Carrier bestiary

In a previous article Why does Russia need an aircraft carrier we examined the tasks of a hypothetical Russian aircraft carrier. Let's now see what kind of aircraft carriers are sailing in our time the seas and oceans.

USA

The leading world aircraft carrier power, without a doubt, is the United States - nuclear supercarriers of the Nimitz class ("Nimitz") with a displacement of over 100 tons and coming to replace them even more "super" - aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford class ("Gerald R. Ford") do not have direct competitors in other countries of the world.

And there are as many as eleven such monsters in the United States. Each of the supercarriers carries an air group of about 100 aircraft and helicopters, including early warning aircraft (AWACS).

The biggest drawback of these ships is their price - if the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers cost about $ 5 billion, then the cost of their "heirs" - the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, is already about $ 10 billion (and according to some sources, all $ 14 billion ), which is extremely expensive even for the United States, and even taking into account inflation.

Aircraft take off from supercarriers is carried out using steam / electromagnetic catapults, their maximum speed is over 30 knots.

Aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford. Photo wikipedia.org

Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Photo wikipedia.org

It is characteristic that, in addition to a dozen supercarriers, the United States also has a dozen universal amphibious assault ships (UDC) of the Wasp (Wasp) and America (America) class. In fact, these UDCs can play the role of full-fledged aircraft carriers, provided that they are based on the F-35B vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL).

The America-class UDC can accommodate 22 F-35B VTOL aircraft. The cost of the America-class UDC is about $ 2,5 billion. Also, helicopters and convertiplanes can be based on the Wasp and America class UDC. The maximum speed of the America-class UDC is over 22 knots.

UDC America (LHA-6). Photo wikipedia.org

It should be noted that such a direction of aircraft construction as convertiplanes is actively developing in the United States. Potentially tiltrotors can perform not only transport functions, but also solve the tasks of AWACS aircraft / helicopters, tankers, etc.

China

China is followed by the PRC - for now even more on paper, but there is no doubt that China will achieve its goals with a high probability.

At the moment, in fact, China has one aircraft carrier "Liaoning" with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons, made on the basis of an unfinished heavy aircraft carrier (TAVKR) of project 1143.5. Its air group is up to 40 aircraft and helicopters.

In addition to it, the second ship of the modernized project is being built - "Shandong", completely built in China. The takeoff of aircraft from the aircraft carriers "Liaoning" and "Shandong" is carried out using a springboard.

It is possible that the series of aircraft carriers of this type will be continued, especially if problems arise with a promising nuclear aircraft carrier project.

Chinese aircraft carriers Liaoning (left) and Shandong (right). Photo wikipedia.org

Information on the promising Chinese nuclear aircraft carrier is still different.

According to some reports, this will be the reincarnation of the Soviet project of the nuclear-powered heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of Project 1143.7 "Ulyanovsk".

According to other sources, the newest Chinese supercarrier will be comparable in tactical and technical characteristics with the American aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford class.

The truth, most likely, is approximately in the middle - to make an analogue of "Gerald R. Ford" of the PRC is clearly beyond the power of China, but to put together something in between the Soviet project and "found" American technologies is quite realistic for China.

It can be assumed that the air group of a promising Chinese nuclear aircraft carrier will be about 70 aircraft. The aircraft will take off using a catapult.

An AWACS aircraft is being developed for the nuclear aircraft carrier.

The maximum speed of Chinese aircraft carriers is over 30 knots.

Possible appearance of a promising Chinese nuclear aircraft carrier

UK and EU countries

Following China are Great Britain and France.

Actually, both British and French aircraft carriers are technologically superior to the existing Chinese ones, but this situation is likely to change in the near future. Even if the PRC faces difficulties in building a nuclear aircraft carrier, their shipbuilding industry is quite capable of replicating the Liaoning / Shandong in a series of a dozen or more.

The French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, worth $ 3,3 billion, with a total displacement of 42 tons, carries an air group of 000 aircraft, including Rafale generation 40+ fighters and AWACS aircraft. Aircraft take off with the help of steam catapults, made under an American license.

The maximum speed of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is 27 knots. The French aircraft carrier in the process of operation constantly faced problems, which, combined with the high cost, led to the fact that the construction of the second ship of this project was canceled.

Nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. Photo wikipedia.org

British aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class are newer and larger than the French - their total displacement is 76 tons.

In this case, the power plant "Queen Elizabeth" is not nuclear, but a gas turbine, allowing a maximum speed of 25 knots, and the air group also consists of 40 aircraft. But due to the springboard takeoff, AWACS aircraft cannot be based on Queen Elizabeth - however, the British replaced them with fairly advanced AW101 Merlin HM.2 AWACS helicopters.

A distinctive feature of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers is that the basis of their air group is the F-35B VTOL aircraft. Formally, in terms of flight performance, the Rafal is superior to the F-35B VTOL aircraft, but it is unclear what restrictions a catapult launch from an aircraft carrier imposes on the Rafal.

At the same time, there is no doubt that the characteristics of the avionics (avionics) of the F-35B are much higher than those of the Rafal fighters, as well as the stealth parameters.

Aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth. Photo wikipedia.org

In 2010, it was assumed that the first aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth with a springboard would be used as a helicopter carrier and then sold. And the second ship of this series will be built according to an improved project with catapults for the use of F-35C carrier-based fighters.

It is not completely clear what influenced the position of the UK - the refusal of the United States to sell the F-35C carrier-based fighters or the fact that the F-35B was not so bad, but in the end the UK bought the F-35B VTOL aircraft, and the second Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier - "Prince of Wales" is also made in the version with a springboard instead of catapults.

The cost of the aircraft carrier "Queen Elizabeth" is about 3,2 billion pounds, or approximately 4,3 billion US dollars.

Italy has one light aircraft carrier, Cavour, with a total displacement of 35 tons, capable of carrying up to 000 aircraft.

This is no longer quite an aircraft carrier - it can carry 415 troops, up to 100 wheeled combat vehicles or 24 tank... The maximum speed is 30 knots. The aircraft carrier Cavour will be the third non-US ship to carry the F-35B VTOL aircraft.

Light aircraft carrier Cavour. Photo wikipedia.org

In addition to the aircraft carrier, the Italian Navy is building the Trieste landing helicopter carrier with a displacement of 33 tons and a maximum speed of 000 knots.

If Cavour is a light aircraft carrier with amphibious capabilities, then Trieste is an amphibious assault ship with aircraft carrier functions: up to 10 F-35B VTOL aircraft should be based on it. In addition, 10 AgustaWestland AW101 helicopters will be based at Trieste. The cost of the Trieste helicopter carrier is about 1,1 billion euros.

Landing helicopter carrier "Trieste"

Spain has one aircraft carrier / multi-purpose amphibious assault ship "Juan Carlos I" (Juan Carlos I) with a displacement of about 27 tons, a maximum speed of 000 knots and an air group of up to 21 aircraft and helicopters.

On the aircraft carrier / UDC "Juan Carlos I", among other things, the F-35B VTOL aircraft, heavy CH-47 Chinook helicopters and V-22 Osprey convertiplanes can be based.

In addition to the air group, the aircraft carrier / UDC can carry 1 airborne troops and 200 tons of military equipment. The cost of the aircraft carrier / UDC "Juan Carlos I" is only 6 million euros.

The universal amphibious assault ship-aircraft carrier "Juan Carlos I" of the Spanish Navy. Photo wikipedia.org

Japan

Japan has no aircraft carriers. And there are no helicopter carriers. And there is no armed force at all.

But the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Forces have escort ships, and in fact, full-fledged Izumo-class helicopter carriers with a total displacement of 27 tons and a speed of 000 knots, capable of carrying up to 30 aircraft. On the basis of one of the Izumo helicopter carriers, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces are planning to create an aircraft carrier carrying the American F-28B VTOL aircraft.

The aircraft carrier Izumo will differ from the helicopter carrier Izumo, presumably mainly by applying a heat-resistant coating to the deck. Thus, the Japanese can relatively easily upgrade to an aircraft carrier and a second helicopter carrier.

In addition, the aircraft carrier Izumo is likely to retain its amphibious capabilities, including the ability to transport 500 troops.

The cost of building the Izumo helicopter carrier is US $ 1,5 billion.

The helicopter carrier Izumo. Photo wikipedia.org

In addition, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces have two more Hyuga-class helicopter carriers with a total displacement of 18 tons, a speed of up to 000 knots, and an air group of 30 helicopters.

Hyuga-class helicopter carriers. Photo wikipedia.org

India

India has one light aircraft carrier, Vikramaditya, built in Russia on the basis of the Project 1143 aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Fleet Soviet Union Gorshkov "through deep modernization. Its total displacement is 45 tons, the maximum speed is 500 knots, the air group is up to 32 aircraft. On "Vikramaditya" MiG-30K fighters are based, which take off using a springboard.

Light aircraft carrier Vikramaditya. Photo wikipedia.org

Also, the Indian Navy is building a light aircraft carrier Vikrant, with a standard displacement of 37 tons, the proposed air group of 500 aircraft.

Light aircraft carrier Vikrant. Photo wikipedia.org

Russia

Does Russia have an aircraft carrier?

Formally, yes, but at the moment, in fact, it does not exist.

