The NITKA complex in Crimea will remain the only ground-based complex for training naval aviation pilots

13 May 2022 58

Ground test training complex (aviation) NITKA in the Crimean Saki will remain the only complex for training pilots of naval aviation, the use of a new complex in Yeysk is not planned. This was reported by a source in the Russian defense industry.

The Crimean complex NITKA after the modernization will receive a new television complex, similar to that installed on the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Repair work at the complex began last year, but training flights continue. At least last autumn, pilots of the 279th OKIAP trained on Su-33 and Su-25UTG aircraft and the 100th OKIAP on MiG-29K / KUB aircraft of the Northern Naval Aviation fleet. The NITKA complex in the Crimea completely repeats the takeoff deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser.

It is reported that Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Nikolai Evmenov decided to train pilots of naval aviation only at the Crimean NITKA complex, what will happen to the one under construction in Yeysk is still unknown.

The use of the NITKA complex in Yeysk for the training of carrier-based pilots is no longer planned

- leads TASS source words in the defense industry.

Recall that the construction of the NITKA complex in Yeysk began in 2011 after Ukraine banned the use of the NITKA complex in Crimea for training Russian naval aviation pilots. Construction was carried out with delays, and after 2014 it slowed down altogether, since Crimea returned to Russia, and with it the NITKA complex in Saki. The deadline for completing the construction of the complex in Yeysk was this year, but even that is inaccurate.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Yves762

+2

13 May 2022 09: 47

The use of the NITKA complex in Yeysk for the training of carrier-based aviation pilots is no longer planned ...

It looks like the need for carrier-based pilots, in plans, will be low.
And new aircraft carriers too ...
1. max702
  
  -6
  
  13 May 2022 10: 49
  
  How many resources have been spent on this bullshit called AUG ... And how much more will be .. Spend a tenth on UAVs and there would be no such difficulties in the NWO ..
  1. Aerodrome
    
    0
    
    13 May 2022 11: 01
    
    our AUG is apparently enough.
2. Genry
  
  +1
  
  13 May 2022 13: 58
  
  Quote: Yves762
  It looks like the need for carrier-based pilots, in plans, will be low.
  
  Don't UAV operators need to train?
  Quote: Yves762
  And new aircraft carriers too ...
  
  For Ukraine, they are definitely not needed.
  The need depends on the theater plans.
Chronos

+4

13 May 2022 09: 48

It is logical not to spend money on a complex in Yeysk when there is a NITKA. It is better to spend on UAVs or to complete the construction of the new flagship of the Black Sea Fleet ahead of schedule.
1. Yves762
  
  -1
  
  13 May 2022 09: 54
  
  Can't a new aircraft carrier be a flagship?
  Russia has ambitions in the same Africa, for the support of which the AUG would come in handy.
  1. Chronos
    
    +3
    
    13 May 2022 09: 56
    
    Quote: Yves762
    Can't a new aircraft carrier be a flagship?
    Russia has ambitions in the same Africa, for the support of which the AUG would come in handy.
    
    The new flagship, the Mitrofan Moskalenko large landing ship, has been under construction in Knrchi since 2020.
  2. Orsis338
    
    0
    
    13 May 2022 10: 01
    
    What ambitions are you talking about, Kuznetsov is the last aircraft carrier of the Russian Federation, for 40 years for sure
    1. ermak124.0
      
      +1
      
      13 May 2022 10: 24
      
      Kuznetsov cruiser!
      1. Orsis338
        
        0
        
        13 May 2022 10: 38
        
        Well, formally, yes, it sounds like an aircraft-carrying cruiser, and so do the Japanese destroyers-helicopter carriers
  3. Pilat2009
    
    +5
    
    13 May 2022 10: 54
    
    Quote: Yves762
    Russia has ambitions in the same Africa
    
    Only Africa was not enough for us
    1. Genry
      
      -3
      
      13 May 2022 14: 06
      
      Quote: Pilat2009
      Only Africa was not enough for us
      
      What else did you personally miss?
      Your narrow little world is very small for other people.
      1. Pilat2009
        
        +3
        
        13 May 2022 18: 38
        
        Quote: Genry
        Quote: Pilat2009
        Only Africa was not enough for us
        
        What else did you personally miss?
        Your narrow little world is very small for other people.
        
