the air? Getting on and off the freeway? Why does the Russian Federation need such expensive toys? There is nowhere to put money? hi
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 14 October 2021 15: 32
      +1
      The Russian Federation has a nuclear submarine, which may not be allowed to deploy in a threatening period., There is a Far East with the Kuriles ... and there is a nuclear submarine base there.
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 13 October 2021 18: 10
    +2
    conclusions
    Aircraft carriers are by no means the highest priority target of the RF Armed Forces in general and the RF Navy in particular. At the same time, the Russian Navy has a certain need for this class of ships, primarily for using them in expeditionary operations, as well as for demonstrating strength, which nowadays is sometimes more important than performing real combat missions - this is our information age. ...
    The appearance of a promising Russian aircraft carrier should be formed based on the real tasks that can be assigned to it, as well as based on the objective economic and technological capabilities of our country.

    I understand that the deadlines for the delivery of the TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" will be shifted to the right? belay
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 13 October 2021 19: 35
      -1
      Quote: ROSS 42
      I understand that the deadlines for the delivery of the TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" will be shifted to the right?

      "No, guys, it's not like that ..."
      Not just "to the right", but rather significantly
      to the right, so to speak - to the right of the right.
      1. Stepan S
        Stepan S 13 October 2021 20: 03
        -1
        EP - is it "right"? This means that we will shift to the right. All by right.
    2. PPD
      PPD 13 October 2021 21: 30
      +2
      At least to the right, at least to the left.
      It's all one thing, there is nothing good about it.
      The same Migi will become obsolete very soon.
      And new developments are not visible.
      And this is if the AWACS plane is not remembered.
      This also applies to new aircraft carriers.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 13 October 2021 18: 15
    -3
    from such a distance, a sudden decapitation blow can be delivered to which the enemy may not have time to react
    ... It’s interesting for me, what kind of blow is it that will decapitate everything and provide ... by the way, what will it provide and to whom ???
    1. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 19: 04
      +1
      This is when the ICBM flies along a flat trajectory, in which the range decreases, but it will fly up to the target faster. Suppose, if "Borey" shoots out "Bulava" not from the Barents or Norwegian Sea, but, say, directly from the Atlantic, not to mention the Gulf of Mexico.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 13 October 2021 19: 17
        +1
        One rocket flies like this, another like that ... how can this be a decapitation?
        After the rocket started, went to the target, the opposite side has one task, tried to intercept it, preferably away from its territory ... here the trajectory of its flight, speed, security and so on can play a role ... but this is not about what the question was asked.
        By the way, when the missile / missiles flew, the fact of the missile launch will be recorded and the attacked side will not wait, it will launch its own, similar ones, and all the others too !!!
        What kind of decapitation is there, rather mutual destruction !!! To the delight of whom ???
        1. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 19: 42
          +2
          A decapitation strike is, thank God, a hypothetical scenario so far. Let it remain so. And it means that all persons who can decide to retaliate are eliminated. And then the enemy's nuclear potential is knocked out. It is very difficult to implement, and therefore unlikely, but not impossible. The likelihood of such a development is taken into account when making decisions related to strategic security for countermeasures.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 13 October 2021 20: 03
            -2
            Quote: Artyom Karagodin
            A decapitation strike is still, thank God, a hypothetical scenario.

            I AGREE.
            Quote: Artyom Karagodin
            Let it remain so.

            Subscribe 100%
            Quote: Artyom Karagodin
            And it means that ......... to take countermeasures.

            It is accepted, but such a scenario should be considered only with large assumptions and in relation to far from all states.
            Big, vigorous, must solve all problems, among themselves, only at the negotiating table.
            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 22: 07
              +2
              I absolutely agree on any of the points. I will only add that this scenario is already being considered with the same assumptions. It is unlikely that our General Staff considers such a scenario as acceptable in relation to any country. After all, our doctrine is purely defensive. Or a retaliatory (retaliatory-counter) strike or in the event of a threat to the existence of a country created in an ordinary conflict.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 14 October 2021 07: 48
                -1
                Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                It is unlikely that our General Staff considers such a scenario as acceptable in relation to any country. After all, our doctrine is purely defensive.

                How many envelopes / plans they have, in fact ... they will not tell us, and there is nothing to it.
                Make military plans, even for the country's defense, without such effective elements as a preemptive strike, etc. no one dares! This is evidenced by the entire military science and the HISTORY of wars.
            2. Ryusey
              Ryusey 14 October 2021 07: 37
              -3
              Blessed is he who believes ...
          2. Ryusey
            Ryusey 14 October 2021 07: 36
            0
            Not a fact, far from a fact.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 October 2021 16: 18
          +1
          Quote: rocket757
          One rocket flies like this, another like that ... how can this be a decapitation?
          After the rocket started, went to the target, the opposite side has one task, tried to intercept it, preferably away from its territory ... here the trajectory of its flight, speed, security and so on can play a role ... but this is not about what the question was asked.

          A retaliatory strike takes time: detecting enemy launches, cutting off the likelihood of false triggering of the HSS, awareness of the fact that the enemy has inflicted a nuclear strike, making a decision to launch, communicating to the performers.
          And if the SBCs manage to finish before the start of the cycle of "communicating the decision to launch to the executors," then there is a chance to avoid a retaliatory strike (or significantly delay it) - simply because there will be no one and nothing to complete the decision and transfer it to the executors. But for this you need to quickly and accurately hit the decision-making centers and communication centers.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 14 October 2021 18: 01
            -1
            Yes, yes, those who should DON'T KNOW any of this?
            Are you sure about that? Are our opponents sure of this?
            Usually they say / hint, do not check / try, do not know ... but this is just the case when no one dares to check / try.
  • Nafanya from the sofa
    Nafanya from the sofa 13 October 2021 18: 19
    +7
    Only 3 questions to the author:
    1.
    Nevertheless, the British could well have lost the battle for the Falkland Islands - what would have been the damage to national prestige? ... Imagine a situation where we had a similar problem. How are we going to solve it?

    And which islands of the Russian Federation is the author going to protect with aircraft carriers?
    Announce the entire list, please

    2.
    For example, we give a loan to Venezuela, we supply weapons (which has already happened), as a payment we are given a concession for oil production. And then the United States will organize a color revolution in Venezuela or change the regime there by force for a hostile one, which will say that the previous agreements are no longer valid.
    What are we going to do, let's sleep?

    How many aircraft carriers does the author plan to send to the coast of Venezuela to neutralize the "color revolution"?
    You can ask the author questions for quite a long time on the rather ambiguous theses of his article.
    3. What is the strategic task for the defense of the Russian Federation that cannot be solved due to the lack of aircraft carrier ships?
    If possible, then specifically. Please do not raise questions of prestige, for "this is different."
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 13 October 2021 18: 36
      -5
      Only 3 questions to the author:

      Great questions. And there are a hundred more similar ones.

      On which there is one answer - to confront the United States and its allies anywhere in the World Ocean, you need a comparable fleet of aircraft carriers.

      And to deal with the rest of the ABs are not needed. laughing
      1. Nafanya from the sofa
        Nafanya from the sofa 13 October 2021 18: 41
        +2
        On which there is one answer - to confront the United States and its allies anywhere in the World Ocean, you need a comparable fleet of aircraft carriers.

        What for? What kind of geostrategic task for the defense of the Russian Federation will this horde of aircraft carriers solve (if someone, God forbid, makes it a la "genius Tukhachevsky" who wanted to produce 100000 tanks)? drinks
        1. eehnie
          eehnie 14 October 2021 19: 47
          0
          If you read about the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 you will find answer to your question, in the view of the Russian military leadership.
      2. eehnie
        eehnie 14 October 2021 19: 44
        +1
        Not really. Russia does not need the same number of aircraft carriers than the United States to confront them. The United States have more adversaries, not only Russia. They have and will continue having a strong part of their fleet of aircraft carriers bussy far of the coast of Russia.

        Only local superiority is required for Russia. The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 explained it well. The main goal of the future Russian aircraft carriers is to achieve conventional deterrence in the Russian coast (from a defensive point) in addition to the nuclear deterrence achieved also by other means.

        For it Russia needs a new project of aircraft carrier that be not scared of the US aircraft carriers in a 1 versus 1 situation, and need not to move away of them. The Russian aircraft carriers of the Nothern and Pacific fleets very likely will have the requirement of to be able to sustain the position in a 1 versus 1 situation. With it Russia would force the United States to find a 2 versus 1 situation, something very uncomfortable for them taking into account the needs of the United States in other places of the world. And less if Russia can find coastal support for the own ships.