A series of unsuccessful campaigns, accidents and other incidents, as well as protracted repairs led to the fact that in fact the heavy aircraft carrying cruiser (TAVKR) of project 1143.5 "Admiral of the Soviet Union Fleet Kuznetsov" is more of a burden for the Russian Navy than a real combat unit ... The expediency of its presence in the Russian Navy justifies only the issue of prestige and the need to preserve certain competencies.

TAVKR 1143.5 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" is the pride and shame of the Russian fleet. Photo wikipedia.org

At the moment, Russia is building universal amphibious assault ships of project 23900 of the Ivan Rogov type, but at the moment it is precisely the UDC, since it is impossible to land a horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft on them, and Russia already / does not have VTOL aircraft.

UDC model of project 23900. Photo wikipedia.org

South Korea

In the near future, South Korea plans to join the "Aviation Club", which is developing a project for a light aircraft carrier CVX. It is characteristic that it is also planned to place the F-35B VTOL aircraft on it - contrary to the opinion of opponents of this type of aircraft, the number of countries using or planning to use VTOL aircraft is only growing.

The aircraft carrier is being developed by two competing groups - Hyundai Heavy Industries in partnership with British Babcock International and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering in partnership with Italian Fincantieri.

The aircraft carrier project from Hyundai Heavy Industries has a length of 270 meters, a width of 60 meters, a total displacement of 45-000 tons and can accommodate up to 50 F-000B fighters. The Daewoo Shipbuilding project is 24 meters long and 35 meters wide, with a total displacement of 263 tons and a maximum speed of 46,6 knots. The ship will be able to carry 45 VTOL F-000B.

Model of light aircraft carrier CVX of Hyundai Heavy Industries

In addition, South Korea is considering placing the F-35B VTOL aircraft on Dokdo-class helicopter carriers with a total displacement of 18 tons.

Dokdo-class helicopter carrier. Photo wikipedia.org

Conclusions

This is not a complete list of ships potentially capable of performing the functions of an aircraft carrier, and the countries that possess them; nevertheless, it allows us to understand what types of aircraft carriers are in the highest demand in the world at the present time.

The only owner of "supercarriers" is currently the United States, and even for them this burden becomes unbearable - the survivability of aircraft carrier strike groups (AUG) in a collision with an equal enemy is increasingly being questioned, while it is quite enough to solve expeditionary tasks and carry out convoy operations smaller aircraft carriers. Therefore, discussions about reducing the number of "supercarriers" in favor of building smaller aircraft carriers are being raised even in the United States.

Variants of aircraft carriers of various displacement for the US Navy

China wants to get a fleet "like adults", so it is actively developing the aircraft carrier theme, striving to get ships comparable in performance to the best American "supercarriers".

What will come of this is not yet clear. Still, completing the construction of the former Soviet TAVKR and copying / modernizing its design is one thing, but creating a nuclear aircraft carrier with steam / electromagnetic catapults is quite another.

One way or another, the shipbuilding capabilities of the PRC, even without the construction of "supercarriers", make it possible to "stuff" the Chinese fleet with twins "Liaoning" and "Shandong", which are not so bad, and crush the US Navy in numbers.

By the way, the only non-American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle, has steam catapults manufactured under an American license, and Charles de Gaulle itself is an inexhaustible source of problems for the French fleet.

The same British completely abandoned catapults in favor of VTOL aircraft and a springboard, despite their close relations with the United States and the impressive dimensions of their aircraft carriers.

There is no need to talk about the rest - a springboard and VTOL aircraft or a springboard and "classic" horizontal take-off and landing aircraft.

Can Russia Build a Super Carrier?

Probably he can.

One or even two. Making it a national priority, a priority task, with tremendous strain on industry and economy.

But do we need such sacrifices?

Definitely not.

If we do not consider an aircraft carrier as an instrument of direct confrontation with the US Navy, then we do not need supercarriers. And we cannot afford a direct confrontation with the US Navy for economic reasons.

There is a huge number of tasks of paramount importance on which resources must be spent - the development of the production of domestic microelectronics, including those suitable for use in spacecraft, lithographic machines for the production of electronic components, quantum computers, powerful solid-state lasers, the creation of reusable launch vehicles and engines for them, gas turbine engines for ships and aircraft, highly efficient engines for UAVs, promising energy sources and devices for its storage.

There is no point in spending huge resources on an equally huge floating target.

On the other hand, Russia can easily afford light aircraft carriers - it is much simpler, both technically and economically. And there will be tasks for them. We will talk about their possible appearance, advantages and disadvantages next time.

Comments

[for]

What aircraft carriers, some have other priorities.
The State Duma named the main allies of Russia "mother oil" and "father gas"
https://lenta.ru/news/2021/11/25/matushka/

[Civil]

Alas ... economically, not that we don’t pull the aircraft carrier, but the entire FIU.

[for]

Quote: Civil

economically, not that we don’t pull the aircraft carrier, but the entire FIU.

With the money spent on the Olympics, championships can be built a lot.
But we have "We'll drink everything, but we won't disgrace the fleet"

[Osipov9391]

Now, if Kuznetsov is not restored (and this is possible), then, in fact, it will be possible to put an end to the Naval Aviation forever - then, under the current conditions, nothing can be done and no one can be prepared.
And in fact, today the fleet has only fighter aircraft - Su-30SM, Su-33, MiG-29K, which can be called fresh and a little MiG-31 and ordinary Su-27, which is already of considerable age.
Almost all other types of aircraft of the MA of the Navy can no longer be considered and not taken into account in any way - this is hopelessly outdated / extremely small in number / incapable of combat.
Especially with regard to PLO aircraft. Technologies of the 60s are only of museum value.
Or just as coastal patrolmen.
The naval missile-carrying aviation is long gone, and almost all helicopters and transport aircraft are outdated for a long time and they will soon be gone with an average age of 32-37 years.
It is sad that there are no changes and are not planned. The only thing that can do this is only the Su-30SM.
Perhaps the MiG-29K based on the MiG-35 could have been made for Kuznetsov.
The rest is not visible even in the distant future.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Osipov9391

Now, if Kuznetsov is not restored (and this is possible), then, in fact, it will be possible to put an end to the Naval Aviation forever - then, under the current conditions, nothing can be done and no one can be prepared.

Absolutely agree.

Quote: Osipov9391

Perhaps the MiG-29K based on the MiG-35 could have been made for Kuznetsov.
The rest is not visible even in the distant future.

MIG is now the only option. Modernization or the release of new ones, it does not matter, you need to preserve the personnel of naval pilots.

[Osipov9391]

In carrier-based aviation, except for the MiG-29KUB, one can say there are no training two-seat aircraft. The Su-33UB project has sunk into oblivion at high readiness, and the Su-25UTG made more than 30 years ago should not be taken into account - as outdated and not characteristic of their role as training.
After all, the cockpit of the Su-25UTG and MiG-29K differs as a tube TV from a plasma TV.
Then the Su-25UTG (no more than 2-3 pieces left) is purely a "sparrow of the world" - it does not carry weapons, it does not teach how to use it.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Osipov9391

... The Su-33UB project has sunk into oblivion with high readiness ...

To the great regret of all those who truly care for the future of the aircraft carrier component of the Fleet. It could have become a logical continuation / development of the SU-33, but ...

[Osipov9391]

It was possible to create 2 types of Su-33UB - the one with an in-line cab and such as the Chinese created - with a tandem cab.
There were no problems with this. These backlogs were lying on KnaaPO, one new Su-33 and several more conventional machines. Almost everything went into metal, as I understand it.
On the basis of two-seater Su-33, it is possible to implement: tanker, electronic warfare aircraft, missile carrier, training, long-range strike, etc.
The Chinese did just that. Due to the technology received from the Russian Federation and the Su-33 purchased from Ukraine, Colonel Apakidze.

[Sergey39]

Let Kuzya not be combat-ready. On the other hand, there are two land lines for the wing pilots!

[Vladimir1155]

it is obvious that we do not need an aircraft carrier, there is no way for a negro escort, aircraft bases and capabilities ... the best solution would be to repair it and sell it to India to China, and with the proceeds to solve the problems of coastal aviation, nuclear submarines, minesweepers and frigates

[Victor Leningradets]

If we give the sea to the enemy, then why do we need nuclear submarines, TSC and frigates?

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

Why do we need nuclear powered submarines, TSC and frigates?

Nuclear submarines do not require the support of surface ships in the open ocean .... And the corvettes' main ships and frigates, together with coastal aviation and coastal missile systems, provide control of the water area around nuclear submarine bases for safe exit and return of nuclear submarines

[Ashes of Claes]

Quote: Osipov9391

o, in fact, it will be possible to put an end to the Naval Aviation forever

deck you mean?

[Osipov9391]

Everything can be fully considered as such.
Then only the Su-30SM will remain. The Su-33 will be written off, the MiG-29K will be sold.
If there is no ship.
And everything else is not taken into account - this is a semi-utility.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Osipov9391

Perhaps the MiG-29K based on the MiG-35 could have been made for Kuznetsov.

so MIG35 is MIG29K, but without the hook!

[Doccor18]

Russia can easily afford light aircraft carriers ...

Russia can afford whatever it wants ... That's just "light aircraft carriers" to her like "a mare's fifth leg" ...

Can Russia Build a Super Carrier?

Probably he can.

One or even two. Making it a national priority, a priority task, with tremendous strain on industry and economy.