        Captain obvious? Don't go to Africa for a walk.
        AUG to the ends of the world without bases? America can go to any port of a NATO country and make repairs. Ours will be repaired on the high seas, Karl. Plus supplying the group with fuel. Do we need Africa? What countries are there that are loyal to Russia and ready to go against America ?
  4. Aerodrome
    
    +2
    
    13 May 2022 11: 01
    
    Quote: Yves762
    Can't a new aircraft carrier be a flagship?
    
    World Cup no...
2. APASUS
  
  +2
  
  13 May 2022 12: 00
  
  Quote: Chronos
  It is logical not to spend money on a complex in Yeysk when there is a NITKA. It is better to spend on UAVs or to complete the construction of the new flagship of the Black Sea Fleet ahead of schedule.
  
  Is it logical to abandon the finished complex in Yeysk and invest in the repair of the old one in Saki?
  1. Chronos
    
    +1
    
    13 May 2022 12: 20
    
    Quote: APASUS
    Quote: Chronos
    It is logical not to spend money on a complex in Yeysk when there is a NITKA. It is better to spend on UAVs or to complete the construction of the new flagship of the Black Sea Fleet ahead of schedule.
    
    Is it logical to abandon the finished complex in Yeysk and invest in the repair of the old one in Saki?
    
    Judging by the news, the complex in Yeysk has not been completed. And they built it, because Svidomo did not allow training in the Crimea.
    1. APASUS
      
      0
      
      16 May 2022 08: 22
      
      Quote: Chronos
      Judging by the news, the complex in Yeysk has not been completed. And they built it, because Svidomo did not allow training in the Crimea.
      
      Finish building a new one or restore an old one. Moreover, there are also plenty of moments of use. You can organize a pilot training center for aircraft carriers for foreign pilots, the first level.
Aleks2048

0

13 May 2022 09: 49

The NITKA complex in Crimea will remain the only ground-based complex for training naval aviation pilots

Does the Russian Federation have non-ground operating systems?
1. Egoza
  
  -2
  
  13 May 2022 10: 07
  
  Quote: Alex2048
  The NITKA complex in Crimea will remain the only ground-based complex for training naval aviation pilots
  
  I don't like this "the only one". All the same, it would be nice to have another complex in reserve. Let it be multifaceted, and in which case I could replace NITKA.
  1. Aleks2048
    
    +3
    
    13 May 2022 11: 23
    
    I don't like this "the only one". All the same, it would be nice to have another complex in reserve. Let it be multifaceted, and in which case I could replace NITKA.
    
    About what stock? The Russian Federation does not even have plans to build an aircraft carrier. This complex is redundant. Or do the laurels of Americans with aircraft carriers haunt you? Or does the region urgently need to cut the budget? What exactly? What tasks will NITKA solve today? Why teach pilots to take off and land on a non-existent (although why non-existent money is regularly spent on it) ship. The ship, which has always been nothing more than a wedding general and managed to fill up not only a combat mission, but also its own scheduled repairs. Not funny yourself?
2. Aerodrome
  
  0
  
  13 May 2022 11: 03
  
  Quote: Alex2048
  The NITKA complex in Crimea will remain the only ground-based complex for training naval aviation pilots
  
  Does the Russian Federation have non-ground operating systems?
  
  "Kuzya" ... why not a "complex". Not ground, though not sea ...
  1. Aleks2048
    
    -3
    
    13 May 2022 11: 16
    
    "Kuzya" ... why not a "complex". Not ground, though not sea ...
    