        Then yes, I see very likely the construction of a big nuclear powered aircraft carrier in Russia (of the Project 23000?) In this decade. I see it likely because Russia has the aircrafts (Su-57), and Russia almost have complete an entire nuclear powered scort (with ships of the Project 1144 (/ 2), and nuclear submarines). Also I see very likely the construction of the first unit of the Project 23560. In fact both projects passed the stage of preliminary design and are in the stage of technical design, and in this stage the first unit of every project is built (would be the naval form of a prototypes, but that later are commissioned).

        The Russian sea based combat fleet is reaching the level of sustainability with the end of the process of reduction, but I do not think both first units will break this level taking into account that the proces of reduction of the sea based auxiliary fleet is still ongoing , and gives an important margin of reduction (some hundreds of ships) with the pending total exit of many veteran auxiliary ships of the Sovietic age, leaving free part of the budget for maintenance and allowing the movement of part of the personel.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 14 October 2021 20: 04
          0
          Let's just say - the total fleet of Russia and its allies must be equal to the total fleet of the United States and its allies.

          True, nothing prevents Russia and the United States from being allies. wink
          1. eehnie
            eehnie 14 October 2021 21: 40
            0
            The Russian experience (as part of the Soviet Union) with the United States in the late 1940s, after being allies in the war, makes it fairly difficult.

            And neither the current hostility helps.
    2. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 19: 06
      -8
      The answer to the first question is very simple: 1) Kuriles, 2) Kaliningrad region, which, although not an island, but an exclave. In terms of providing protection, there are few differences, since it is surrounded on all sides by NATO countries.

      And the second two, even before Andrei, were answered so many times by other authors that it is hardly worth repeating this for the thousandth time.
      1. Nafanya from the sofa
        Nafanya from the sofa 13 October 2021 19: 09
        +7
        The answer to the first question is very simple: 1) Kuriles, 2) Kaliningrad region,

        Defend the Kaliningrad region from an aircraft carrier! Bravo! It's even cooler than Block 95! fool
        1. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 19: 48
          -5
          You send such emoticons to your wife, no way. the expert from the sofa. Or is it in the order of things to switch to rudeness in your sofa?

          There are many scenarios in which an AB may be needed, at least in order to provide air defense to supply a group of forces in the region. Both planes and ships will require protection from NATO aircraft. Or do you think that they can be fully covered from land airfields? If, for example, all airfields in the region were destroyed by a surprise attack. What NATO will definitely strive for if it comes to conflict.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 21: 03
            +3
            Quote: Artyom Karagodin
            There are many scenarios in which an AB may be needed, at least in order to provide air defense to supply a group of forces in the region. Both planes and ships will require protection from NATO aircraft. Or do you think that they can be fully covered from land airfields? If, for example, all airfields in the region were destroyed by a surprise attack. What NATO will definitely strive for if it comes to conflict.

            you have an inflammation of fantasy, destroying ground airbases is an order of magnitude more difficult than drowning your av, av just won't fit in the Baltic sea, it's shallow everywhere along the shores of the Russian Federation, only in the middle of the sea it can get up, the Russian Federation has no ports capable of accepting it .... violent fantasy "all airbases are destroyed and then like a phoenix appears not sunk for some reason, and extinguishes all enemies with its 7 deck aircraft" ""
            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 22: 03
              0
              Vladimir, please do not write responses to my comments. We have already discussed my attitude to any of your opinions. Don't shake the air in vain.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 22: 07
                -2
                Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                please do not post responses to my comments.

                yeah gave up!, you are smashed to smithereens by my irrefutable arguments, you realized your polemical weakness and fled into the bushes ... well, well
                1. Artyom Karagodin
                  Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 22: 10
                  0
                  Consider whatever you like, only (if you understand human language) do not enter into conversations with me, I beg you.

                  And where only such unique ones like you come from ...
                2. Serg65
                  Serg65 14 October 2021 09: 59
                  +4
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  you are smashed to smithereens

                  And then ... fanfare, drum rolls and an honorary award with a jar of jam !!!! Vladimir, what kind of jam do you prefer?
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 14 October 2021 09: 57
              +4
              Quote: vladimir1155
              you have an inflammation of fantasy,

              laughing laughing laughing and it says the chief staff dreamer of the Military Review !!!! good
          2. Orsis338
            Orsis338 13 October 2021 21: 10
            +8
            Dear Artyom, in the Baltic Sea even one aircraft carrier will be like a hippopotamus in a bathroom, it will not fit there, and all of it is shot up and down. If the blockade of Kaliningrad happened here either to break through the land route or fold its legs
            Similarly to the Kuril Islands, no aircraft carrier will help because the Japanese from Hokkaido will put up an air group much stronger, and their aircraft carriers will graze in the distance along with the American
            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 22: 02
              +1
              Thanks for the adequate answer. Although we are with you and opponents in this case.
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 14 October 2021 09: 56
          +2
          I will even increase the number of your questions. wink
          1. Why do we need landing troops? What task can they have if we have combined arms armies?
          2. Why do we need military transport aircraft? We have Aeroflot and Russian Railways - they will perfectly cope with the transportation.
          3. Why do we need the Strategic Missile Forces? What are their tasks on the territory of our country?
          4. Why do we need Calibers with their range? Whom on our territory do we want to fire with them?
          5. Why do we need a fleet at all? We are always attacked from land, and from the same direction.
          6. And the last thing. Why do we need an army at all? Russia lost twice in the last century without firing a single shot!
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 19 October 2021 17: 15
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            Why do we need landing troops? What task can they have if we have combined arms armies?
            2. Why do we need military transport aircraft? We have Aeroflot and Russian Railways - they will perfectly cope with transportation

            Airborne and MP can be thrown into the rear of the aggressor to support the actions of the combined-arms armies and strikes to the rear of him with the aim of destroying the rear of the enemy, breaking through his defense, ensuring the offensive of the combined-arms armies and connecting with them
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 20 October 2021 06: 46
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Airborne and MP can be thrown into the rear of the aggressor to support the actions of the combined-arms armies and strikes to the rear of him with the aim of destroying the rear of the enemy, breaking through his defense, ensuring the offensive of the combined-arms armies and connecting with them

              what My friend, you think like ancient strategies .... Caliber and Iskander can do all this! wink
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 19 October 2021 17: 17
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            3. Why do we need the Strategic Missile Forces? What are their tasks on the territory of our country?
            4. Why do we need Calibers with their range? Whom on our territory do we want to fire with them?

            Sit down two young men, RVSN are not intended for strikes on their own territory, but for strikes on the territory of the aggressor
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 20 October 2021 06: 49
              0
              laughing Thanks for the young man!
              Quote: vladimir1155
              RVSN are not intended for strikes on their own territory, but for strikes on the territory of the aggressor

              If the aggressor hit, then it is already too late to respond, and if you delivered a preemptive strike, then you are already the aggressor ... recourse
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 20 October 2021 09: 20
                0
                Quote: Serg65
                If the aggressor hit, then it's too late to answer

                it is never too late, Russia has never been an aggressor, it only saved peoples from grief and tears, every country that is going to attack our sacred land or is not going to peacefully join us is an aggressor
          3. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 19 October 2021 17: 18
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            5. Why do we need a fleet at all? We are always attacked from land, and from the same direction.
            6. And the last thing. Why do we need an army at all?

            the army and navy must destroy the aggressor if he attacks
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 20 October 2021 06: 50
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              the army and navy must destroy the aggressor if he attacks

              belay ahhh, so the fleet is still needed ?????
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 20 October 2021 09: 17
                0
                Quote: Serg65
                ahhh, so the fleet is still needed ?????

                I'm glad that you finally understood this, I convinced you of this, the underwater fleet is especially needed, and also understand the simple truth = aircraft carriers are not needed
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 20 October 2021 10: 13
                  0
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  I am glad that you understood this at last

                  laughing And I'm glad you understood that ... recourse although not completely ...
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  understand the simple truth = no need for aircraft carriers

                  belay And why not?
                  Will an aircraft carrier interfere with its submarine fleet?
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 20 October 2021 15: 10
                    0
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Will an aircraft carrier interfere with its submarine fleet?

                    based on the basic axiom of physics, of course, it will interfere, because either the nuclear submarine or an unnecessary AB, there is no third
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 21 October 2021 07: 56
                      0
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      based on the basic axiom of physics

                      what Oh my friend ... physics and the fleet, things are incompatible !!!!
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 08: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Serg65
                        Oh my friend ... physics and the fleet, things are incompatible !!!!