But do we need such sacrifices?

Definitely not.

And what is a "supercarrier"? Aircraft carrier from 100 kt.? So it’s not a matter of displacement, and not in competition with the US Navy and NATO, and not in what "they have and we need" ... Each ship has its own tasks. The fleet must have a set of the necessary ships (in the required number) to solve these problems. And then they will be able to solve them, they will be able to solve them without aircraft-carrying ships - "flag in hand", no - then build, and not "super-duper" and "light" ones, but those that will optimally solve the task.

[Vadim237]

Russia does not need an aircraft carrier - the fleet needs auxiliary vessels submarines uninhabited submarines to counter submarines surface ships missile boats minesweepers PLO ships corvettes frigates new missile-carrying aircraft with anti-ship missiles to replace Tu 22M3 and coastal missile systems as well as new airfields.

[Ashes of Claes]

Quote: Vadim237

Russian aircraft carrier is not needed

Well, it depends on where and in what areas of the world's oceans your opponents from the "Give me a Russian aircraft carrier!" going to project the power) Show the flag off the Cook Islands?

[Vladimir Mashkov]

Quote: Vadim237

Russian aircraft carrier is not needed

The fact that I now have almost every day mysteriously disappearing without visible traces by 500-1000 points is understandable and understandable: someone influential VERY "loves" me. I, in fact, do not care the number of points and amusing "titles", but I see an incomprehensible removal and a matter of principle! But why without a trace my harmless comment disappeared from this thread ??? I'll try to duplicate, maybe it will survive:

Quote: hil1976
No aircraft carrier, it's still a good addition

I completely agree with your opinion that if there is extra money, then why not build one, two, several ... expensive and costly to operate toy aircraft carriers. But why? The defense of Russian territory is fully ensured by other means. Russia's non-aggressive policy does not require a concentration of forces in remote areas of the world like the Americans in order to threaten weaker countries. Protection and assistance to the allies is quite within the power of the UDC, helicopter carriers (which are being built) and the planned light aircraft carriers. Not to mention the fact that in the event of a war with an equal enemy, large aircraft carriers automatically become big targets. Why do Russian giant aircraft carriers ????

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Vladimir Mashkov

Now, almost every day, mysteriously, without visible traces, 500-1000 points disappear, understandably and understandably: someone influential VERY "loves" me. I, in fact, do not care the number of points and amusing "titles", but I see an incomprehensible removal and a matter of principle! But why did my harmless comment disappear from this topic without a trace ??? I'll try to duplicate, maybe it will survive:

I also noticed this a long time ago, the score for the disappearing ones even exceeds the total number of participants and even just readers, ... I often met with meanness in life, I'm used to it, I'm not afraid, be damned

[Victor Leningradets]

Do not be discouraged because of some points and titles, two Vladimirs. It is important to convey your thought to the readers, and then how it goes!

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

Do not be discouraged by some points and titles,

thank you

[Illanatol]

Quote: Vadim237

Russian aircraft carrier is not needed

Russia needs small escort aircraft carriers capable of protecting surface and submarine ships in combat patrol areas from aircraft weapons.

[Vadim237]

It will be much cheaper to create a ground and surface air defense system that will be capable of hitting aircraft and missiles at a distance of 1000 kilometers. At the expense of a light aircraft carrier with a displacement of up to 40000 tons for 26 helicopter aircraft and a dozen UAVs, they must have a catamaran scheme and work in Arctic ice conditions - Russia can handle it, but aircraft carriers of 100000 tons or more are fucking unnecessary.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Vadim237

It will be much cheaper to create a ground and surface air defense system that will be capable of hitting aircraft and missiles at a distance of 1000 kilometers.

The carrier-based aviation group is capable of fighting not only anti-submarine aviation, but also enemy surface and submarine ships.
This is a more versatile combat weapon.
To create a ship carrying an air defense system with a range of 1000 km is also not very cheap.
In the Arctic, such air cover is not so relevant. Moreover, the range of our "ballista" is enough to launch directly from the bases. Rather, our Pacific Fleet needs escort aircraft carriers, they will increase the survivability of our few ships at times, in addition, they will make the actions of our nuclear submarines armed with the Kyrgyz Republic more effective. Their range is significantly lower than that of ballistic missiles, i.e. to strike at US territory, they will have to get closer to American shores. Only aircraft carriers can provide air cover under these conditions.

I agree that there is no need to build huge strike aircraft carriers of the Russian Federation, and our defense industry will simply not be able to do that.

[Yarhann]

for such purposes, there is no point at all in aircraft carriers. coastal aviation of the Navy, hawk bombers YES, tanker aircraft, AWACS and PLO aircraft. Americans calmly patrol for hours taking off from aircraft using tankers, just as calmly planes fly from the mainland using air tankers, etc., etc.
Aviki are needed to spud the Papuans with cast iron far from the Native Shores. In other cases, if the WTO is applied, there is no point in adjusting the air barge. You can just go long distance with tankers.
Here, however, it’s more of a question of purpose - and, in fact, it doesn’t exist even for Kuznetsov, because he’s not very good on the ground, and there’s no one to organize air defense for.
The Russian Federation needs BDKs for missions like those in Syria, Libya and other countries - where you need to quickly deliver the contingent and support during the landing and advancement. And then the BTA will bring everything you need when the airfield is privatized.

[Barberry25]

1) first you need to cover the needs of the fleet in ships of smaller displacement
2) to build "adult aircraft carriers" on the move, this is a waste of time and money - you need competence, the best option is to start with UDC / PLO cruisers, just build them in the "Japanese style" with the possibility of placing VTOL aircraft or a mig-29K due to the presence of a springboard, and there it is already to look at the situation, which is easier and more profitable - to have 10-12 light aircraft carriers based on the UDC or to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier, in any case the aircraft carrier-UDC will provide support during expeditionary operations, i.e. will cover the minimum fleet requirement.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Barberry25

the best option is to start with UDC / PLO cruisers ...

UDC is a universal amphibious assault ship carrying a reinforced MP battalion. This ship is huge and defenseless, and very expensive. It's even hard to imagine why our Navy now needs it ... PLO cruiser? What is this beast? Reincarnation of Moscow ..?

Quote: Barberry25

only to build them in the "Japanese style" with the possibility of placing VTOL aircraft or mig-29K

Japan is occupied, not self-sufficient, therefore it builds what they allow, and not what they want. Without these restrictions, the Japanese Navy would have replenished 2-3 multipurpose aircraft carriers of a decent displacement long ago. Without a doubt.
As for the MiG-29, how many of them will be included in an expensive and light ersatz? Maximum - a squadron (10-12 units), without electronic warfare and AWACS ...

Quote: Barberry25

and there already look at the situation, which is easier and more profitable - to have 10-12 light aircraft carriers based on the UDC or to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier,

What is there to watch? Neither Kuznetsov nor Vikrant (not to mention the Italian and Spanish "aircraft carriers") have any chances in the confrontation with the classic ship (like Nimitz / Ford). 10-12 lungs will cost in total as 3-4 full-fledged multipurpose ones, but they will always lose to them.
The aircraft carrier, start seriously dealing with it now, will become part of the Fleet in 2035-36. And if it had started in the "fat" 2000s, then by the 35th year the Navy would have had 3-4 ships. It takes a long time to build a fleet, thinks for many decades ahead ... It is impossible to build a decent fleet even in 20-30 years. It needs to be designed and built constantly. Constantly! Even the mighty USSR only by the 80s began to create something like competition for the Anglo-Saxon navy in the ocean, and how much time and effort was spent ...

[Barberry25]

UDC is a large ship, yes, but it's not a fact about "very expensive" - ​​the main thing when developing a project is to take into account the possibility of either reworking for an aircraft carrier, or immediately laying it down ... the price of UDC is up to 2,5 billion dollars from Europeans, and the aircraft carrier starts from 8 9 billion ... We need an PLO cruiser, in fact we take a UDC-helicopter carrier and due to a larger number of helicopters we can quickly check a large area - for the submarines to exit, the very thing ... How many will come in ... How many MiG-29 is now on Kuznetsov? 16? On the strength of 20? The task is not that 1 to 1 start up ... it's funny that you are trying to compare a light aircraft carrier with a heavy one, but the fact that we CAN build and FAST. Moreover, several aircraft carriers will be able to provide a large number of sorties and and a larger number of aircraft .. We must look not at "but if only if only" but at what we can actually build: the transition from udk-cruiser to flat-to-light aircraft carrier will be faster than fiddling with a full-fledged aircraft carrier ..

[Doccor18]

Quote: Barberry25

We need to look not at "but if only if only" but at what we can actually build: the transition from udk-cruiser to flat-to-light aircraft carrier is faster than fiddling with a full-fledged aircraft carrier ..

You will have to "tinker" with everything, and for a long time. It is considered the norm for us to build frigates for 6-7 years. Do you really think that "UDC / light aircraft carrier" will be built faster than 7-8 years? Doubtful. And the cost of these ersatz will be under 30-35% of a normal aircraft carrier. And the basis of the air groups: a new carrier-based multipurpose fighter, AWACS and electronic warfare aircraft, an PLO helicopter, a RER UAV and tankers will still need to be "lifted onto the wing", in any case ...