    With your faith, yes you are just a saint.
    Judging by the pace of the special operation, Kuzya will not be needed in the next 50-100 years. And perhaps in such situations, it’s really time for our Navy to get rid of this disguised general.
Alien From

+2

13 May 2022 10: 07

Built built and finally built
1. Dikson
  
  +1
  
  13 May 2022 10: 29
  
  Well, we know how to do this ..)) Since the Revolution: "... we will destroy, to the ground, and then .. - we are ours, we will build a new world .."
2. Taimen
  
  -2
  
  13 May 2022 13: 22
  
  I wonder why ekranoplans are worse in combat? After all, it was, in my opinion, "Lun". But with modern weapons it was generally good. Both speed and range and basing, almost everywhere on the water.
  1. Alien From
    
    +3
    
    13 May 2022 13: 25
    
    Ekranoplan is an unpromising direction. There have been many articles on this subject.
Pavel73

+4

13 May 2022 10: 18

The best way to destroy your own fleet without firing a shot is to start building aircraft carriers. An aircraft carrier under 100000 tons is an outdated concept of the Second World War. Mass grave for 3000 people. It is better to build 10 destroyers or even 20 frigates with the same money. The impact force of which in the aggregate will be noticeably higher, and the vulnerability is incomparably lower. A large ship creates a false sense of power and security. In reality, this is not at all the case.
1. max702
  
  -3
  
  13 May 2022 10: 50
  
  Notably you threw it on the fan ...
2. Glorious NovoRussia
  
  +1
  
  13 May 2022 10: 51
  
  Is the concept of a floating airfield needed now and for the future, and for what kind of aviation?
3. Pilat2009
  
  +2
  
  13 May 2022 10: 56
  
  Quote: Pavel73
  The best way to destroy your own fleet without firing a shot is to start building aircraft carriers. An aircraft carrier under 100000 tons is an outdated concept of the Second World War. Mass grave for 3000 people. It is better to build 10 destroyers or even 20 frigates with the same money. The impact force of which in the aggregate will be noticeably higher, and the vulnerability is incomparably lower. A large ship creates a false sense of power and security. In reality, this is not at all the case.
  
  A little different. To protect an aircraft carrier, we need air defense, anti-aircraft defense and other ships. Will our budget pull?
  1. Pavel73
    
    0
    
    13 May 2022 10: 59
    
    In fact of the matter. And therefore, isn’t it better to use these same air defense, anti-aircraft defense and other ships to protect Russia? Not an aircraft carrier.
    1. Aerodrome
      
      -2
      
      13 May 2022 11: 05
      
      "Kuznetsov" and so became a giant money-sucker, there was no point in caulking him at all. it's easier to build a new one in China. (sarcasm)
    2. Doccor18
      
      +1
      
      13 May 2022 12: 12
      
      Quote: Pavel73
      Isn't it better to use these same air defense, anti-aircraft defense and other ships to protect Russia? Not an aircraft carrier.
      
      And the aircraft carrier will not "protect" Russia?
      1. Pavel73
        
        -2
        
        13 May 2022 12: 32
        
        No. Although it is large, it is too small compared to Russia. He cannot protect her. To be able to, they need at least five pieces for both ocean fleets. What this will lead to, see the history of the battleships Ishmael.
        
        Doccor18
        
        +1
        
        13 May 2022 12: 59
        
        Quote: Pavel73
        Although it is large, it is too small compared to Russia
        
        Well, if you think like that, then everything is too small ... And how can a pair of frigates, a pair of UDC and BDK, 7 SSGNs protect huge Russia ..? Down and Out trouble started. It is clear that not 12, not 6 Russian aircraft carriers cannot be built in the coming decades, but a couple of non-nuclear, moderate aircraft carriers based in the Northern Fleet is quite realistic. True, some less secondary matters will have to be pressed a little ... [quote] [/ quote]
  2. Doccor18
    
    +2
    
    13 May 2022 12: 32
    
    Quote: Pilat2009
    Will our budget fit?
    