                        in this phrase, the essence of all members of the sect of the aircraft carrier's witnesses, sweep aside objective laws for the sake of your "I want it so much" and motivate = "swim know" that's all your motivation
                      2. Serg65
                        Serg65 21 October 2021 08: 52
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        in this phrase the essence of all members of the aircraft carrier witness sect

                        This phrase is the essence of many years of practice. wink
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        sweep aside objective laws

                        what The laws??? And what do these laws of yours say?
                      3. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 09: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Serg65
                        The laws??? And what do these laws of yours say?

                        I explain modern physics is based on two axioms 1 the law of conservation of matter and energy (if we spend on Kuzya, then little will remain on the nuclear submarine, and there will be no torpedoes and minesweepers at all) 2 The law of impossibility of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind (in general, it follows from this law that endlessly patching Kuzya it will not work, either sell or cut a third one is not given, from the same law it follows that the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier is outdated and the future belongs to zircons and drones)
                      4. Serg65
                        Serg65 21 October 2021 09: 21
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        I explain modern physics is based on two axioms 1 law of conservation of matter and energy

                        laughing And then the law of market relations in the form of a fivefold rise in gas prices interferes with your physics, and energy appears in the form of a substance for additional financing!
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        2 the law of impossibility of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind

                        It only follows from this law that zircons and drones must be delivered to an object threatening our nuclear submarine in the form of an enemy AUG! Who will deliver?
                      5. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 09: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Serg65
                        that zircons and drones must be delivered to an object threatening our nuclear submarines in the form of an enemy AUG! Who will deliver?

                        You dragged the third law out of place, so obviously you don't understand it ... for zircons there are rockets, but for drones and a frigate it is enough and in the future an airplane is possible
                      6. Serg65
                        Serg65 21 October 2021 09: 33
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        there are rockets for zircons

                        what rocket launcher for the rocket ????
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        enough for drones and a frigate

                        How many drones, capable of withstanding base and carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft, can a frigate take aboard? How many drones, capable of withstanding the air cover of ASW aircraft, can your plane take on board?
                      7. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 09: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Serg65
                        How many drones

                        for sure they do not need a bandura 303 meters
                      8. Serg65
                        Serg65 21 October 2021 10: 15
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        for sure they do not need a bandura 303 meters

                        Vova, so how many grams are that?
                      9. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 10: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Serg65
                        so how many grams is that?

                        all of you have dried up in an unequal struggle ...... 50 grams is enough for you?
                      10. Serg65
                        Serg65 21 October 2021 11: 23
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        you all dried up in an unequal fight

                        what Oh, was that a fight? I am a question - you are an obscure stream of slogans of many letters laughing
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        50 grams is enough for you?

                        Well, this is not serious ... 50 grams ... you shouldn't even start ...
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 10: 10
                  0
                  Quote: Serg65
                  rocket launcher for the rocket ????

                  well, it is definitely more accurate than zircon for tongue aircraft carrier
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 09: 29
              0
              Quote: Serg65
              And then the law of market relations in the form of a fivefold rise in gas prices interferes with your physics, and energy appears in the form of a substance for additional financing!

              you do not understand the law of market relations, 1 if gas has risen in price, then all the income is transferred to overseas owners, see "Budget rule" 2 gas buyers raise the price of their products, and we have completely destroyed our industry at the behest of the IMF, it means that imports are becoming more expensive, but we already have income given to the colonial masters ... prices are growing getting poorer and there is no money in the budget
            3. Serg65
              Serg65 21 October 2021 10: 26
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              you do not understand the law of market relations, 1 if the gas price has risen, then we transfer all revenues to overseas owners, see "Budgetary rule"

              laughing Each slogan, Vova, must be supported by reinforced concrete data ... do you have them ????
              Quote: vladimir1155
              We completely destroyed our industry at the behest of the IMF

              what Hmm .... proof ???
              Quote: vladimir1155
              prices are growing, we are getting poorer and there is no money in the budget

              live near a trash can, and scribble on the Internet from a neighbor?
            4. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 10: 32
              0
              Quote: Serg65
              must be backed up with reinforced concrete data ...

              the current budgetary rule provides for the limitation of federal budget expenditures. They are set at the level of non-oil and gas revenues and oil and gas revenues with a hypothetical cut-off price of $ 2021 per barrel in 43,3. Oil and gas surplus profits are used to purchase foreign currency, which is then replenished by the National Wealth Fund (NWF) stored in the Central Bank's accounts with foreign banks at near-zero interest rates
            5. Serg65
              Serg65 21 October 2021 11: 27
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              the current budget rule provides for the limitation of federal budget expenditures

              this is your personal opinion, for me it is better in numbers!
              Quote: vladimir1155
              They are set at the level of non-oil and gas revenues and oil and gas revenues with a hypothetical cut-off price of $ 2021 per barrel in 43,3.

              And this despite the fact that revenues from Gazprom and Rosneft every 6-7 rubles ??? This is not serious .... I suspect you are writing from 2018! belay .... you invented the time machine ????
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Oil and gas surplus profits are directed to the purchase of foreign currency

              Well, how is it right now ... in 2018 ?????
              Quote: vladimir1155
              held in the accounts of the Central Bank in foreign banks

              Which banks?
            6. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 12: 46
              0
              http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202010150009?index=3&rangeSize=1 почитайте если не верите
            7. Serg65
              Serg65 21 October 2021 12: 57
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              read if you don't believe

              recourse I'm tired of you ...
              What did I ask you about? What are you fussing with me?
              That's it, a break is announced in the psychiatric hospital !!! hi
            8. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 12: 59
              0
              Quote: Serg65
              a break is announced in the psychiatric hospital

              is the head physician already picking you up? well, nothing will cure you, alcoholics are our profile
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 10: 38
      0
      Quote: Serg65
      proof??

      Russian Railways stopped buying Torzhok electric trains, preferring (possibly for a rollback) German swallows (they write that at a price 15 times more expensive than domestic ones), the town-forming plant in Torzhok is bankrupt https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2810398 ..

      VAT hike and "tax maneuver" destroyed the glass factory along with thousands of enterprises across the country https://tverigrad.ru/publication/poselok-umiraet-eto-bolno/
    4. Serg65
      Serg65 21 October 2021 12: 50
      0
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Russian Railways stopped buying Torzhok electric trains, preferring (possibly for a rollback) German swallows (they write that at a price 15 times more expensive than domestic ones)

      what Vova, what do you think ... why do Russian motorists prefer imported cars ... instead of Russian ones ???
      Quote: vladimir1155
      https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2810398

      recourse Sorry Vladimir, I mistakenly thought that you are broadcasting from 2018 ... 2015 ... I can imagine how hard it is for you there crying
      Here's the news from 2019 ..
      https://www.afanasy.biz/news/incident/117934
      Quote: vladimir1155
      VAT hike and "tax maneuver" ruined the glass factory

      And not VAT at all, and not the owner's ability to overcome the economic crisis of 2008!
      Quote: vladimir1155
      with thousands of businesses all over the country

      Here are the new factories launched just this year!
      https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/?id=106
    5. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 12: 57
      0
      http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202010150009?index=3&rangeSize=1 почитайте если не верите
      As for the quality of domestic cars, you were late yourself, now one domestic UAZ remained, instead of Renault Zhiguli, instead of Mercedes KAMAZ, why did the cars have bad ones? because we pay tribute to the Americans, and they finance (lend) their car industry, to do well you need a lot of money, we gave them, they are doing well.
    6. Serg65
      Serg65 21 October 2021 12: 59
      0
      Quote: vladimir1155
      because we pay tribute to the Americans, and they finance (lend) their car industry, to do well you need a lot of money, we gave them, they are doing well.

      what What ward are you in ????
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 21 October 2021 09: 17
    0
    Quote: Serg65
    The laws??

    These are the laws established by God, the first law of thermodynamics (the law of conservation = ³¹ And God saw everything that He had created, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning: the sixth day. Genesis 1:31
    © Bible Online, 2003-2021.
    the second law of thermodynamics ⁵ And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not embrace it. John 1: 5
    © Bible Online, 2003-2021.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 14 October 2021 12: 16
    +2
    Nafanya, I asked for an answer, not a minus ... recourse
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 13 October 2021 19: 22
    -1
    And which islands of the Russian Federation is the author going to protect with aircraft carriers?

    Not islands, interests. Syria (it is clear what events), Libya, Qatar (the Russian ambassador was beaten), etc.
    3. What is the strategic task for the defense of the Russian Federation that cannot be solved due to the lack of aircraft carrier ships?