Quote: Barberry25

here it is funny that you are trying to compare a light aircraft carrier with a heavy

How not to compare? Either lose 10 years and get something with 12 machines on board, or lose 12-15 years and give the Fleet a powerful multipurpose ship with 4 combat squadrons ...

[Barberry25]

those. 30 UDC will be built for 000 years, but a heavy aircraft carrier of 10 thousand tons is only 100? Even too optimistic about things, not to mention the fact that a UDC of 15 thousand tons will carry not 30 cars, but 12-25. And we should build the UDC in any case, so can we not reinvent the wheel? A debugged UDC series with the possibility of converting into aircraft carriers is easier and faster than laying an aircraft carrier separately and then how the British can drain the entire budget into it

[75 Sergey]

And they say that for the plane to take off, the aircraft carrier must go straight ahead at full steam and the wind must not be fair?

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: 75Sergey

And they say that for the plane to take off, the aircraft carrier must go straight ahead at full steam and the wind must not be fair?

this concerns Kuzi, but I don’t know about the Americans

[Doccor18]

Quote: 75Sergey

and the wind should not be fair?

The headwind increases lift and makes takeoff easier. The same goes for landing - shortening the mileage.

[Evil troll]

When Doolittle was raising his bombers, he had to turn that trick. Now, with catapults, you can probably do without it.

[mmaxx]

If you have catapults, no. Otherwise, yes.

[Illanatol]

This is determined by the performance characteristics of airborne aircraft, which can be improved (to make gliders lighter, due to the greater use of composite materials and to increase the thrust-to-weight ratio of the engines).

[mmaxx]

I didn’t understand. In general, when designing an airplane, this is exactly what they did. Composites are just a recent fashion. For use in combat aviation, there is a problem - maintainability in case of damage.

[Illanatol]

Quote: mmaxx

I didn’t understand. In general, when designing an airplane, this is exactly what they did.

The MiG-29k was designed 40 years ago. In those days, composites were not rich in our country.
Composites are widely used in modern fighter aircraft. And maintainability ... is it cheap these days?

[mmaxx]

Repairs are often carried out by replacing the entire composite element. In a ship or airfield environment, this is not the easiest solution.

[Oleg Zorin]

So, of course, it's easier to take off. But electromagnetic catapults level the requirements for wind speed and direction

[Yarhann]

this was true for piston aircraft during the Second World War. Now the afterburner decides everything - for this, a springboard is needed to change the thrust vector of the jet engine - so that it pushes the plane a little up

[Gardener91]

One or even two. Making it a national priority, a priority task, with tremendous strain on industry and economy. Well, if you tear your navel, then the author is right. So it doesn't seem to be necessary.

[Bolt cutter]

then the cost of their "heirs" - aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford class, is already about 10 billion dollars

That is, seamstresses of mittens and his team through the courts are trying to shake the cost of FIVE nuclear aircraft carriers from Russia ... This is a greyhound ...

[Vladimir Mashkov]

I liked the article NOT by a rabid fanatic, but by a normal adequate person who spoke interestingly about aircraft carriers and their prospects!

[Doccor18]

Quote: Vladimir Mashkov

Article NOT by a rabid fanatic, but by a normal adequate person

There is no point in spending huge resources on an equally huge floating target.

Having taken up the consideration of such a complex problem, and without thoroughly understanding it, draw hasty conclusions ...

[Vadim237]

Considering the development of anti-ship weapons and the Russian defense doctrine, an aircraft carrier is an expensive target and there is no point in creating it.

[Momotomba]

Any ship is a target ... And to sink an aircraft carrier, going in the warrant and raising an AWACS aircraft ... I'm not sure of the simplicity

[Vadim237]

.. "And to sink an aircraft carrier going in the warrant and raising the AWACS aircraft ... I'm not sure of the simplicity" Yes, it's easy - one hypersonic missile with a nuclear warhead for 500 kt and a khan to the aircraft carrier and its order of escort, and from anti-ship MRBMs, no aviation will not save and the missile defense is the same.

[Momotomba]

Quote: Vadim237

nuclear warhead hypersonic missile

Does anyone have such a thing ??? At least at the stage HERE-HERE WILL BE ...
Although if you predict the destruction of the AUG using such weapons, then I will propose to fight the MRBM using burnouts Not a single MRBM will fly by

[Osipov9391]

This is where you got this? Even "Kuznetsov" going with escort ships, a pair of multipurpose nuclear submarines will be a very difficult target.
If there are fighters on duty and AWACS in the air.
The radius of its air defense can be up to 300-400 km or more.
And the West has no serious RCC.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Osipov9391

duty fighters and AWACS equipment.

deck AWACS are the blue dreams of a pink pony .... fighters are constantly in turn in the air? .... how do you imagine this and whom can they exterminate? a couple of multipurpose nuclear submarines .... got to do with them? let's start chasing missiles with them right? study young man tth apl first

[Osipov9391]

A small AWACS aircraft can be created on the basis of an existing MiG-29KUB or a Su-33UB that has not been received. All the possibilities are there - a crew of two.
Then there are Ka-31 helicopters. Few, but there is. It's better than nothing.
During a threatening period or when a mission is being completed, fighters always patrol over the aircraft carrier if the situation requires it.
Drive anti-submarine aircraft away from the SSBN deployment area. This is their main function.
And MAPLs are given to an aircraft carrier and SSBNs with escort always to distract enemy submarines.
And apart from ASW aviation and submarines, there are no other threats to our SSBNs.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Osipov9391

A small AWACS aircraft can be created

when the cancer whistles on the mountain or after a rain on Thursday ... we have billions of SU57s and years and even the revived production of long-mastered IL 76 and TU 160 pieces

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Osipov9391

During a threatening period or when a mission is being completed, fighters always patrol over the aircraft carrier if the situation requires it.
Drive anti-submarine aircraft away from the SSBN deployment area. This is their main function.

does the mission at sea start from the release of the mooring lines and ends with the return to the port, that is, do you think that carrier-based fighters should be forever in the air? have you counted kerosene and motor hours for them? Have you studied the Barents Sea weather? it is enough for the enemy to wait for the wind and excitement to intensify and your AV is defenseless ... isn’t it better for coastal aviation for her and in the sky forever does not have to be guarding the defenseless AV and let's say the weather for her is not so critical

[Yarhann]

I’m also for coastal aviation - first of all, all this will be full-fledged, and not truncated - that is, normal hawks, normal bombers, full-fledged PLO, AWACS and RTR aircraft, and a tanker can send this whole zoo away from the coast. For the above purposes, the aircraft carrier did not fall.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Osipov9391

And MAPLs are given to an aircraft carrier and SSBNs with escort always to distract enemy submarines.
And apart from ASW aviation and submarines, there are no other threats to our SSBNs.

well, not always .... rather never! SSBNs love silence and loneliness, multipurpose nuclear submarines are more likely a different type of strike weapon than a convoy and also love silence and loneliness, and your AV is like a fifth leg in a cart for them, a dry cargo ship or a seiner or a frigate will be more useful for a nuclear submarine

[Oleg Zorin]

It is possible, but they are too small in size, and according to their capabilities. It is no coincidence that NATO uses other types

[Osipov9391]

Well, what are the dimensions of even "De Gaulle"? There are steam catapults. Because the Americans sold the E-2 Hawkeye to them.
Like the Americans themselves. If the aircraft carrier is nuclear and full-fledged, then a classic AWACS aircraft with deck takeoff is used.
In other cases, only helicopters / AWACS aircraft made on the basis of fighters.

[Oleg Zorin]

According to NATO doctrine, aircraft carriers of the US allies will be "in the wings", performing secondary functions

[Oleg Zorin]

Oops ... about the size I'm talking about AWACS planes

[Osipov9391]

So that's what I meant. A real carrier-based AWACS aircraft can be based on "De Gaulle" as on American aircraft carriers.
On Kuznetsov it will not be able to - the size of the ship, the absence of a catapult and, in general, such an aircraft does not allow.
Therefore, only Ka-31 helicopters or AWACS aircraft made on the platform of the MiG-29KUB and Su-33UB fighters. There, the possibilities made it possible to cram any radar into the latter.

[Oleg Zorin]

It is absolutely undeniable, the E-2 Hawkeye from "Admiral K." will not take off. And such a "plate" cannot be installed on a MiG or a DRYER. I apologize, it’s too late for me, apparently, I am not very clear in formulating my thoughts.

[Osipov9391]

On the MiG-29K or Su-33UB, not a saucer, but a conventional fighter radar would be placed in the bow.
Something similar to the "Barrier" from the MiG-31, only modern and small. Perhaps with AFAR.

[Oleg Zorin]

maybe yes, maybe no. We will see) In any case, I agree with you that there is a problem. And I would like to see it solved ... somehow natural, or something. Not adapting something for something, but having a normal technique. Eh, dreams ...

[Osipov9391]

An-71 and Yak-44 were actually ready and probably both projects could have been completed long ago.
The catch is that even in Soviet times, the TAVKR "Tbilisi" did not plan to include these aircraft for the above reasons.
Only in the structure of the atomic "Ulyanovsk" under construction.

[mmaxx]

Yet the main property of AWACS is the flight duration.
And this is not for fighter-based aircraft.

[Castro Ruiz]

Osipov9391
Samiy is a suitable one of those INTO in stock for AWACS is SU-34 / SU-32FN but not from the deck.

