Nevskoye Design Bureau presented the project of a light non-nuclear aircraft carrier "Varan"

While the military is arguing about the need to build new aircraft carriers and continue to expect the return of the only aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov to combat, the Nevskoye Design Bureau presented a project for the Varan light non-nuclear aircraft carrier as part of the Army-2022 forum.

The layout of the new ship is shown in the pavilion of the United Shipbuilding Corporation. According to the idea of ​​the developers, the Varan light aircraft carrier with a displacement of 45 tons will have a non-nuclear power plant and will be able to carry more than twenty carrier-based fighters, for which an electromagnetic catapult will be used to take off. This conclusion was made due to the lack of a take-off springboard on the ship.

As stated, carrier-based MiG-29K fighters, Ka-27 and Ka-29 anti-submarine helicopters, as well as Ka-52K "Katran" and Drones aircraft type. For aviation below-deck hangar is provided.

It is worth noting that last year the American edition of Forbes criticized the sketch of the Varan aircraft carrier, saying that this project was "not serious." This conclusion was made as a result of the analysis of the image of the ship. It was also stated that the project would not continue, because "the Kremlin will not allocate money for its construction."

Earlier, the Nevskoye Design Bureau presented a project for a new nuclear aircraft carrier 11430E "Lamantin", based on the developments under the project of a nuclear heavy aircraft carrier of project 1143.7 "Ulyanovsk". This project included the construction of a nuclear aircraft carrier with a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, a maximum length of 350 meters, equipped with a springboard, two electromagnetic catapults and four arresters. The ship could carry up to 60 carrier-based fighters, helicopters and drones.

Comments

[Pereira]

To begin with, it would be nice to remember how to build destroyers. And then swing at the big ship.
And the naval headquarters would understand where to put the aircraft carrier, if they do build it?

[tralflot1832]

Destroyers are not the profile of the Nevsky Design Bureau. Their last project, which is being implemented by the BDK "Ivan Gren".

[Pereira]

Destroyers, now - no one's profile at all. Skills and technologies are lost a little less than completely.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Pereira

Destroyers, now - no one's profile at all.

22350M did not please?

[Genry]

Hosspodaa! What are you not aware of???

The official laying ceremony for the Russian Navy of two universal landing ships (UDC) "Ivan Rogov" and "Mitrofan Moskalenko" of project 23900 (serial numbers 01901 and 01902) took place at Zaliv Shipbuilding Plant LLC in Kerch on July 20, 2020.

What kind of animal is this:
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4572075.html

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Genry

Hosspodaa! What are you not aware of???

Yes, we are aware. But that's why you are writing this, it seems that destroyers are being discussed here. As for the UDC, there is no need to build special illusions here - it is highly likely that they will never enter the fleet

[Genry]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

here like destroyers are being discussed.

Not destroyers - but ships with larger tonnage.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

As for the UDC, there is no need to build special illusions here - it is highly likely that they will never enter the fleet

Already two years in "production", and you have: "they will never enter."

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Yes. And according to some reports, the technical readiness of both ships remained at zero

[Grits]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Yes. And according to some reports, the technical readiness of both ships remained at zero

Indeed, nothing is heard about them. Apparently, there everything remained at the level of the mortgage board.

[Johnson Smithson]

and what should be heard about them now, if according to the plan they should be ready only in 2027-2028?

[g1v2]

The project is still being developed by KB, which did not build such large ships. The plant is only being brought into shape and it has not built anything like this for a long time. Why should there be something there now? The normal real term for these ships is 9-10 years with tests. If you expect them before the second half of the 20s, then this is very strange. Personally, I expect them by the age of 29-30. Plus or minus a year or two. If at least one is handed over before the 29th year, I will be very surprised. This is a reality and it was clear even before the laying.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: g1v2

Why should there be something there now?

Hull structures should be formed there now. So, according to Timokhin and Klimov, everything there is at a near-zero stage. That is, for two years, ships have practically not been built.

[g1v2]

If the project is not ready yet and the design bureau is working on it, then why should they rush? Again, the words of Timokhin and Klimov are not the words of representatives of shipyards or design bureaus. It's still an OBS agency. At the end of February, they promised only to begin the formation of the corps. By the end of the year we will see if there is progress.