    According to a report by the international analytical company Refinitiv, the volume of transactions for the purchase of foreign companies by Russian legal entities has reached a six-year high of $7 billion. At the same time, Prime writes with reference to the text of the study, the M&A market in Russia itself decreased by 2 times last year compared to 1,4. https://expert.ru/2020/2022/01/rossiyskiy-biznes-bez-lishnego-shuma-skupayet-zapadniy/
    
    What does it get? Here, a business EVERY YEAR has extra cash to buy overseas assets in an amount equivalent to the cost of building a nuclear aircraft carrier ...
    1. Pilat2009
      
      0
      
      13 May 2022 18: 56
      
      Quote: Doccor18
      Quote: Pilat2009
      Will our budget fit?
      
      According to a report by the international analytical company Refinitiv, the volume of transactions for the purchase of foreign companies by Russian legal entities has reached a six-year high of $7 billion. At the same time, Prime writes with reference to the text of the study, the M&A market in Russia itself decreased by 2 times last year compared to 1,4. https://expert.ru/2020/2022/01/rossiyskiy-biznes-bez-lishnego-shuma-skupayet-zapadniy/
      
      What does it get? Here, a business EVERY YEAR has extra cash to buy overseas assets in an amount equivalent to the cost of building a nuclear aircraft carrier ...
      
      Business is business for that. The same Gazprom transfers billions to the budget. If you need money, make a tax of 50%. But then who will be engaged in business?
4. Doccor18
  
  +3
  
  13 May 2022 12: 20
  
  Quote: Pavel73
  A large ship creates a false sense of power and security. In reality, this is not at all the case.
  
  Interesting idea...
  For me, such a large ship is a more powerful and protected means of war at sea. A frigate is not comparable in combat power to a destroyer/cruiser, and the same cruiser has little chance of winning in a collision with an aircraft carrier.
  You can, of course, call the battleship Yamato
  Quote: Pavel73
  Mass grave for 3000 people
  , only the whole feint is that in order to destroy it, the Americans needed to pull down several aircraft carriers and dozens of escort ships, which, in terms of total displacement and number of crews, were many times superior to the Japanese ship ...
  1. Pavel73
    
    0
    
    13 May 2022 12: 29
    
    Now, imagine in place of Yamato two dozen destroyers and the same number of submarines with a total displacement (and cost) like Yamato. Yes, they would be tired of chasing them! And a bunch of torpedoes would get in the sides.
    1. Doccor18
      
      +4
      
      13 May 2022 12: 48
      
      Quote: Pavel73
      ... imagine two dozen destroyers and the same number of submarines in Yamato's place ...
      
      This is nothing, within the framework of WWII, of course. Japan at the end of the war had fifty square meters, and the Germans only in the 45th lost 120 submarines ...
      It is a mistake to rely on one of the types of warships, making it a "superweapon". The fleet is a multi-purpose system, where its power is manifested only in the competent interaction of all forces and means (if any, of course). An aircraft carrier makes the fleet stronger, and its absence makes it weaker, the same rule applies to other classes - submarines, destroyers, frigates and non-nuclear submarines.
      1. Pavel73
        
        -2
        
        13 May 2022 13: 06
        
        It all depends on what the goal of the fleet is. If territorial and naval expansion, then yes, aircraft carriers are needed, and a lot. If we are talking about the protection of maritime borders and the marine component of the nuclear shield, then aircraft carriers do nothing but harm. Why do we need aircraft carriers? Where are we going to take these squadrons of planes?
        
        Doccor18
        
        +2
        
        13 May 2022 13: 34
        
        Quote: Pavel73
        It all depends on what the purpose of the fleet
        
        Of course, ships are built for purposes, and not vice versa ...
        Quote: Pavel73
        If we are talking about the protection of maritime borders and the marine component of the nuclear shield, then aircraft carriers do nothing but harm
        
        Come on. What harm? The same security of the SSBNs in the north during a threatening period will frustrate plans for their destruction, disruption of plans for Japanese expansion into the Kuriles, and so on. The presence of anti-ship missiles and air defense systems on only one coastal launcher does not sober up the enemy in the same way as the AUG located in the area of \uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe proposed operation.
        Yes, and the demonstration of the flag (despite the fact that for some reason this task was reduced to impossible) has not lost its relevance at all. As the role of Russia in the world (economic - first of all, and political) strengthens, this demonstration will be required to be carried out more and more often and further from its native shores. The unique ability of a flexible naval force is that it can not only participate in a war, but also prevent it...
        