    Probably not only aircraft carriers, but the oceanic fleet in general, including auxiliary, landing ships. Is the war in Syria a strategic task?
    1. Nafanya from the sofa
      Nafanya from the sofa 13 October 2021 19: 30
      -1
      Dear! We are discussing specific theses of a specific article "Why does Russia need an aircraft carrier" by a specific author, and not the general military doctrine of the Russian Federation.
      I would speak about this article much shorter and more savory, but, unfortunately, the site rules do not allow this. Therefore, you have to write long and floridly.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 13 October 2021 19: 42
        0
        We are discussing specific theses of a specific article "Why does Russia need an aircraft carrier" by a specific author, and not the general military doctrine of the Russian Federation.

        Well, Syria is our "island", the main supply of the group goes through the sea.
        The question is not "Why ...", but "For what ...?", AUG is expensive.
        1. Nafanya from the sofa
          Nafanya from the sofa 13 October 2021 19: 45
          0
          Well, Syria is our "island", the main supply of the group goes through the sea.

          Are you proposing to use the aircraft carrier as a transport vessel?
          An aircraft carrier is an expensive floating airfield that requires heaps of escort ships for its protection.
          What tasks in Syria should be solved with the help of an aircraft carrier?
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 13 October 2021 19: 48
            +3
            Are you proposing to use the aircraft carrier as a transport vessel?

            No, I propose to use the aircraft carrier as part of the permanent grouping of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean to protect Russian ships and ships supplying Russian troops in Syria.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 21: 18
              -5
              Quote: strannik1985
              use an aircraft carrier as part of a permanent grouping of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean Sea

              on a barrel, huh? and you know that this sea is "Mediterranean" and is being shot from the shore
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 14 October 2021 10: 03
                +1
                Quote: vladimir1155
                the sea is "Mediterranean" and is shot from the shore

                By whom and with what? Admiral, you are mine, Nelson! laughing
              2. Serg65
                Serg65 14 October 2021 12: 23
                0
                Volodya, my soul, thank you, of course, for your assessment, but I am waiting for an answer to the question ..
                Quote: vladimir1155
                By whom and with what?
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 20: 27
                  0
                  coastal missiles and missiles from aircraft
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 15 October 2021 07: 47
                    0
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    coastal missiles

                    Where were they going to shoot them from?
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 15 October 2021 08: 49
                      0
                      Quote: Serg65
                      Where were they going to shoot them from?

                      from the territory of NATO member countries Turkey Greece Italy Spain and their allies, Libya Algeria Egypt
                    2. Serg65
                      Serg65 15 October 2021 09: 25
                      0
                      Greece, Spain, Italy disappear ... no long-range anti-ship missiles. Turkey is a question ... and a big question! Libya, Algeria, Egypt ... laughing do not fantasize!
                    3. The comment was deleted.
                    4. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 15 October 2021 11: 12
                    0
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Turkey is in doubt ... and a big question!

                    With this big question you are trying to conceal the fact of Turkey's membership in NATO, the fact of their interests in the Mediterranean and the fact of the revival of Pan-Turkic ideas even within the Russian Federation ...
                  3. Serg65
                    Serg65 15 October 2021 11: 34
                    0
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    you are trying to conceal the fact of turkey's membership in nato

                    The question is just about the future membership!
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 21: 05
    -5
    Quote: strannik1985
    Qatar (Russian ambassador beaten)

    yes, yes, if I am bypassed an ambassador or a tourist, then immediately av will "float" there, welcome to come ... and what's next, on airplanes along the lanes to catch the nasty beaters of the ambassador
  • 2 Level Advisor
    2 Level Advisor 13 October 2021 19: 48
    -3
    and another question to the author, we are giving a loan to Venezuela .. who are we? Rosneft? or gives the Russian Federation a loan at the risk of developing and withdrawing profits for Rosneft (and maybe 50 percent of them will be received by the Russian Federation .. probably .. then ..)? may be enough already to give out loans to Venezuela, and even under this to build aircraft carriers? not enough ourselves ...
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 14 October 2021 07: 41
      -3
      And you work and not balabolte and there will be enough money.
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 14 October 2021 08: 15
        -1
        Quote: Ryusey
        And you think that rudeness is the best comment, well, don't complain about the consequences.

        - and this you consider not rudeness, or are you different, can you? and this
        Quote: Ryusey
        And you work and not balabolte and there will be enough money.

        The best thing that Mosk gave after analyzing the comment? where do I and my personal income? Am I Russia, Rosneft or VVP? which of them do you think I am, so that I understand what to answer you?
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 14 October 2021 10: 06
          +1
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          which of them do you think I am

          In general, no one ... not even Russia yes
          1. 2 Level Advisor
            2 Level Advisor 14 October 2021 10: 31
            0
            well, thank God - a person according to you though wink because as a country to consider itself it is at least abnormal laughing
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 14 October 2021 10: 05
      +1
      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
      who are "we"? Rosneft?

      And Rosneft is not a state company, the income from which you personally use ???
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 14 October 2021 10: 54
        0
        Rosneft is partly state-owned .. besides, if we were interested in the company's financial performance and how it pays debts, and not just the fact that the Russian Federation has 51 percent of shares (and before 2005 it was 100%), it would be easier for us to dialogue .. I'll tell you briefly:
        1. Composition of Rosneft shareholders as of March 1, 2020:
        Rosneft's shareholders are state-owned Rosneftegaz (40,4%), BP Russian Investments Limited (19,75%), Qatari QH Oil Investments LLC (18,53%), another 9,6% are owned by RN-NeftKapitalInvest ", and 0,76% - LLC RN-Capital. to the budget of the Russian Federation even theoretically more than 40% will fail.
        2. The company's debts have been growing since its inception and now about "according to the IFRS report, as of June 30, reached 4,255 trillion rubles." But shareholders receive profit steadily ... but not all, the main shareholder is the most deprived ... except for RN, only one Brazilian company has more debts ..
        3. For the development and repayment of debts, money is constantly spent from the budget of the Russian Federation, not from other shareholders, namely the Russian Federation ... therefore, in the end, "they gave 5 rubles in debt - they took 7 rubles from the profit ..." the rest hangs in debt to the state .. read how much of the budget they support annually ..

        This is Sergei .. so maybe you are using Rosneft's income as a shareholder, but I’m not really .. I’m only mine ... and the contribution from the budget of the Russian Federation to Venezuela (already) is irrevocable .. I think it’s a bad idea .. I hope for reasoned answer ...
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 14 October 2021 12: 11
          +1
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          if you were interested in the company's financial performance and how it pays debts

          I will follow your advice ...
          So..
          Rosneft financial report for 2020 (not the best by the way!)
          Annual revenue 5 trillion. 575 billion rubles.
          Tax and customs duties 2 trillion. 4 billion rubles.
          Net profit 181 billion rubles
          Net profit margin 3,1%
          Charity 5,6 billion rubles.
          Deductions for social programs 28 billion rubles
          Total amount of accrued dividends 73 billion 600 million rubles
          Well, now ..
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          the budget of the Russian Federation, even theoretically, more than 40% will not fall