[Grits]

Quote: Genry

What kind of animal is this:

Our belated response to the frogs

[Grits]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

22350M did not please?

Everyone says it's a frigate...
And "Leader" is a destroyer. Shy, probably.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Gritsa

Everyone says it's a frigate...
And "Leader" is a destroyer.

Judge for yourself - the 22350 has a normal displacement of 4 tons, and the 500M was even called 22350 tons. Information about weapons boils down to the fact that in total the ship will carry 7-000 cells for missiles, of which 80 are "sub-caliber". That is, in terms of size and ammunition, the 96M is quite consistent with the American Arleigh Burke.
And about the leader ... according to him, the displacement is called 14-18 thousand tons, not all cruisers have this.

[Novosibirsk]

Well, China was building destroyers 20 years ago

[Liao]

Not this way. Twenty years ago the Americans invited our navy to visit the United States. We were embarrassed to find that our fleet did not actually have a single seaworthy ship to cross the Pacific.

So we started building immature destroyers. One destroyer at a time. We adopted the "Slow pace, fast run" strategy, and ten years later the conditions were ripe. That's when we launched the "Command & Conquer: Red Alert" mode, and that's when we learned the story that "in one year, the Chinese launched and put into service 200 tons of warships, the size of the entire French fleet."

We build aircraft carriers in exactly the same way, starting with Varyag, then repeating and improving Varyag, then 003, it's a long, planned, down-to-earth process. Not the "Chinese quality" that the Jews on this site despise.

[Novosibirsk]

Specifically for China, the destroyer was made in 2000

[Liao]

I don't understand your exact meaning, but seeing your usual annoying tone, this may again be a bad meaning directed at the Chinese.

[Novosibirsk]

No need to guess. I just mentioned a fact.

[Ryusei]

With a run and against the wall ...

[Albert Brecht]

Good morning! What is being implemented? Vanyatka is already ready, there is even a paired photo from the last Salon, so that with little eyes and little hands

[rumpeljschtizhen]

They almost made it ... after 17 years

[Victor_B]

Quote: Pereira

And the naval headquarters would understand where to put the aircraft carrier, if they do build it?

It seems that the construction of AB is included in the doctrine?
So the tasks are included.
And there will be many more projections.
Before the fleet orders.

[Starover_Z]

Quote: Pereira

To begin with, it would be nice to remember how to build destroyers. And then swing at the big ship.
And the naval headquarters would understand where to put the aircraft carrier, if they do build it?

Well, the project is one thing, but where will it be assembled and who, is there everything for assembly?
Let the factories be given the opportunity to build what they need and in the right quantities.
And let the design bureaus work, why waste time and resources.

[iouris]

"Be realistic - demand the impossible!"
Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit (Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit, born April 4, 1945, in a Jewish family, Montauban, Department of Tarn and Garonne, France) is a European politician. One of the leaders of the student unrest in France in May 1968 is an anarchist, later a leader of the French and German green parties. Since 2002, he has been co-chair of the Greens - European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament. One of the few Western European politicians participating in the political life of two countries at once (Germany and France).
Maybe there are only anarchists in the "naval headquarters", who will later become "green" (in which countries)?

[musorg]

Are you pointing out to the naval headquarters? What rank are you in the Navy?

[PROXOR]

Here I am about the same. I would like to come up and give a slap on the back of the head, so that not the project is multiplied, but the surface forces are saturated with destroyers. And then we are already converting the BOD into destroyers.

[Scharnhorst]

It's even worse - in frigates !!!

[MegaWattExpert]

It is doubtful that the Nevsky Design Bureau will be able to develop such a project with high quality.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: MegaWattExpert

It is doubtful that the Nevsky Design Bureau will be able to develop such a project with high quality.

Yes. All TAVKR, the restructuring of Baku to Vikramaditya, the Indian "Vikrant" - and suddenly it will not be able to.

[MegaWattExpert]

It would be good to involve both the Nevskoye Design Bureau and the Zelenodolsk Design Bureau for the design of such a ship. The Nevsky Design Bureau would take up the constructive design, and the Zelenodolsk Design Bureau would take up the engineer.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: MegaWattExpert

the Elenodolsk Design Bureau would take on an engineer.