[Vadim237]

All that the West has is Tomahawk Harpoons and a new air-launched missile - all subsonic ones will not be difficult to shoot down, especially over the water surface.

[Oleg Zorin]

RCC as such is. No ship-based anti-ship missiles. As I understand it, this is the NATO concept - to resolve issues with the AUG aviation

[Osipov9391]

Exactly so - a link of "Hornets" rises from anti-ship missiles and attacks the enemy ship. Then Russia has few ships, so there is no need for the Americans to keep a large number of anti-ship missiles on ships and invent something new in this regard.

[Oleg Zorin]

100 percent

[Illanatol]

There is no purely defensive or purely offensive weaponry.
The capabilities of the RCC should not be overestimated.

[ViacheslavS]

Or maybe it so happens that aircraft carriers are now far from the most advanced and necessary weapons?

[OgnennyiKotik]

No, he can not. The importance of aviation is only growing.

[Carat]

The importance of aviation is growing. But the importance of aircraft carriers, paradoxically, is falling.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Especially in your fantasy world.
In reality, the number of countries with aircraft carriers is only increasing, and their importance is growing. Military operations at sea without AV became simply meaningless.

[Carat]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Military operations at sea without AV became simply meaningless.

No way without floating airfields?
But missiles are ahead of aircraft carriers in terms of development.
The aircraft carrier is already essentially a floating target.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Carat

No way without floating airfields?

Yes.

Quote: Carat

But missiles are ahead of aircraft carriers in terms of development.

Confuse warm with soft. Aircraft carriers for missile carriers.

Quote: Carat

The aircraft carrier is already essentially a floating target.

Yeah. Soldiers running, moving tanks, flying fighters, diving submarines, floating ships, fixed targets bases. Only there is a nuance. You are also a target. And in whom this "nuance" will be, many factors decide.

[mmaxx]

And there are many planes on the aircraft carrier. In which m. B. many of these same missiles. And before launching the rockets, the plane can fly back and forth. And if the aircraft carrier hangs up the AWAC ... then he will find at least someone further and will strike from where they will not get it.
And further. Upgrading the weaponry of any ship is a daunting task. On an aircraft carrier, it is enough to change the air group or the composition of its weapons.
Such are the layouts.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: mmaxx

On an aircraft carrier, it is enough to change the air group or the composition of its weapons.
Such are the layouts.

I haven’t seen anything like that, so far the air group made 30 years ago is only shrinking, we are acutely short of SU57, IL 76 is urgently needed, TU 160 is only the first being produced, the only A100 and BE200 in the project ... I’m not saying .. ... and you mean av

[mmaxx]

We have no aircraft carriers and there is nothing to talk about.
And what you have listed has nothing to do with aircraft carriers.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: mmaxx

what you have listed has nothing to do with aircraft carriers

very much even has, money is from one budget, if it goes to Kuzya, which is, then it does not remain on the A100, and on su57 too

[Oleg Zorin]

It will become a target if it is possible to solve the problems of detection and target designation. Otherwise, shoot like a white light

[Illanatol]

Khrushchev thought so too. Well, her nafig, this aviation.
A balanced aircraft should have both missiles and aircraft.
Which works best depends on your situation.

[ViacheslavS]

The fact that the "aircraft carrier" club includes new countries is an argument, of course, these countries, first of all, China are preparing for a possible serious naval confrontation, China is likely, when it "pumps up" its muscles, it will try to implement something like a blockade of Taiwan (although this does not require AB ).
But if you look at the main “aggressor” on the planet, the United States on a cursory search, in their last serious military operations Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan (although there is no sea in the vicinity), the main tons of “pig iron” were dropped using ground bases, strikes from AB, launches of cruise missiles from ships made an incomparably smaller contribution.
And is it not possible that the funds spent on the construction of 2-3 aircraft carriers with all the infrastructure, in reality, can even lead to a decrease in the country's defense capability, in the sense that they could be more effectively spent on submarines, hypersonic missiles, satellites, etc.?

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: ViacheslavS

something like a blockade of Taiwan (although this does not require AB).

This is exactly what is needed.

Quote: ViacheslavS

were dropped using ground bases, strikes from AB, cruise missile launches from ships made an incomparably smaller contribution.

Everything is logical. Why spend more money on the same task? Yes, and AB for domination at sea.

Quote: ViacheslavS

spend on submarines, hypersonic missiles, satellites, etc.?

All this is also necessary, together it gives synergy. The country's defense capacity is an efficient economy, first of all.

[ViacheslavS]

All this is also necessary, together it gives synergy. The country's defense capacity is an efficient economy, first of all.

This is undoubtedly, but in the current realities there is no such efficient economy yet. And the construction of AB means the suspension of funding for other programs in the current realities, and somewhere else, the redistribution of resources in favor of AB (docks, factories, etc.).

[Artyom Karagodin]

Here on "VO" there was a publication in which the author, Andrei Kolobov, explained on his fingers that even in the current conditions Russia is quite capable of building an AV scale no less than "Kuzi". The main question is the competent distribution of funds allocated for the fleet, considerable, by the way. Considering that we do not need Russian "Nimitzs" (the tasks of our aircrafts can be solved with smaller dimensions and airborne units and a smaller air group), and are not needed in such a quantity as in the United States, we could well cope. If there were order and freedom, the money that we already have will be enough.

[Oleg Zorin]

Well, my friend, you, like Andrei Nikolaich (Kolobov), are a dreamer And the cuts-kickbacks? How can I do without them?

[mmaxx]

An aircraft carrier isn't everything. We need bases. Here costs are multiplied by 10. Everything should work. We also don't have Hawaii. The Americans once drove the aircraft carrier to the north, and decided that the aircraft carrier was a thermophilic thing. Everything deteriorates: the ship itself and the planes.

[Osipov9391]

US aircraft carriers are based in Florida and California on the mainland (the climate needs no comment) and on the Hawaiian Islands and Japan beyond.
"Kuznetsov" therefore fell into disrepair in the north - its systems, devoid of coastal infrastructure, were killed at the anchorage as if it were at sea.
Because as soon as the cold came, they tried to send him to the shores of Syria.

[mmaxx]

The Chinese are in no hurry. They will build aircraft carriers drop by drop. Master them. And only then ... They will draw conclusions. Whether they need them or not.

[Momotomba]

Quote: ViacheslavS

the main tons of "pig iron" were dumped using ground bases

That is, if these ground bases are ... And if they are not ??

Quote: ViacheslavS

spend on submarines, hypersonic missiles, satellites, etc.

Well, for the sub, you need to provide a safe patrol area. And it’s difficult without aviation.
And what is the point in satellites if there is nothing to hit the target with? The "missile" option is good, but the number of anti-ship missiles on the ship is limited, so reloading at sea is impossible ... 1-2 volleys and you need to run home for new missiles.

[pavlov viahislav]

Good article. It is clearly shown that if you do not have money for a full-fledged aircraft carrier fleet, then it is better not to build ships of this class at all. One or two AUGs will not be able to become a means of fighting a serious enemy fleet. Better to invest in naval aviation, ASW forces and coastal missile systems.

[mz]

If there really is no money, then it is definitely not worth building aircraft carriers. But in Russia there is a lot of money, only too much of it goes not to a real increase in defense capability and social development, but to support "very good" people. Well, and just plundered ...

[Vadim237]

3 trillion rubles will be allocated to social services for 17 years for the development of transport infrastructure 60 trillion rubles until 2035. Without aircraft carriers, spending is enough and their era is coming to an end in view of the appearance of long-range hypersonic missiles and anti-ship MRBMs.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Vadim237

3 trillion rubles will be allocated to social services for 17 years for the development of transport infrastructure 60 trillion rubles until 2035 ...

Very well, we love trillions and know how to "direct" ...
Only in comparison with all these megaprojects, the aircraft carrier program would cost mere pennies (750 billion rubles, 50 per year, for 15 years ...). Well, who needs it, it took a little less for the FIFA World Cup ...

[Vadim237]

At least one trillion rubles, one aircraft carrier with equipment with an air wing, armament, berthing infrastructure and everything else - and yes, these megaprojects will develop the economy and bring money to the country, but what will the aircraft carrier bring while standing at the berth for 365 days and devour a hundred billion rubles for its upkeep? Now the aircraft carrier for the fleet is clearly not in the cashier's office - the fleet has a lot of other expenses and needs for new equipment and ships.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Vadim237

At least one trillion rubles, one aircraft carrier with equipment with an air wing, armament, berthing infrastructure and everything else ...

The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in the open press is estimated at $ 5 yards (375 billion rubles, well, let it be 400), an air group of 70 aircraft = 260 billion.The cost of the entire naval base is about 220 billion, which means a pier for 1-2 ships will cost a maximum of 35 RUB bln Total (excluding R&D) 2 ships in 75-85 kt. will cost the budget 1355 billion rubles. or $ 18 billion. The official costs of the Olympiad are about $ 10 billion, but some sources write that (with the infrastructure) they cost all $ 50 billion. Apparently, the truth is somewhere in the middle, which means let's take the average - $ 25 billion ...
That is, the domestic aircraft carrier program could be more than paid for and carried out in the 2011-2021 period, if they really took on it, and, moreover, without prejudice to other weapons programs ...