          To put it mildly, this is not true!
          Because ... Rosneftegaz (40,4%) + RN-NeftKapitalInvest (100% subsidiary of Rosneft) (9,6%) + the Russian Federation represented by the Federal Agency for State Property Management (1%) .. .and that 50,1% of the shares.
          73600000000 / 100x50,1% = 36 billion 873 million 600 thousand rubles, and we add taxes and customs duties here, we get income to the state budget in the output of 2 trillion 40 billion 873 million 600 thousand people. rubles!
          well, the highlight on the cake ...
          In 2020, Rosneft, using its own money, opened 250 observators for more than 21,5 thousand places, 322 isolators for 2,8 thousand places, and produced 3,2 thousand tons of ethyl alcohol for components of antiseptic agents.
          soldier The report is finished!
          https://www.rosneft.ru/Investors/statements_and_presentations/annual_reports/
          1. 2 Level Advisor
            2 Level Advisor 14 October 2021 16: 21
            0
            Well, here we are together and have depicted a picture, Sergei hi You talked about transfers to the budget of 2,41 trillion per year - taxes and duties (fact), I'm talking about debts of 4,25 trillion to the budget (fact).
            However, debts are extinguished not from the company's taxes, but from dividends (taxes are taken anyway), i.e. if dividends were paid, the debt was not repaid for this amount ..
            interestingly, the naglo-Saxons (BP) also got it pretty good - 1.2 trillion ...
            here's the picture .. but .. and taxes? any company will pay them in their place, even though Rusneft, even Britneft, etc., are we talking about revenues and profits? an entirely private NK will also pay the same taxes and fees in the same way -this is not an achievement, but a duty, in fact, this is how most of the world's companies operate .. my question is more about profit from the outside - a 51% shareholder ... as a shareholder investing money in a company, and not just receiving taxes, which in any case must be paid ...
            the company already has a debt to this shareholder (RF) of 4,25 trillion, and ALL dividends (and foreigners too) 73,6 billion a year. repaying a loan to a shareholder with these dividends - at such a rate - 57 years ... this is not paying dividends to anyone AT ALL - is this a normal situation?
            and by the way - the debt was in 2005 (when the state company Rosneft was with 100% of the state's shares) - 0 (zero) rubles. those. which company turns out more efficiently - which was or is now producing which - after 15 years? it turns out - profit to shareholders, and costs on credit (possibly returnable, but not yet very) ... and at the same time - to invest in them in "Africa and Venezuela" with great risks, in such cases or what? this is only if you treat money as strangers that you manage .. by the way, for 4, 25 trillion of Rosneft's debt, how much and what can you build? yes, a whole fleet can be ... just enough for a few aircraft carriers ... total .. where is Zin's money? and at the same time - still to tumble into them .. so-so idea .. I'm talking about this, Sergei hi
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 15 October 2021 09: 20
              0
              Приветствуем! hi
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              debts of 4,25 trillion to the budget

              Let's be honest and say that this is a debt to creditors and to Rosneft's creditors, the state is far from the only entity! Moreover, you have data for 2018.
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              an entirely private NK, too, will pay the same taxes and fees in the same way absolutely - this is not an achievement, but a duty,

              what You somehow missed it ..
              Quote: Serg65
              73600000000 / 100x50,1% = 36 billion 873 million 600 thousand rubles

              This is the net income of the state on shares, not counting taxes, which the private company pays as a whole, but the private company does not share its profits with the state ... right?
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              the company has a debt to this shareholder (RF) 4,25 trillion

              Let's clarify again ... not to shareholders, but to creditors ... this is the first thing! Secondly....
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              for 4, 25 trillion of Rosneft debt, how much and what to build? yes, you can have a whole fleet ... just enough for several aircraft carriers

              The state needs to earn this money in order to spend money on the development of industry, on the development of social infrastructures. So the state earns on interest from long-term loans ... you must agree, it is much more profitable for the state to invest in Rosneft than to earn on interest from the money invested in American debt!
              Well, as for short-term loans, then ..
              Having decreased by almost a third in the first half of the year, the value of the net debt / EBITDA ratio in dollar terms amounted to 1,7x. The high level of financial stability is supported by the preservation of a low share of the short-term part of the financial debt: for the reporting quarter, the indicator remained at the level of 14%. At the end of the reporting period, the volume of liquid financial assets, taking into account available credit lines, is maintained at a multiple of the short-term portion of financial debt

              In the first half of 2021, the amount of debt on short-term loans decreased by 5,9 billion US dollars! Moreover, back in 2019, Rosneft reduced its long-term debt by 563 billion rubles!
              Now let's look at the history of the formation of this debt. Those. Why did Rosneft need this money? In 2009, on behalf of the President, Rosneft begins construction of the Zvezda OSK. In 2019, Rosneft begins the implementation of the Vostok Oil project, and this, in addition to drilling rigs, a new port near Dikson, all kinds of infield pipelines with a total length of 8 thousand km, 3,5 thousand km of power grid facilities, 2 thousand MW of power generation, two airfield, 15 townships for 100 thousand workers and employees. In 2020, Rosneft began design work for the construction of a metallurgical cluster in Bolshoy Kamen. This year Rosneft resumes work on the creation of a petrochemical cluster in Nakhodka. Well, Zin, part of the debt in these and similar projects!
              1. 2 Level Advisor
                2 Level Advisor 15 October 2021 13: 47
                0
                Welcome hi
                Quote: Serg65
                Let's be honest and say that this is a debt to creditors and to Rosneft's creditors, the state is far from the only entity! Moreover, you have data for 2018.

                Honestly, I did not find others except for the budget .. not counting prepayments for future supplies ..
                Quote: Serg65
                This is the net income of the state on shares, not counting taxes, which the private company pays as a whole, but the private company does not share its profits with the state ... right?

                I understood this, I mean that in order to receive these 36 billion a year, it turns out that 4,25 trillion has been invested - i.e. 118 times 36 .. payback in 118 years is not very good, to put it mildly ..

                Quote: Serg65
                The state needs to earn this money in order to spend money on the development of industry, on the development of social infrastructures. So the state earns on interest from long-term loans ... you must agree, it is much more profitable for the state to invest in Rosneft than to earn on interest from the money invested in American debt!

                and they would not have invested anything in private, but they would have received taxes and simply invested the same money 118 times in other projects ... and mind you, this is only to return, without plus and interest .. just a refund ... that is. these something unprofitable 36 billion come out as a margin on such investments ... what kind of earnings is it - to lend for 118 years without interest ...

                Quote: Serg65
                In the first half of 2021, the amount of debt on short-term loans decreased by 5,9 billion US dollars! Moreover, back in 2019, Rosneft reduced its long-term debt by 563 billion rubles!


                Development is definitely good! just put everything in one currency: decreased by $ 5,9 billion and long-term ones decreased by $ 8 billion .. understand, this is all good that is given .. but these are drops in comparison with the debt to everyone to the Russian Federation ..

                I don't seem to argue that RN is super-profitable straight .. I'm not talking about that a little ...
                There are many oil companies around the world .. which of them has such a purse as the country's budget? and so does it? Look - the same BP as shareholders received 1,2 trillion in profits from Rosneft ... and what is the debt of RN to them? almost no ... this is a profitable approach and profit ...
                another shareholder (RF): for development - on your RN, for help - on, something else - on ... as a result, with a profit of 118 years, just give the money taken away? and this is good? it's good with BP .. just give me almost half of the dividends that the budget of the Russian Federation after so many investments will be and that's it ..

                The growing infrastructure is good .. But understand, we give it all the money, but we have half back at best! this is wrong .. why not create a company with 100 state participation and pump it over? and do not care even for centenary returns, we will still have (although the return on investment in a hundred years is still not normal) .. so are foreigners dear to us? Why does a half-foreign company have support as a native? She is, roughly speaking, dear, only half, and she also drags half of all the money out of the house to the side ..
                That Rosneft-2 (from 100%) would be worse off selling oil? I doubt very much, with full government support, then ...
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 15 October 2021 14: 37
                  0
                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  But understand

                  laughing I understand .. but you also understand, given the situation after 2008, the presence of foreign shareholders is a necessity for the company to operate abroad.
                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  these are drops in comparison with the debt to everyone to the Russian Federation ..

                  Have you ever taken out a bank loan? Or ... did you make a long-term deposit in the bank? So these are the same operations!
                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  why not create a company with 100 state participation and pump it over?

                  Yes, it is quite possible, only this company will be closed access to the world market!
                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  To get these 36 billion a year, it turns out they invested 4,25 trillion - i.e. 118 times 36 .. payback in 118 years is not very good, to put it mildly ..

                  How strange you think .... here's 4.25 trillion ... tomorrow 5 trillion. return!
                  And secondly, how can you calculate the annual future profit for one year, provided that the projects in which the money is invested will start working in 5 years ..... tell me, what profit will Rosneft have in 10 years ???
                  Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                  BP in shareholders - received 1,2 trillion in profits

                  Nikolay, how did it happen that the Russian Federation, having 51%, received a profit on shares of 37 billion rubles, and BP, having 20%, received 32 times more profit ??? And besides, here we do not take into account the hidden profit from the activities of the RN in the form of charity (pays for the state), the maintenance of social programs (pays for the state), orders for equipment, pipes and other consumables (the work of many factories in the state + their taxes from the work for the launch vehicle), etc. and so on .. By the way, agree USC Zvezda and the metallurgical cluster with her RN (as a company) like a dog's fifth leg ..... it's cheaper to order from Koreans!
                  1. 2 Level Advisor
                    2 Level Advisor 15 October 2021 16: 22
                    0
                    Quote: Serg65
                    I understand .. but you also understand, given the situation after 2008, the presence of foreign shareholders is a necessity for the company to operate abroad.