What for? Zelenodolsk really doesn’t have the slightest experience in designing large warships

[MegaWattExpert]

Both PCBs have their own merits and strengths. I know from my own experience that the Nevsky Design Bureau is not doing well with engineering.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Well, I admit, I do not know the topic enough to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each PCB.

[Grits]

Quote: MegaWattExpert

and the Zelenodolsk Design Bureau would take on an engineer.

And this engineer would be at a level no higher than a small rocket ship. For they do not pull on a larger one due to the lack of specialists and skills of the proper profile

[MegaWattExpert]

They (Zelenodolsk Design Bureau) made a well-designed UDC project with a normal RKD

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: MegaWattExpert

They (Zelenodolsk Design Bureau) made a well-designed UDC project with a normal RKD

:)))))))

[Boa kaa]

Zelenodolsk residents designed TFR project 11540 t. "Fearless". This is the first station wagon. They put Uranus on "Y. Wise" and became a station wagon, and the first one made using low visibility technology.

[gland]

Looks right, wow!

[Pereira]

I suspect the designer is a girl.

[faiver]

now you look at designers and you won’t understand a boy or a girl

[Albert Brecht]

No-no-no, on Louboutins- ah, and in amazing shorts!!!

[FIR FIR]

And not just for designers.

[Piramidon]

Quote: gland

Looks right, wow!

Those models are really cool.

[bobba94]

What does it cost us, Varan to build,
Let's draw - let's swim

[AAC]

I don't think it's worth jumping on a departing train. Bringing democracy somewhere to Africa is not in our doctrine, but a dozen squadrons can be sunk to the bottom with one missile. We need promising other types of weapons.

[Doccor18]

Quote: AAC

and you can launch a dozen squadrons to the bottom with one rocket.

Ten squadrons? One rocket? However...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Doccor18

Ten squadrons? One rocket? However...

"That's what the life-giving cross does!" (With)

[AAC]

If you take a capacity of 60 units and one squadron of 6 units, then you get 10 squadrons. And if one missile flies well, then kerdyk to the aircraft carrier with all the materiel. In a global conflict, such a target will become a priority.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AAC

If you take a capacity of 60 units and one squadron of 6 units, then you get 10 squadrons.

And given the fact that the squadron is a little twice as large ...

Quote: AAC

And if one missile flies well, then kerdyk to the aircraft carrier with all the materiel.

Can you give an example of such a "kerdyk" from one rocket?

[Doccor18]

Quote: AAC

If we take a capacity of 60 units and one squadron of 6 units,

Squadrons, of course, are different in size, but it is hard to believe that one missile can sink a ship of this size. In my opinion, it will take at least a dozen ...

[Ryusei]

First of all, you need brains so that you don’t carry fierce nonsense.

[Grits]

Quote: AAC

I don't think it's worth jumping on a departing train. Bringing democracy somewhere to Africa is not in our doctrine, but a dozen squadrons can be sunk to the bottom with one missile. We need promising other types of weapons.

the task of aircraft carriers is not to frighten Africa, but to carry out reconnaissance and target designation at a distance from our shores, cover the deployment areas of our nuclear submarines, and search for enemy submarines. And all this with the help of aviation, which does not reach from ground airfields.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Gritsa

but to carry out reconnaissance and target designation at a distance from our coasts, to cover the deployment areas of our nuclear submarines

I'm wondering when this will already reach the legion of opponents of aircraft carriers. From year to year the same thing, the same questions and answers...

[igorka357]

Layouts, drawings, developments... clowning in one word. In the not too distant past in the USSR, by order of the puck, the Canadians were scored at a certain time. And they didn’t ask about the development and launch into the series at all, you can, you can’t .. they said the Motherland demands, if you don’t do it, the conversation will be elsewhere. And engineers designed, and factories began to build. Now only drawings, projects, etc. Armata is great and terrible, like all boomerangs, they will ride through the parades, and be tested and brought to mind, and then look and the new drank dough will roll up in time. It's sad, of course.

[g1v2]

And where is this country now? If everything about her was so cool and beautiful?

[igorka357]

People like you ruined it from the inside. Only they were in government.