[mmaxx]

Under socialism, they thought so too. Tanks, planes, submarines are the most. Everything has rotted away. And the road from Moscow to Vladivostok was not made. I had to do it under damned capitalism.
Military construction is a delicate thing. People also need to live.
Under socialism, the people were driven to poverty, and the country collapsed. Nobody supported that life. Naked Marxism is the priority of material interests. Just don't write how someone lived beautifully here. My family didn’t live like a fountain, personally, we did it very badly. And they plowed like daddy Carlo.

[Doccor18]

Quote: mmaxx

My family didn’t live like a fountain, personally, we did it very badly. And they plowed like daddy Carlo.

You see, everyone has their own experience, both under socialism and under capitalism (if age allows). And everyone judges the system, relying primarily on their own feelings. And to see the big picture is certainly difficult. We lived differently then and now, but now it’s too “different”. As for the roads and priorities, then the dispute can be long and unpromising, because in the second half of life it is extremely rare for anyone to change their views diametrically ...

[mmaxx]

In our area there was a general resentment against the authorities. I still don’t understand why it was necessary to spread rot on the people. And all under the lies from the TV.

[Fisherman]

Quote: ViacheslavS

Or maybe it so happens that aircraft carriers are now far from the most advanced and necessary weapons?

Golden words!

[Fisherman]

Aircraft carriers are needed for police operations to control territories. If you are not going to take over with infantry and hold territory for colonial robbery, then Sarmat will be enough ... well, two ... or even Poseidon for the most "tough" opponents. Russia is not a colonial power, but a self-sufficient continental empire, and we have enough missiles to "ground" the most violent. We don't need someone else (and we don't need aircraft carriers to steal someone else's, respectively), but we will protect our own with Armata. Amen!

[Osipov9391]

Aircraft carriers (or at least one or two of those that are / were) are needed by Russia to protect the deployment areas of strategic nuclear submarines from countless NATO anti-submarine aircraft.
What will the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces cost if it is not protected in any way?

[mmaxx]

Aircraft carriers and the fleet in general, they are to protect the interests of the country. The whole question is: where are the interests and what.

[donavi49]

In China, the second one has already been commissioned.

The third is being built - it will already be a unique Chinese one with 3 catapults, without a springboard but non-nuclear.

Also, China and Turkey are now working in a new class - UAV. China has planned 1 ship 076 until 25, and Turkey is redesigning its Carlos + plans a separate UAV with Spain.
Such ships will have a light catapult and a set of finishers. Allows to launch UAVs with piston, turbojet and jet engines.

The article also forgot Australia. She has 2 Carlos and is considering the F-35V, taking into account the current rivalry in the APR, it is quite possible that they will be finished to the F-35.

Indian second aircraft carrier is already on the run if that.

[Doccor18]

Quote: donavi49

She has 2 Carlos and is considering the F-35V, taking into account the current rivalry in the APR, it is quite possible that they will be finished to the F-35.

Carlos is even a little bigger than Izumo, so everything is real. The whole question is about financing, but it seems that the situation is developing in such a way that money will be found anyway ...

[starshina]

Russia cannot build aircraft carriers for economic reasons, as the author of the article wrote --- but for some reason the Russian oligarchs have enough funds to build the most expensive and largest yachts in the world in Europe !!! Or maybe we need to stop stealing money from the state budget and not letting billions of stolen money go offshore ??? And then with this money it will be possible to build not only a couple of aircraft carriers, but also an escort of ships for their protection !!!

[Osipov9391]

Moreover, Abramovich has a fleet of the most expensive yachts in the world. There, in a number of cases, there are almost warships in many respects.
And if these bigwigs would order their Wishlist at Russian shipyards, it would be of great benefit to the country. The money would stay here. And all sorts of production worked.

[Vadim237]

Our shipyards do not deal with such yachts - since this niche is already occupied by Western companies and the client base around the world is completely dismantled by them. And yes, our business is not obliged to build a military fleet - they are obliged to pay taxes to the budget from which they will allocate funds to the Ministry of Defense, and they will distribute them, including for the construction of the fleet.

[aries2200]

icebreaker fleet to develop, rather than expensive toys aircraft carriers

[Vadim237]

It is already being developed and built by combat icebreakers, and civil medium and huge, the latter should be handed over in 2027.

[Usher]

In addition to it, the second ship of the modernized project is being built - "Shandong"

author where do you sleep? He was adopted for a long time.

[eehnie]

Usually most of these analyzes and ranks tend to be too Western-friendly. There is usually a serious underestimation of the Russian aircraft carrier, as well as the Chinese and Indian along with them, but this is not something that started with the accident. It was the same before the accident.

Now it seems cool to treat Russia at 0 to justify everything as an improvement, even if it is far behind the current Russian aircraft carrier.

It all seems reasonable to try to steer Russia nowhere or towards a model aircraft carrier, and even more preferable to a helicopter carrier, significantly inferior to the Nimitz class and the Ford class.

But these misleading suggestions are certainly in vain.

(Automatically translated from English. Below is the original commentary in English)

Habitually most of these analyzes and ranks tend to be too Western friendly. There is habitually a severe minusvaloration of the Russian aircraft carrier, and of the Chinese and the Indian with them, but is not something that started with the accident. It was the same before the accident.

Now it seems cool to consider Russia in the 0 level, in order to justify as improvement everything, even if strongly inferior to the current Russian Aircraft carrier.

Everything seems valid to try to misslead Russia towards nothing or towards a model of aircraf carrier, and more preferably helicopter carrier, significantly inferior to the Nimitz-class and the Ford-class.

But these misleading bids are certainly in vain.

[Fisherman]

Quote: Osipov9391

Aircraft carriers (or at least one or two of those that are / were) are needed by Russia to protect the deployment areas of strategic nuclear submarines from countless NATO anti-submarine aircraft.
What will the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces cost if it is not protected in any way?

There are methods that are cheaper than aircraft carriers. Why expose dozens of expensive aircraft and thousands of specialists on board at once to destruction in one blow? For such grandmothers, several units with powerful air defense and anti-aircraft defense can be maintained, and the group will be more tenacious.

[Maks1995]

One aircraft carrier series has just died down, and here again ...
Okay, fighters, there are almost none.

So there are no other types of aircraft on aircraft carriers.
In essence: first, raise the economy, and then there will be aircraft carriers with planes.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Osipov9391

And apart from ASW aviation and submarines, there are no other threats to our SSBNs.

they just have an enemy, this is Kuzya! .... because of him we have no money for PLO aircraft (Be200) and AWACS (A100) and there is little money left for the submarine too because of him

[Fanur Galiev]

The aircraft carrier is not the problem. The problem is not lack of money. Something, but enough money. The point is simply that all of the above is not particularly needed by anyone. No, everyone understands that, of course, it would be necessary to do something. All this is to develop, build, modernize. But the cut is more important. So new factories are not being built or production is reviving with such a creak. Even if an aircraft carrier is suddenly sold in our country, then with the highest degree of probability the money for its maintenance and repair will go to conquer completely different addresses than those where they would be really needed.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Fanur Galiev

The point is simply that all of the above is not particularly needed by anyone. No, everyone understands that, of course, it would be necessary to do something. All this is to develop, build, modernize. But the cut is more important.

I agree, but agree that AV itself is a cut, the money will not necessarily be stolen from everything, this is a budget and it can be cut, but it will not work out brazenly to steal, so even if it is sawed, then not on an unnecessary useless AV, let them cut on the nuclear submarine, SU57, into minesweepers and PLO aircraft .... Yes, they will saw it, but in the end, at least planes and ships will turn out useful ... this is the essence

[Fanur Galiev]

I am not a naval expert. It is difficult for me to talk about what value Kuznetsov is, and whether it is possible to gather a sufficient group around him. But I am still an opponent of simply taking it and cutting it, or selling it. As the saying goes, do not break down. This will be the easiest thing to do, but not the fact that it will only get better. As for the cut .... Yes, maybe Kuznetsov is a cut of pure water. But I disagree that the money spent on it will eventually go where it needs to go. I repeat, it's not about money. The point is that nobody needs anything. All these programs have either already had a lot of money (a large part of which has been successfully cut), or they do not pay special attention to them, preferring to play with other toys.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Fanur Galiev

is it possible to gather a sufficient group around him.

there is no such possibility, the entire northern fleet is a pair of old cruisers with partial combat effectiveness, and four more frigates (that is, a pair of the same old 1155 and a couple of new ones), and that's all. But the fleet also has other tasks besides escorting AB, how can they be fulfilled? Moreover, when Kuzya is finished, the situation will not get better, Ustinov is most likely either for scrap or marching readiness, that is, a further decrease in combat effectiveness, 1155 1144 will now take turns not to get out of repairs and generally not eternal, and the appearance of a couple of new frigates the situation is not fundamentally will fix

[konstantin77]

The author has a very interesting view of things. So, he has nothing against the Chinese aircraft carrier, the brother of our "Kuznetsov", and even his castrated version of the Indian "Vikramaditya" is not subjected to any criticism. But as soon as we talk about Kuznetsov itself, one can hear cheap cliches “pride and shame of the Russian fleet,” “a burden for the Russian navy,” and other vile crap. I don't even want to compare our TAVKR with either its Chinese or Indian counterparts, there is no point in this, but I want to ask the author, why is Kuznetsov fundamentally worse than non-nuclear aircraft carriers of other countries ?? Those have the same jumps in the absence of catapults, the same non-nuclear power plants, the same number of aircraft on board, in principle, absolutely the same combat capabilities! Yes, Kuzya is not atomic! Yes, it makes no sense for him to compete with American aircraft carriers, just the wrong weight category! yes, in a real naval war, its combat resistance on the high seas is minimal! yes, it needs serious renovation and modernization, no one disputes! So what?! Its main task is to project the naval presence in peacetime, it has fulfilled and is doing it with interest, the modernization stock in it is not measured, the country has opportunities for its repair, especially if the number of yachts of various Abramovichs and others like them is reduced! so, why should a vegetable even stutter about cutting it up on needles ?! We have so many rank 1 ships ?! do we need a school of carrier-based aviation for the future Russian fleet ?! we cut a little and sold them to the side of very valuable ships, starting from "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk", and ending with "Lazarev" ?! Why all this empty talk of couch amateurs and effective managers "do we need an aircraft carrier?" Needed! any naval combat officer will confirm, I give a tooth! and tanks are needed! and missile-carrying aviation, oddly enough, is also necessary, incl. maritime, if we do not want the fate of countries such as Serbia and Iraq.