        Pavel73
        
        -1
        
        13 May 2022 13: 51
        
        Ten destroyers or 20 frigates will provide much more effective protection for SSBNs. How many hits do you need to disable an aircraft carrier? Not to sink, but to stop it from performing the main function of a floating airfield? Two or three will be enough - to demolish all the radar weapons, and that's it, he is blind and deaf. How many hits do you need to do the same for twenty frigates? Already at least 20! An aircraft carrier is a floating airfield, in itself requiring gigantic servants and cover. And needed only when you need to beat someone away from your borders with conventional weapons somewhere in Africa or South America. What are we going to?
        
        Doccor18
        
        +2
        
        13 May 2022 14: 08
        
        Quote: Pavel73
        Ten destroyers or 20 frigates will provide much more effective protection for SSBNs
        
        Disagree. Yes, and let's start with the fact that: 1. "instead" will not work, because frigates will still have to be built, 2. The cost of a non-nuclear aircraft carrier of medium displacement is the equivalent of no more than 12 URO frigates. It is more difficult with destroyers, because we do not have them, and what they will be is not yet known. But it is known that instead of one Ford, only 7 Berks can be purchased ... 3. Those conditional "12 frigates" can be repeatedly attacked by enemy carrier-based aircraft with a variety of stealth anti-ship missiles, linking the frigates with defense against these raids, while enemy anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft will be relatively do your job freely. The presence of even a dozen Russian interceptor fighters in the air can either completely thwart the attack, or make it less massive, prevent the adversary's anti-submarine aviation from deploying in the area, and free up their frigates to work on providing anti-aircraft defense.
        
        UAZ 452
        
        0
        
        14 May 2022 12: 50
        
        If these "conditional 12 frigates" cannot provide protection for the SSBN base area, then they will not be able to provide guaranteed protection for an aircraft carrier, even together with its air wing (keep 10 fighters constantly in the air, as well as AWACS aircraft, which, moreover, are not is not expected in the future for one aircraft carrier - idealism and ethereal dreams based on nothing, there will be one, maximum two duty links in the air, and a salvo of anti-ship missiles with submarines can and will be from several sides). So an enemy capable of coping with 12 modern frigates will simply sink an aircraft carrier, and then take care of the frigates.
        
        Doccor18
        
        +1
        
        14 May 2022 18: 59
        
        Quote: UAZ 452
        If these "conditional 12 frigates" cannot provide protection for the SSBN base area
        
        And I didn’t write that they “can’t”, but it’s sure that with an aircraft carrier this will be done better and with fewer losses.
        
        Quote: UAZ 452
        keep 10 fighters constantly in the air
        
        Why constantly? Constantly 4 cars, maximum.
        
        Quote: UAZ 452
        as well as AWACS aircraft, which, moreover, are not and are not expected
        
        If you start to take on an aircraft carrier program, then you cannot do without an AWACS aircraft, this is obvious. In addition, the Aerospace Forces also need a light and inexpensive (in comparison with the A-50U and A-100) AWACS aircraft.
        
        Quote: UAZ 452
        a salvo of anti-ship missiles with submarines can and will be from several sides).
        
        It can be from submarines, destroyers, carrier-based aircraft (repeated), missile-carrying aircraft (bombers), and always from several directions. And only multi-purpose forces will be able to repel this strike and protect the SSBNs: an aircraft carrier (in a threatened period and more than one ...), air defense / anti-aircraft defense frigates, MAPLs, coastal anti-submarine aviation, as well as anti-submarine submarines and diesel-electric submarines in the near sea zone. If something from this list is missing, the defense will become many times weaker. An aircraft carrier, I repeat, is not a superweapon or a panacea, but without it, the tasks of providing reconnaissance, target designation and ensuring air supremacy will be much more difficult to solve ...
        