                    You are right in many ways, Sergei! especially in terms of the fact that today we pay 40% of profits for access to sales markets .. such a good percentage .. once again proves the power over economic flows in the world of the Anglo-Saxons ... although .. how then did the USSR sell from state-owned enterprises? on the other hand, we are not the USSR, unfortunately ... and in 2008 we were "friends" with them - this began after 2012 ... and RN was organized back in 2005 and began to be sold to foreigners - which is somehow strange ...

                    Quote: Serg65
                    Have you ever taken out a bank loan? Or ... did you make a long-term deposit in the bank? So these are the same operations!

                    So they take interest-free loans in dollars, and return them in rubles ... the bank will not give this ..

                    Quote: Serg65
                    tell me, what profit will Rosneft have in 10 years ???

                    one of which foreigners will still receive half, with investments at the expense of the Russian Federation laughing

                    Quote: Serg65
                    Nikolay, how did it happen that the Russian Federation, having 51%, received a profit on shares of 37 billion rubles, and BP, having 20%, received 32 times more profit ???

                    I apologize, my defect .. I wrote them profit in rubles hi

                    Quote: Serg65
                    hidden profit from the activities of the RN in the form of charity (pays for the state), the maintenance of social programs (pays for the state)

                    this may not be taken into account, the office will be exempt from taxes for these amounts - the old system is worldwide ...

                    Quote: Serg65
                    orders for equipment, pipes and other consumables (the work of many factories in the state + their taxes from the work done for the PH), etc. and so on .. By the way, agree USC Zvezda and the metallurgical cluster with her RN (as a company) like a dog's fifth leg ..... it's cheaper to order from Koreans!


                    Here I agree entirely, Sergei! I didn’t say that they are absolutely useless .. although I’m thinking directly about the "fifth leg" you got excited - they still benefit from their work for RN ..
                    Of course, there are many benefits in different areas, it could have been much more with 100% of the state .. it's just a shame that we give 40% of the resources to these bloodsuckers ... as some kind of tribute ... Actually, that's the essence of my dissatisfaction with the work of the RN ..
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 17 October 2021 07: 59
                      -1
                      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                      But how then did the USSR sell from state-owned enterprises?

                      laughing Under the guarantees of an honorary citizen of the USSR, Comrade Danila Rockefeller, a personal friend of Comrade Brezhnev and the son of a personal friend of Comrade Stalin, Yevgeny Rockefeller !!!
                      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                      in 2008 we were "friends" with them

                      Well, my friend, it all started in Munich 2007, and after August 2008 it began to gain momentum!
                      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                      and RN was organized back in 2005

                      In 1995 .... organized ..
                      In 2006, RN shares were first listed on the London Stock Exchange ... and this does not mean at all that it began to be sold to foreigners. wink
                      Quote: Level 2 Advisor
                      it's just a shame that we give 40% of the resources to these bloodsuckers.

                      It was given under the Tsar, Father, and under the great Stalin, and under the good Brezhnev, and under Putin ... without the participation of foreign shareholders, Russian oil will not be allowed to the west ... !
                      hi
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 20: 43
    -1
    Quote: Nafanya from the couch
    What strategic task for the defense of the Russian Federation cannot be solved due to the lack of aircraft carrier ships?
    If possible, then specifically

    with your too practical questions, you disperse the rainbow dreams of pink ponies from the totalitarian destructive sect of aircraft carrier witnesses ... they will now resist a herd of sheep and begin to accuse you of all sins, for the truth will destroy their blue dream about spaceships plowing the ocean seas of the Bolshoi Ballet Theater
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 14 October 2021 07: 43
      0
      And you think that rudeness is the best comment, well, don't complain about the consequences.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 13 October 2021 18: 24
    -4
    Even if they are needed, who will build them, where and when, how much time and money will be required, is it more interesting to me?
    1. t-12
      t-12 13 October 2021 18: 36
      -2
      Small aircraft carriers (such as the Italian "Garibaldi") can be built in St. Petersburg or Kerch. During World War II, aircraft carriers were built in a year (in the USA, Japan). Now the world, you cannot shoot for sabotage, which means that in a couple of years we must cope.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 08: 16
        -3
        Quote: t-12
        should do it in a couple of years

        and why then the MRK is being built for 5 years? Are you a shipbuilder and understand all the technologies? Do you know how much a welder gets at the Admiralty shipyards? and I know, he gets it well ... no one will go into a huge barrel to cook for nothing, but then he will get a job in Zhek to cut your rent
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 14 October 2021 10: 07
          +1
          Quote: vladimir1155
          and why then the MRK is being built for 5 years?

          And really ... why ???
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 14 October 2021 16: 26
            +2
            Quote: Serg65
            And really ... why ???

            Duc, this is ... an Englishwoman crap!
            Here comes this Englishwoman to the director of one plant - and begins to whisper to him "make money, make money now, spit on the modernization of production and personnel - these are expenses, just sign a state contract for a diesel engine, and then you will somehow get rid of it when they start asking about the timing". Well, our directors are suggestible and credulous people, and they succumb to the insidious Anglo-Saxon whisper.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 15 October 2021 09: 31
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Englishwoman crap!

              hi Englishwoman, she is! The trouble is that this Englishwoman is whispering in the ears of some VO commentators!
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 14 October 2021 07: 46
      0
      It's simple, they condemn you for anti-state grunting, they plant you and you will dig a foundation pit for food - quite realistic and economical :)
  • SaLaR
    SaLaR 13 October 2021 18: 24
    -1
    Q.E.D... good
  • Alex 1970
    Alex 1970 13 October 2021 18: 29
    +4
    How much can you do the same thing under different sauces?
  • Xlor
    Xlor 13 October 2021 18: 40
    +1
    It is better to build a couple of nuclear submarines with this money. There will be more sense ...
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 13 October 2021 18: 49
    +4
    Throwing feces on the fan! lol
    We open the Wiki (and this pedia is mostly based on links to official data) and read about the purpose of aircraft carriers in the USSR
    The main tasks of the aircraft carrier ships of the USSR differed significantly from the aircraft carrier orders of the United States [10] [19]:

    ensuring the security of strategic nuclear missile submarines in combat patrol areas;
    air defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
    Search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
    detection, guidance and destruction of enemy surface forces;
    ensuring the landing of naval landing.

    As you can see, in the first place is the provision of SSBN actions. here only the last point can be decoupled from interaction with the nuclear submarine.
    Read on
    Most of the ships of Project 1143 did not have a full-fledged take-off deck for aircraft, but, like the Admiral Kuznetsov, carried a very large number of Ka-27PL anti-submarine helicopters. In fact, the ships of the project 1143 were, by their main purpose, heavy anti-submarine helicopter carriers, which covered the positional deployment area of ​​the ARPKSN to strike the US territory from possible attacks from the US Navy's Los Angeles-class submarine

    Key moment! Now let's see where the terms of reference for the design of a full-fledged aircraft carrier came from.
    However, the narrow specialization of Project 1143 ships as helicopter carriers did not allow effective cover of their nuclear submarines from Lockheed P-3 Orion anti-submarine aircraft with their escort from NATO fighters: the Yak-38 vertical takeoff aircraft did not even have their own radar station (radar). The Yak-38's ability to operate anti-ship missiles in the air defense zone of large ships seemed ineffective. Therefore, it took the development of the project towards its own full-fledged fighter aircraft, capable of conducting long-range missile attacks and having its own developed radars, MiG-29K and Su-33.