[Oleg Zorin]

it's not about patriotism. Just remember why aircraft-carrying cruisers were created in the USSR. Their main task is to ensure the deployment of ARPKSN on Judgment Day and give them the opportunity to work out. Everything, after that the cruiser could die. Nobody was going to send the ANC to the shores of the conditional G ... ti drive the Papuans. India needs a ship to threaten Pakistan; China, apparently, for the same purposes as the USSR.

[konstantin77]

I deeply apologize to Oleg, but where does all this come from - "on the Day of Judgment, ensure the deployment of ARPKSN and give them the opportunity to work out" ?! By the way, I have already come across this hypothesis several times. Well, tell me please, what kind of deployment of ARPKSN in the 80s did we need ?! Yes, the main part of the Strategists at that time could easily get across the United States from the Barents Sea. Where and what for to deploy them ?! And how could the TAVKR provide this deployment in practice? To arrange a semblance of a Jutland battle in the Norwegian Sea ?! So, at best, such actions with an unpredictable ending would have taken several days. During this time, the probable enemy would have incinerated the USSR several times, and we the USA, and no "deployment" would have been required. The aircraft carrier ships were built to ensure the combat stability of ship formations in the Ocean in peacetime (projection of military power), in a threatened period, as well as in conditions of limited conflict.

[Oleg Zorin]

If you do not mind, I will answer later. It's already very late for me, I’m all to sleep)

[konstantin77]

Of course, I will gladly listen to any reasoned position.

[konstantin77]

And we need aircraft carriers, the Americans and the Europeans alike, in order to "frighten the Papuans," that is, to project their power onto remote points of the World Ocean, where it is necessary for foreign policy reasons. The use of American aircraft carriers after World War II is an example of this. Or someone thinks that if there was a war with the USSR in 70-80 years, the Americans would drive aircraft carriers to our shores ?? under the attack of our submarines and naval missile aircraft ?! what for?! after all, the task of delivering a nuclear missile strike was solved much more reliably by ballistic missiles.

[Artyom Karagodin]

To be honest, sometimes all the controversy surrounding the "uselessness" of aircraft carriers leaves a clear impression of a paid campaign. I'm not talking about the author of today's publication, especially since he doesn't seem to be an anti-aircraft carrier, as he says himself. Let's read what will be there with his justifications for the need for small AV.

In general, on the Internet periodically there is a shaft of publications criticizing aircraft carriers, moreover, some kind of coordinated one. In any case, such an impression arises. Now, when the past anti-aircraft discussion caught fire on VO, I began to meet similar arguments on other resources. Perhaps it was the sparks from the fire on the "Review" that spread so far, but for some reason the sediment will not settle.

Moreover, in a dispute with one of the authors of such articles, I observed a very competent avoidance of answers and slipping past the arguments presented. And in the final - "Didn't you think that the fleet pays the supporters of the aircraft carriers to promote the relevant ideas?" Then I don’t remember what I answered, I need to dig into my comments, but now it’s a sinful thing to think that “didn’t the thief's hat catch fire then?”

[konstantin77]

I completely agree with you Artem. Unfortunately, agents of the pernicious influence from the composition of the fifth column are not asleep.

[Artyom Karagodin]

By the way, instead of a colleague who left to carry out the "hang up" command, I can try to explain why our SSBNs should be covered at the exit from the base. The fact is that in order to hide in the depths, you need to: a) get out of the base, b) get lost in the vastness of the Pacific or under the ice of the Arctic oceans. The diagram is simplified, there are more scenarios, but let's take these two for simplicity.

If we reduce the conversation to shots from the berths, then, firstly, there are serious doubts, since ICBMs are launched from the so-called "launch corridor", that is, when an SSBN goes at a certain depth and at a certain speed. Missile launches are, firstly, a one-step serious change in the mass of the boat, and secondly, a kinetic effect, which affects both the depth of immersion and the speed. So what about the volley right at the base, from the pier, I don’t know. Let the more knowledgeable tell. This is the first moment. The second is, what is the use of building "strategists" in order to shoot them from the coast? It is better then not to bother at all and invest in PGRK and mines, which, among other things, is much cheaper. However, we are not investing, and there are reasons for that. Which? The strategist, again, can get lost in the ocean and then shoot out from nowhere. An essential trump card, you must agree.

But so that he could not get lost in the ocean, the "partners" have a VERY powerful PLO aircraft both in the West and in the East, in Japan. Add here 50+ MAPLs of the USA, Britain (these are regularly shone on "Astyut" in the Norwegian Sea, and, possibly, in the Barents Sea - I was not so buried in the topic). There are Norwegian submarines "Ula", albeit outdated, but there are. And there are Japanese people in the East. These also have nuclear submarines, but an order of magnitude more modern than the Vikings and in much larger numbers. In Avacha Bay, they are now regularly on duty instead of staff members. Plus, they also have very strong PLO aircraft. Some even believe that it is stronger than the American one. All these "partners" intercept our submarines almost immediately after leaving the berth. I'm exaggerating, but not so much.

What gives AB, deployed even in the Barents Sea, even in the Far East. All single submarines, surface ships, anti-submarine aircraft will immediately be scrambled from the deployment areas of our Boreyevs. Since walking or flying accompanied by our fighters, PLO helicopters (maybe, in time, we will be able to fly the plane) is still a pleasure. You can, of course, get lost in a bite, but such a heap is already much easier to find. Accordingly, the chances of SSBNs to "get lost" multiply increase.

Plus, there is the task of providing air defense and air reconnaissance for the KUG operating in the distant sea and ocean zones. How to issue the same target designation to Onyx and Zircon, so that they shoot not at the line of sight of the radar, but at a range close to full? Otherwise, the sense of the long range of our anti-ship missiles is 0,0.

In general, you can argue for a long time, but we need more AV for such tasks than for the "race of the Papuans" and so on. This is also important, but as an application.

[mmaxx]

Suffice it to say that since the time of the war it has been clear to everyone that any ship in the zone of aviation's operation is a corpse. It's a question of time.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: konstantin77

than "Kuznetsov" is fundamentally worse than non-nuclear aircraft carriers of other countries ??

the fact that the Russian Federation does not have the task of possibilities, to solve something in the far ocean zone, there is no escort to Kuze, and not so much money as China and India. The problem is not that Kuzya is "bad", the problem is that he is not needed in our particular country.

[konstantin77]

What does it mean "the Russian Federation does not have the task of possibilities, to solve something in the distant oceanic zone" ?! Please specify the tasks, dear! As an officer of the Navy, I assure you that the Navy has always, even in the miserable 90 years, solved tasks in the far ocean zone, incl. the task of implementing and providing combat services for SSBNs. Moreover, I dare to assert that Russia cannot leave the World Oekan and turn into a purely land or coastal power, because for a number of geostrategic reasons this contributes to its significant weakening, incl. on the land. This aspect, by the way, was perfectly understood by the autocrat, whose face you inserted into your avatar, and by a strange coincidence did not understand such "statesmen" as Khrushchev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, who also consistently repeated about the uselessness, high cost and redundancy of the fleet, in the first turn of surface and aircraft carrier. In addition, I doubt very much that our Navy will not have a couple of BOD-frigates to support the escort of the TAVKR. Or do you mean by the term "escort" an exclusively naval grouping in terms of numbers approaching the 6th US fleet? In Syria, "Kuznetsov" fulfilled its task, demonstrated the flag, and it was quite enough to provide it with an escort, no matter how our "liberal" and its lobby, dressed in the cassock of statesmen, tried to put everything from head to toe.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: konstantin77

Please specify the tasks, dear!

the fleet is needed! underwater and air, as well as frigates, corvettes PLO minesweepers around the bases of nuclear submarines, the aircraft carrier is therefore superfluous .... only two tasks in the DMZ = 1 patrolling rpksn = they need rpksn = AV they do not need
2 protection of fishing navigation = frigates = AB they do not need .. output = AB we do not need! and do not try to prove it by fraud at all, understand and take into account AB is not equal to the Navy

[Angry]

Of course we need aircraft carriers. And it’s silly to say that it’s expensive and that isn’t even that .... And as Comrade Lenin said: “A state without an army, this is a turtle without a shell, it’s hard to carry.” So it is with the fleet. Of course, it can be the same as in Georgia or Ukraine ... Of course, there will never be any AB there. But we have a completely different country, along the perimeter of a dozen seas and oceans. So we need a fleet. In other words (more specifically and definitely) it could be summarized as follows:
"Building a fleet that is not covered by an aviation, primarily fighter, umbrella is a useless waste of people's money." It's just that aircraft carriers are different, we don't need pure AB, we need TAVKRs like Kuznetsov, say, with 6-8 UKSKs, which will give us the opportunity to have 48-64 Zircon missiles on board and similar missiles. And this means that there is no need to keep attack aircraft of the Su-33 type on it, and it is also impossible to raise 48-64 three-ton GZPKR to strike the enemy in a few minutes ... But a salvo launch can be made in a few minutes! And no one can stop such a crowd! And the carrier-based aircraft on it is purely air defense / anti-aircraft defense. And such a new Kuznetsov will be two times less in VI and three times cheaper than the same Bush.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Angry

we think from 6-8 UKSK, which will give us the opportunity to have on board the 48-64 GZPKR "Zircon" and similar missiles. And this means that there is no need to keep attack aircraft of the Su-33 type on it, and it is also impossible to raise 48-64 three-ton GZPKR to strike the enemy in a few minutes ... But a salvo launch can be made in a few minutes!