[g1v2]

That is, a mighty country was ruined by a handful of people? And there was no system of protection against a fool, a system of checks and balances, and so on? And how did it happen that all these people went all the way from top to bottom and the system brought them up in such a number? And why, after the collapse, none of the former leaders of the republics began to build this very communism? Maybe because they no longer believed in him, either from below or from above? And the system initially had critical errors in the project itself?
It seems that such reflections are too complicated for children.

[U_GOREC]

Quote: g1v2

That is, a mighty country was ruined by a handful of people? And there was no system of protection against a fool, a system of checks and balances, and so on? And how did it happen that all these people went all the way from top to bottom and the system brought them up in such a number? And why, after the collapse, none of the former leaders of the republics began to build this very communism? Maybe because they no longer believed in him, either from below or from above? And the system initially had critical errors in the project itself?
It seems that such reflections are too complicated for children.

Just, initially, the system was excellent - for more than 20 years, GDP growth, on average, by 13,5% per year. Never in history, nowhere in the world has there been such a large and at the same time continuous growth. It is a fact! The system began to decompose and destroy since 1954. And it took 40 years to finally kill it and the decomposed elite was able to privatize it.
But even now, 30 years after the Crash, we remain competitive at the global level, only in those areas (nuclear energy, space, military-industrial complex, icebreaker fleet...) that were inherited from that System!
But it seems that such reflections are too complicated for children.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: g1v2

And where is this country now? If everything about her was so cool and beautiful?

Betrayed and sold HER BAD boys for the Nobel Peace Prize.
And the second drunk boy finished off Don Perignon for a bottle.

[Repellent]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

per bottle Don Perignon

Such?

[g1v2]

Kamrad. You are an adult. It does not happen that the country was broken by two hamadryas. It was broken by the entire Soviet elite - both central and regional. But the fact that this elite turned out to be like this and the system put forward it for decades is a consequence of structural problems and mistakes made at the foundation stage. Mistakes on many fronts.
To say that the USSR was destroyed by the labeled Mishka and the alcoholic wrestler is exactly the same as saying that the Republic of Ingushetia was destroyed by Kolya the 2nd and burry in a cap. The reasons in both cases were much deeper, and the problems grew over the years. It just happened during a bunch - a weak king and a strong oppositionist. But the number one problem is the degradation of power, elites and society.

[Deep Diver]

A beautiful picture that will remain a picture, a maximum 3D model

[marc75]

Some layouts can be repainted and presented at the Army-2023 as "Varan-2"

[Russian Patriot]

This is the same if the Nevskoye Design Bureau presented a model of the "Space Underwater Intergalactic Stealth Aircraft Carrier".
Things will not go further than a plastic model. Just layout for layout's sake.

[svp67]

for the takeoff of which an electromagnetic catapult will be used.

And how much energy is required for this and where to get it from, on a non-nuclear ship, above the average tonnage ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: svp67

And how much energy is required for this and where to get it from

A very good question. Where does the non-nuclear 45 thousand energy for 2 EL catopults come from - this mystery is great

[Grits]

Quote: svp67

And how much energy is required for this and where to get it from, on a non-nuclear ship, above the average tonnage ...

In my understanding, an aircraft carrier (and even with a steam or electromagnetic catapult) in the modern world is a complete anachronism and idiocy

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Gritsa

In my understanding, an aircraft carrier (and even with a steam or electromagnetic catapult) in the modern world is a complete anachronism and idiocy

Why are you being modest!?
Tell it to the amers - AVM "D. Ford"
Tell that to the whales - AB type 03.
These machines with EMC!!! The best that is in the surface fleets of these maritime powers.

[Grits]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Why are you being modest!?
Tell it to the amers - AVM "D. Ford"
Tell that to the whales - AB type 03.
These machines with EMC!!! The best that is in the surface fleets of these maritime powers

I just noticed an error in my post. That is why the whole meaning is lost. I meant an anachronism - an aircraft carrier with a non-nuclear SU

[Waterways 672]

It reminded me of the movie "Beware of the Car": "Isn't it time, my friends, for us to take a swing at William, do you understand, m-m, our Shakespeare?"