    SHOW!
    Aircraft carriers (in particular "Kuznetsov" himself) are tied to support the SSBN patrol area. ALL!!!! The rest is all bullshit, fairy tales, pulling an owl on a globe. Already how many "analysts" foaming at the mouth are proving the need or uselessness of aircraft carriers for Russia fool Guys, without a full chain of support for the deployment of SSBNs in Akiyan, all the tales about the invisibility of the strategists are fairy tales! If the "partners" have an advantage in the MAPL, the strategists will be tracked down and targeted as soon as they are released by coastal helicopters and PLO ships. Kindergarten about various expeditions to other parts of the world, about the countermeasures of AUG partners, etc. I do not consider as key. Everything will expire and obey the main purpose and it is necessary to consider the need for an aircraft carrier only in conjunction with SSBNs. hi
    1. nov_tech.vrn
      nov_tech.vrn 13 October 2021 18: 56
      -2
      I tried more than once to edit articles on Wikipedia, never succeeded, no matter what nonsense was written.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 13 October 2021 19: 20
        +1
        And here, for verification, links to sources are given. Therefore, information on THIS topic can be trusted, the more it is verified wink
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 08: 42
          -2
          Quote: Rurikovich
          information on THIS topic can be trusted, the more it is verified

          Holy simplicity! all topics on the wiki are moderated, and not by random people, but by the CIA, according to a certain plan for processing your consciousness, as I see you have already been processed, and you don't even know about it, because you believe the wiki ... no one would finance the wiki without a plan to extract from it practical use for yourself
    2. Artyom Karagodin
      Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 19: 54
      +1
      Bravo! Covering SSBNs is really task # 1. Everything else is an annex to it. Essential, but only an application. Therefore, even the atomic AB - "Ulyanovsk", alas, unfinished ", was designed for air defense tasks. So that it was possible to completely sweep out all NATO anti-submarine forces, starting from the Orions, continuing with surface ships and ending with the enemy's submarine. and the Navy is needed today.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 13 October 2021 20: 02
        +4
        Quote: Artyom Karagodin
        Covering SSBNs is really task number 1

        I've been talking about this for a long time request And people in the subject also know and understand this. And in the USSR they knew and understood this, therefore they designed and built aircraft carriers.
        But now we like to suck the global problem out of the finger, turn everything upside down, substitute concepts. As a result, even on the pages of VO, such a blizzard rushes that you no longer understand whether the author is kidding or in all seriousness is wishful thinking ... request
        1. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin 13 October 2021 22: 12
          +2
          It's nice to talk with an adequate person, and not with some 1155 ... hi
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 14 October 2021 06: 15
            +3
            Quote: Artyom Karagodin
            Nice to talk

            Thank you hi drinks
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 14 October 2021 08: 46
            -5
            Quote: Artyom Karagodin
            Nice to talk

            a sectarian of a sectarian sees from afar, well, so they talked .... though into the abyss of blind ignorance, but in a crowd .... He also told them a parable: can a blind man lead a blind man? will not both fall into the pit?
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 October 2021 16: 31
          +1
          Quote: Rurikovich
          But now they like to suck the global problem out of their fingers, turn everything upside down, and substitute concepts.

          So this is the classic of polemics - Imago.
          Imago (here: substitution - lat.) - the sixth method.

          It consists in the fact that the reader is slipped some unimaginable scarecrow that has nothing to do with the real enemy, after which this fictional enemy is destroyed.

          For example, thoughts are refuted that the adversary never entered into his head and which he, naturally, never expressed; he is shown that he is a fool and deeply mistaken, citing really stupid and erroneous theses as examples.
          © K.Chapek
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 21: 14
      -5
      Quote: Rurikovich
      SSBN in Akiyan all the tales about the invisibility of the strategists of the tale! If the "partners" have an advantage in the MAPL, the strategists will be tracked down and targeted as soon as they are released by coastal helicopters and PLO ships.

      ah ah of course your nuclear submarine is visible to everyone, but your pink AB will not be noticed? and why do you show your complete incompetence after reading Timokhin? Do you seriously think that PLO helicopters and PLO ships or your pink AV "accompany" the strategist, well, exactly then the enemy will find him when he sees your AV, then surely the cover ... 1000 km is a lot, and even the United States is not able to keep watch over this entire perimeter, taking into account the depth of the ocean and the weakness of the small distances of the anti-aircraft defense systems, the perimeter turns out to be 3000 km ... note those 1000 is deep in the shoulder of coastal aviation, which means that AB is not needed
    4. Serg65
      Serg65 14 October 2021 10: 10
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      we read about the purpose of aircraft carriers in the USSR

      This is a forbidden trick! WADA on you is not present !!!
      Hello Nikolaich !!! hi
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 14 October 2021 13: 38
        +2
        Be good drinks hi
  • hostel
    hostel 13 October 2021 19: 03
    +3
    The beauty of the aircraft carrier is that it can carry AWACS aircraft. Such aircraft, First, provide situational awareness by both active means and passive ones. Secondly, they make it possible to keep a fighter regiment at a great distance from the coast, which reduces the reaction time of aviation. Thirdly, in the area of ​​the aircraft carrier's deployment, the flight of enemy PLO, EW, RER, stratotankers is terminated. And in return there is an opportunity to deploy its own similar aircraft. Fourth, it allows you to deploy additional KUG squads with the aim of PLO. Fifth, all of the above set moves the deployment lines of foreign fleets from the defended coast. Sixth, the presence of AWACS aircraft allows for over-the-horizon guidance of both aviation and anti-ship missiles.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 13 October 2021 19: 31
      +1
      Quote: alberigo
      The beauty of the aircraft carrier is that it can carry AWACS aircraft.

      Do we have such planes?
      Quote: alberigo
      Such aircraft ... allow you to keep a fighter regiment at a great distance from the coast, which reduces the reaction time of aviation.

      Is it possible to disclose the topic of IAP at a great distance?
  • Basarev
    Basarev 13 October 2021 19: 13
    +7
    Perhaps the highest priority for aircraft carriers is to advance the economic and political interests of the Russian Federation in remote regions of the world.

    Wouldn't it be better for a start to promote the political and economic interests of the Russian Federation within the Russian Federation?
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 13 October 2021 19: 28
    +3
    Could the author "explain" for the Kh-59MK2 missile?
    Why did the author even drag it here, indicating an invented range
    application of 400 km instead of the actual 285 km? I say bluntly - I do not
    I understood why the author suddenly decided to talk about this rocket, which
    works only for known stationary targets, and simply
    physically unable to fly 1000 km?
    Please open my eyes to the unknown possibilities of using the Kh-59MK2.
    1. Shopping Mall
      13 October 2021 20: 44
      0
      Quote: Bez 310
      Could the author "explain" for the Kh-59MK2 missile?
      Why did the author even drag it here, indicating an invented range
      application of 400 km instead of the actual 285 km? I say bluntly - I do not
      I understood why the author suddenly decided to talk about this rocket, which
      works only for known stationary targets, and simply
      physically unable to fly 1000 km?
      Please open my eyes to the unknown possibilities of using the Kh-59MK2.


      285 km range of the export version. According to data from open sources There are two versions of the Kh-59MK2 - 400 km and 1000 km. Since the data is not confirmed, it is written:

      According to some reports, a range of about 1 kilometers will have one of the options for the upgraded Kh-000MK59 missile, but this information has not yet been confirmed, most sources indicate a range of the Kh-2MK59 of about 2 kilometers.


      The weight and size characteristics of the JASSM and the Kh-59MK2 are comparable, which makes it possible to consider this option. By the way, about the "Caliber" for 10-15 years they said that the range of missiles from its composition is 280 km.

      The Kh-59MK2 missile is mentioned in the context of the aircraft carrier's air wing solution of the tasks of striking deep into the enemy's territory without direct contact with its fighter aircraft and air defense.

      As for the work on stationary targets, as I understand it, did you mean that I consider the Kh-59MK2 as an anti-ship missile? No, it is not, only in the context that I indicated above. But you can remember that the same LRASM is made from JASSM. So, potentially, the Kh-59MK2 can also be turned into an anti-ship missile - a question of the GOS.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 13 October 2021 20: 51
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        the range of the Kh-59MK2 is about 400 kilometers

        I doubt it ...
        And I have not seen such data. Perhaps I looked in the wrong place ...
  • Aurel
    Aurel 13 October 2021 19: 33
    -9
    Large aircraft carriers can only be afforded by wealthy and high-tech nations. Russia is not among them.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 13 October 2021 19: 38
    +2
    this is the Falklands Conflict between Great Britain and the United States.

    Author! Wake up! am
    You cannot go so deeply into prostration: the United States has never been Argentina, not even in 1982. laughing
    1. PPD
      PPD 13 October 2021 21: 45
      +1
      Well, you can dream ... lol
  • Alexander Koshkin
    Alexander Koshkin 13 October 2021 19: 42
    0
    Aircraft carrier without aircraft airfetish! We cannot launch the Su-57 into production, but what should we equip the aircraft carriers with? Aircraft of the fifth generation before 2027 will not be in tangible quantities! For an aircraft carrier you need your own, fifth generation and with a vertical landing! Everything else loses the F-35
    with a score of 1: 15! Nothing, at least somehow similar, is not even in the sketches!
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 13 October 2021 19: 44
    -1
    Imagine a situation when a similar problem (the 1982 war for the Falklands - Boa constrictor) arose in our country.
    The author, do not tell me: where are our overseas territories? Personally, I haven’t met anything like that. Alaska has been sold, Cuba is not asking for help yet ... So, no need to fantasize about overseas expeditions.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 13 October 2021 19: 46
      +1
      So, no need to fantasize about overseas expeditions.