I support your idea of ​​a non-aviation ship with several 6-8 usk missiles for the near zone under the umbrella of coastal aviation, this ship is called a frigate

[Illanatol]

Quote: konstantin77

Yes, the main part of the Strategists at that time could easily get across the United States from the Barents Sea.

And what about the MCRPL? Like, useless ballast?
They couldn't get it.
And what about the Pacific Fleet "strategists"? Let them be "suicide bombers" whom the enemy's submarine will destroy in the first minutes of the conflict?
We had to build so many submarines during the Soviet era precisely because, unlike the Yankees, they did not have effective air cover and were less likely to survive and complete the main combat mission. With the presence of escort aircraft carriers, providing cover within a radius of 500-600 km, it was possible to reduce the number of submarines several times without compromising defense capability.
Having lost (money) in one thing, they would have won in another.

[konstantin77]

"MCARPL", is this, excuse me, what class or subclass of submarines? Since 1995, in the submarine fleet, but I have never heard of such a thing, there are SSBNs, they are SSBNs in the American fleet, APCR KR, cruising or large nuclear submarines, there is an MPLA or PLAT, again depending on what is adopted in a particular fleet classification. Or do you mean by "MCARPL" the first generation missile carriers, which really do not hold out under the SSBN category ?? So, since the end of the 70s, they had no real combat value. About the "suicide bombers of the Pacific Fleet" - in the 70-80s, for geographical reasons, the problem of deployment in the Pacific Fleet was not so urgent, because the Vilyuchinsk base had a completely open access to the ocean, and the deployment itself was provided without any problems by the Kamchatka flotilla of heterogeneous forces and three divisions of multipurpose submarines. And in general, the deployment of strategic nuclear forces in those glorious times was achieved long before the outbreak of hostilities, at least 5-6 missile carriers were in combat duty in the ocean at least 80-XNUMX missile carriers (about XNUMX ballistic missiles, both with monobloc and multiple combat units), and this was more than enough for a retaliatory strike with the help of a naval component.

[Illanatol]

ISSARPL "is, excuse me, what class or subclass of submarines?

MCARPL - multipurpose nuclear missile submarines. The main armament is CD (with different warheads) and torpedoes. They are capable of striking a wide range of targets: from cities to submarines, which is why they are called multipurpose.

the problem of deployment in the Pacific Fleet was not so urgent

And what does the deployment have to do with it? It was about covering the nuclear submarine during combat patrols. Who and how covered them from the air attack? Surface ships? But the range of their airborne air defense is not entirely sufficient for such a purpose. And the Yak-38 has a too small radius. That is, there was no effective cover and our submarines were practically defenseless from enemy submarines.

[konstantin77]

"MCSRPLs are multipurpose nuclear missile-carrying submarines. The main armament is CD (with different warheads) and torpedoes." - Did you come up with all this yourself or read it somewhere on Yandex Zen?

[Illanatol]

So you are, like, a big pro in this area?
Well, educate an amateur how air cover for our submarines was provided then (or now) at a great distance from our shores.
Or is it, according to the expert, an unnecessary thing at all?

[konstantin77]

Well, big, not big ....... In a word, the main tactical property of a submarine is STEALTH. This is the only way it compares favorably with ships and aircraft. Stealth is everything for submarines, and without it it is NOTHING, it's like a formidable high-speed and maneuverable fighter, fighting not in the air, but on the ground. Accordingly, secrecy is the most effective protection and cover of submarines during combat patrols, and if this secrecy is ensured, then the boat does not need any air cover, from the word AT ALL. Take my word for it, in fact, even the ancient 667 BDR project going on patrol in readiness for the use of weapons in low noise mode on one leg (one shaft line) at a speed of 5-6 knots, somewhere in the water column of the World Ocean is very difficult to find. to do this, you need to know at least the approximate area of ​​its location (at least with a radius of 300-400 miles). Therefore, the probable enemy always tries to follow the trail of the missile carrier at its exit from the base, or near the strait, or other narrowness through which it is reliably known that the submarine will pass. If she managed to break away and burst out into the ocean space and went to a depth of 300-400 meters, under some layer of a hydroacoustic jump, then we can assume that the task of intercepting the missile carrier has failed, now it can be detected either by accident or due to an oversight of its crew , or by attracting an unmeasured detachment of anti-submarine forces (dozens of ships, aircraft and submarines), while the likelihood of detecting and establishing stable contact is still relatively low. At the same time, if we try to "provide cover for the patrol area" by aviation or surface ships, then we involuntarily surrender this area to the enemy, thereby significantly facilitating the solution of his anti-submarine mission. What the hell, then, is stealth in general, and why are submarines in general, if we ensure their combat stability not with the help of stealth, but with the help of aviation and surface ships ?!

[Illanatol]

Quote: konstantin77

Stealth is everything for submarines, and without it it is NOTHING, it's like a formidable high-speed and maneuverable fighter, fighting not in the air, but on the ground.

The most reliable way to ensure the secrecy of submarines is to exclude the work of enemy anti-submarine aviation in a given area, as well as to limit the actions of the enemy submarine.
After all, in order to detect the SP, you need someone to do it, right?
In addition, it is not enough to find a submarine - you need to be able to destroy it. Are these tasks not being solved by submarine planes? Or maybe the Yankees were able to bomb our submarines from satellites?
Let's take into account that our submarines were then noisier, but in the means of detecting submarines we were inferior to the United States.

How to do it realistically?
Just provide air cover. Deck fighters can drive off the Orions and, if they have the appropriate onboard weapons, can work out at enemy submarines.
With regard to unmasking. Let the radius of action of our carrier-based aircraft be less than that of the enemy - "only" 500-600 km. (the Yankee has a radius of 800-1000 km). But such unmasking by surface ships would give little to the enemy - the possible search zone is still too large (a circle with a diameter of 1000-1200 km). In addition, searches in this area would again be difficult, since it is under the control of our carrier-based aircraft.

And so - the only calculation is that you will not be found. But if they found out, what countermeasures could the crews of our submarines take, who could they count on? You cannot install air defense systems on a submarine - that is, they were practically defenseless. Fly in and bomb, like on a training ground.

[konstantin77]

What you describe is true only for specially designated separate water areas, the so-called. bastions. But the submarine fleet lives not only on bastions, by the way, some naval experts generally consider the concept of bastions, in fact, unpromising. And there are no SSARPLs in nature, there are submarines with ballistic missiles, the main task is to destroy coastal objects, submarines with cruise missiles - the main task is to destroy aircraft carrier strike forces, and there are multipurpose submarines (MPLA), that is, in fact, torpedo boats ( PLAT), equipped with cruise missiles fired through torpedo tubes (in our fleet, cruising or large nuclear submarines), or through additional containers.

[AC130 Gunship]

In order to reach the level of Nimitz or Ford, the Americans have been continuously building aircraft carriers for the past 90 years. They certainly have good experience and technology.
If Russia has experience in building submarines, it needs to focus on it. Tbilist / Kuznetsov was built in the mid 80s according to the 70s project. Since then, nothing. Just like that, out of thin air, developments in a new 70-100 aircraft ship do not materialize.
In addition, there is no DLRO carrier-based aircraft even in the project. And the radars on the A50 could not be brought to the level of E3

[Illanatol]

Quote: konstantin77

What you describe is true only for specially designated separate water areas, the so-called. bastions

Oh really? So the combat patrol areas are my inventions? That our submarines walked (and are walking) only in "special waters"?
Not sure. In the end, the range of our missiles is limited, and their trajectories, at least preliminary, it is better to calculate in advance. That is, during combat duty, it is better for them to be in a certain square of the World Ocean (taking into account the coordinates of the targets), sometimes not at a very great distance from the enemy's shores.

PYSY. And that we do not have a CD with nuclear warheads designed to work on ground targets?
Well, there, in cities, ports, bases?
And the future still belongs to multipurpose nuclear submarines capable of carrying both CD and torpedo weapons. Even on diesel submarines, over time, KR will be installed (maybe they are already doing it, they do not know).