        Quote: UAZ 452
        unfounded idealism and ethereal dreams
        
        So striving for the ideal is progress, even though the ideal is unattainable. You can grind water in a mortar for a long time, but the reality is that with an aircraft carrier, the Fleet is stronger than without it, and everything else is particulars, possibilities and manipulations.
  2. Pilat2009
    
    -1
    
    13 May 2022 19: 00
    
    Quote: Doccor18
    only the whole feint is that in order to destroy it, the Americans needed to pull together several aircraft carriers and dozens of escort ships, which, in terms of total displacement and number of crews, were several times superior to the Japanese ship ...
    
    I’ll just add that the American fleet by the end of the war was many times superior to the Japanese one. Hence the conclusion that a powerful economy and resources are needed to win the war. The Japanese have no fuel left. And aircraft with pilots.
    1. Doccor18
      
      +1
      
      13 May 2022 19: 28
      
      Quote: Pilat2009
      Hence the conclusion that a powerful economy and resources are needed to win the war.
      
      Who would doubt that.
      Only the example with Yamato was what Pavel73 wrote about the far-fetched invulnerability of capital ships. There are no invulnerable ones, but sinking a large one is much more difficult than a small one, which the Yamato example proves.
      1. UAZ 452
        
        0
        
        14 May 2022 12: 44
        
        There are no invulnerable ones, but sinking a large one is much more difficult than a small one, which the Yamato example proves.
        
        With "Moscow", it seems, they did not really strain, but it was not the smallest ship.
        
        Pilat2009
        
        0
        
        14 May 2022 16: 39
        
        Quote: UAZ 452
        With "Moscow", it seems, they did not really strain, but it was not the smallest ship.
        
        Moscow is far from Yamato.
        
        UAZ 452
        
        0
        
        14 May 2022 16: 57
        
        So after all, "several aircraft carriers and dozens of escort ships, which in terms of total displacement and number of crews were several times superior" to our cruiser, were not seen next to it. Although no one officially announced the reasons for the death of the "Moscow", but in any case, the forces and means used could not stand close to the tonnage, cost of the cruiser, or the number of its personnel.
        
        Pilat2009
        
        0
        
        15 May 2022 09: 01
        
        Quote: UAZ 452
        the forces and means used and could not stand close with the tonnage
        
        You take an interest in the history of the use of anti-ship missiles.
        
        UAZ 452
        
        0
        
        15 May 2022 09: 50
        
        And this story testifies in favor of large tonnage ships? What are the pages of this very history?
KrolikZanuda

+1

13 May 2022 11: 03

And what's the point in Yeysk to finish building something that no one needs? Only if you continue to cut money in this circus called Kuznetsov. Since 2017, he has been eating from the budget, zero benefit.
UVB

0

13 May 2022 11: 31

The use of the NITKA complex in Yeysk for the training of carrier-based pilots is no longer planned
Rent out to Indians or Chinese and earn money.
Penzyak

0

13 May 2022 16: 38

This is where everyone noticed
The NITKA complex in Yeysk was started construction in 2011 after Ukraine banned the use of the NITKA complex in Crimea for training Russian naval aviation pilots.

And who was the president in Ukraine then - was it not the same "professor" - a lover of fur hats?
And how is he now resting near Rostov? Or dreams of returning to Kiev?
Antokha

0

13 May 2022 21: 20

The work that has been started must be ... quit!
UAZ 452

0

14 May 2022 12: 42

One can ask: why do we need complexes for training ship-based aviation pilots (naval aviation is a broader concept), if the question of the country's need for an aircraft carrier component in general in the foreseeable future is more than ambiguous? Otherwise, you can continue to dream about covering up the landing operation in South America, projecting power in Africa until the very time when the borders of our state will pass exactly along the Moscow Ring Road.