      In the sense? The permanent group of the Russian Navy has been deployed since 2013, the supply of the Russian group in Syria goes by sea.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 13 October 2021 21: 17
        -3
        Quote: strannik1985
        The permanent group of the Russian Navy has been deployed since 2013

        are you talking about a couple of MRK and a minesweeper, right?
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 13 October 2021 23: 07
          +2
          In September this year, 5 "Varshavyanka". Do you think they need to be protected from anti-submarine aircraft?
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 13 October 2021 19: 57
    +1
    crying why! again! why ?! well enough already
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 13 October 2021 22: 55
    0
    In fact - in five years from the Kerch shipyard "Zaliv" UDC-helicopter carriers will fly out. Five years of their operation both in terms of functions, tactics, strategy, and cost of operation. Today's practice will give answers to many questions.

    And then, scratching the back of their heads, the General Staff of the Navy and say, do the Russian Navy need large aircraft carriers? hi
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 15 October 2021 10: 42
      0
      a phased approach is needed - first the UDC, then the PLO cruiser based on the UDC, then the UDC-aircraft carriers with VTOL aircraft, and there, having filled your hand, you can start riveting like pies and aircraft carriers in the classic form if they are needed
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 13 October 2021 23: 26
    -1
    On the one hand - not tired? There are no aircraft carriers anyway.

    On the other hand, everything seems to be correct. Aircraft carriers are clear, they are needed, but there is still no money, no money, no security.
    Therefore, their advantages still cannot be used, it is necessary to neutralize their advantages in the wrong hands.
    What?
    There is no money and capacity for mass aviation either, so .... missiles. Cheaper, more massive, Made, delivered, and forgot (before use). It does not require pilots, it doesn’t need a flight for thousands of bucks an hour.
    Another question is how effective, Example - Missiles and air defense systems in Syria. But if it happens when there is a direct confrontation, and in which case there will be no time for the responsible ...
  • alexey alexeyev_2
    alexey alexeyev_2 14 October 2021 01: 34
    -3
    Eck as the author swung. Give him aircraft carriers ... Wagner PMCs can also protect the interests of the country over the hill. Cheap and effective. Proven In Syria, Africa. In Venezuela. Thank God that the frogs threw us with the helicopter carriers. It is not enough that they would have devoured not sickly money for the creation of the necessary infrastructure would also divert half of the fleet to their protection. This is not our way .. Even the Americans do not know what to do with them now.
  • geologist
    geologist 14 October 2021 08: 08
    -5
    We don't need them. It is the Americans who are far away, and we live on the continent where most of the world's population is concentrated. This is for them, in order to steer in Eurasia, they need to maintain a fleet with floating islands, numerous bases, print greenery. The color of the nation, the selective gene pool floats in iron boxes and lounges in bases like ancient Rome. On the other hand, you can walk to the city of Paris or tell Beijing what we did in the past. In the end, from a geological point of view, Japan is part of the continent because the Triassic-Jurassic complex corresponds to similar rocks of the craton. The coastal (lateral) fleet is enough for us, where the aircraft carriers are simply a burden.
  • askovvladimir70vladimir
    askovvladimir70vladimir 14 October 2021 08: 46
    0
    We need to build 3-4 clean aircraft carriers with nuclear power plants with a displacement of up to 80 thousand tons - two each for the Northern and Pacific fleets to cover the deployment of nuclear submarines, primarily on the Iceland-Norway line. and Chukotka - Hokkaido. In the second half of the century, to work out projects and start building aircraft carriers and landing heavy ekranoplanes capable of working out combat missions in any water area of ​​the world for a maximum of 48 hours, in order to be able to both demonstrative and real threats to any potential enemy.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 19 October 2021 08: 04
      0
      Approximately from the category of 50 thousand light tanks of Tukhachevsky. By the way, I will not be surprised if they begin to repress for the proposals of ekranoplanes, under the article sabotage.
  • SU3555
    SU3555 14 October 2021 10: 06
    -2
    Well, if we ourselves cannot build an aircraft carrier, then what is the problem with ordering a construction in China?
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • 123456789
    123456789 14 October 2021 11: 14
    -1

    Nuclear explosion at sea. The affected area is 400 sq. km. The entire AUG will be destroyed by one warhead soldier
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 October 2021 16: 42
      +2
      Quote: 123456789
      Nuclear explosion at sea. The affected area is 400 sq. km.

      What horrors. But in fact it is a circle with a radius of 11,3 km. From which AUG will come out in 20 minutes.
  • iouris
    iouris 14 October 2021 13: 04
    -1
    Do you need a base for basing an aircraft carrier? Where is the shipyard: in China or in Turkey?
  • teptyar
    teptyar 14 October 2021 13: 38
    0
    We don't need an aircraft carrier! We'll throw hats on the members of the forum! Usually there are shapkozakidatelskie moods))))) good
  • Sergey Kulikov_3
    Sergey Kulikov_3 14 October 2021 18: 38
    0
    And you can ask fans of Russian AUGs, where these AUGs can be placed in the event of a war with NATO? Sevastopol, Novorossiysk, Petersburg, Murmansk, Nakhodka, Vladivostok? All of them do not have direct access to the ocean, so there is no need to build "submarines in the steppes of Ukraine."
  • kvs45
    kvs45 14 October 2021 21: 37
    0
    Russia needs an aircraft carrier with a church instead of an island, so that it would anathematize enemies and impose penance.
    1. Aleksey80
      Aleksey80 15 October 2021 13: 12
      0
      On the nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great there is already a marching church in the name of the holy foremost apostles Peter and Paul.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 15 October 2021 14: 57
    0
    Quote: bayard
    Therefore, the new frigates by the designated moment will be:
    - min. 10 + 3 + 2 (22350M) = 15 pcs.
    - swing. 10 + 3 + 2 (22350.1) + 2 (22350M) = 17 pcs.
    This is all according to existing and approved plans.

    you are an optimist young man, this is natural for youth and lack of experience, and even good, I envy you, but experience shows that plans always shift to the right and significantly, and the series announced are never fulfilled ... otherwise we would have had dozens of frigates of airplanes and other
  • Diverter
    Diverter 15 October 2021 23: 02
    0
    sho! again?!
  • Alexey Kurilov_4
    Alexey Kurilov_4 16 October 2021 13: 45
    0
    for this there are military academies where specialists are trained. So they have to decide this. It is they, and not commentators with a culinary college diploma, at best
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 19 October 2021 08: 01
    0
    A good example of how difficult it is to resist even weak countries far from their territory is the Falklands conflict between Great Britain and Argentina.


    In general, this is called the primacy of purely military considerations over political ones, and in practice it does not lead to anything except war for the sake of war, with all the attendant consequences, up to military defeats on a seemingly level place.
  • ÖselViking
    ÖselViking 19 October 2021 17: 16
    0
    Each of the two "high seas" fleets must have at least 2 aircraft carriers. In the north 2 and in the quiet 2, then the game is worth it
  • IC
    IC 20 October 2021 04: 59
    +1
    The impression is that the author and most commentators do not know the real economic, financial situation in the country and the state of shipbuilding. They do not know that the economy has been stagnating since 2013, with a high level of poverty, poverty-stricken pensions and low life expectancy of the population. The population declines by half a million per year. Underfunded healthcare and education.
  • Glagol1
    Glagol1 20 October 2021 16: 03
    0
    Build frigates and multipurpose submarines, plus naval aviation. This will ensure the stability of the strategic forces, otherwise it is not necessary. If SSBNs are protected, no one will climb.
    Aircraft carriers are weapons of the 20th century. At 21 they will die off, tk. hitting such a target with a rocket is real. Even one missile will take it out of the battle, you don't have to drown it. Airplanes will simply stop taking off.
    1. Aleksey80
      Aleksey80 23 October 2021 11: 11
      0
      Build frigates and multipurpose submarines, plus naval aviation. This will ensure the stability of the strategic forces, otherwise it is not necessary. If SSBNs are protected, no one will climb.
      Aircraft carriers are weapons of the 20th century. At 21 they will die off, tk. hitting such a target with a rocket is real. Even one missile will take it out of the battle, you don't have to drown it. Airplanes will simply stop taking off.

      Now our missile armament is so developed that it is possible to intercept all missiles fired at any ship, including an aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier has several lines of defense, it is practically impossible for the enemy to break through such a defense.
      You cannot build aircraft carriers for those countries that have poorly developed missile weapons, but this is not about our country.
      In addition, the aircraft carrier will have an Orthodox Church, which will be consecrated by the Patriarch.
      This is the kind of protection that the Americans never dreamed of.