[Boa kaa]

Swing oh, you can ...
But the "props" have not been delivered, and the "scene" is not ready ...
Again, "decorations" ... of that ...

[Graz]

aircraft carriers are food for new hypersonic missile weapons for the coming decades, they are not needed

[bulgaria_]

Hypersound and rockets in general will become a thing of the past when power plants are more powerful and smaller. Then the laser and electromagnets will come to the fore. That's why Russia needs a competent plan for space, and not for the sea.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Graz

aircraft carriers are fodder for new hypersonic missile weapons

And before that, they were food for the supersonic (appeared in the early 80s, a rocket that was really capable of intercepting appeared in 2004). But, disgusting, no one told the aircraft carriers that they were food, and in their ignorance they continued and continue to rule the seas

[hell machine]

Do aircraft carriers rule the seas? No, they are very effective in the NATO doctrine. When they choose an enemy that can be safely bombed and ships cannot be reached. In my opinion, only during the war between Britain and Argentina, aircraft carriers were somehow hit.
As you can see, even Soviet missiles can destroy ships (the same cruiser Moscow).
Therefore, they rule the seas, it is very doubtful. However, I admit that the effectiveness of the use against an enemy who is without long-range missiles.
You can say a floating base that can sail almost anywhere

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from hell machine

As you can see, even Soviet missiles can destroy ships (the same cruiser Moscow).

If there were rockets. But in general they can, of course, who argues

Quote from hell machine

In my opinion, only during the war between Britain and Argentina, aircraft carriers were somehow hit.

You are missing out on the richest experience of the USSR Navy in confronting the American one. Despite the presence of recommended missiles, it was far from always possible to "cover" the AUG that practiced strikes against ours, and only if there was a sufficient outfit of forces (MRA, nuclear submarines, etc.) An aircraft carrier is not a wunderwaffe and can be destroyed, but the battle against the AUG our sailors and pilots passed in the category of aerobatics, it was an extremely difficult enemy. Even when operating off our shores. In the ocean, without the support of MRA air divisions ...
Therefore, yes, aircraft carriers ruled the seas. The Soviet Navy, which was completely understandable from mutual maneuvers, had a 50/50 chance of defeating aircraft carriers off their coasts, but not in the ocean.

[hell machine]

Now missiles with a range of under 3000 km, it is obvious that air defense (our or American) will not be able to shoot down all the missiles. Well, except for very handicraft missiles made in the basement (these will bring down everyone).
I repeat, you can work out as much as you like, but the real battle will be completely different.
Real attacks on aircraft carriers were during the Falklands War. Well, I would not say that Argentina owned powerful anti-ship missiles.
We don't know how things will turn out in reality.
I personally believe that the AUG will be destroyed (if the enemy has something to hit).
Still, the warriors tell what prodigies are in the army and they shoot down everything, suppress everything - but in reality it’s different

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from hell machine

Now missiles with a range of under 3000 km

There are no such anti-ship missiles.

Quote from hell machine

I repeat, you can work out as much as you like, but the real battle will be completely different.

Still, conclusions can be drawn. In fact, our main difficulty was to find an aircraft carrier and keep contact with it. It happened that they noticed him, raised the Tu-22 regiment on alarm - and nothing. Contact lost, flight wasted.

Quote from hell machine

Real attacks on aircraft carriers were during the Falklands War. Well, I would not say that Argentina owned powerful anti-ship missiles.

And I would not say that Britain had aircraft carriers.

Quote from hell machine

I personally believe that the AUG will be destroyed (if the enemy has something to hit).

Today, the Russian Navy does not have at any theater a detachment of forces sufficient to defeat the AUS, and reconnaissance capabilities have decreased significantly since the times of the USSR.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Today, the Russian Navy does not have at any theater a detachment of forces sufficient to defeat the AUS, and reconnaissance capabilities have decreased significantly since the times of the USSR.

Andrey, I welcome you.
Probably this is so ... BUT !!! There are preconditions!
1. With the deployment of submarine forces from the GZ anti-ship missiles, the Yankee carrier formations will be under constant "supervision".
2. Let me remind you that one of the options for the Poseidon AUV was declared to be the fight against the enemy's AUS.
3. The space constellation of our "Earth remote sensing" spacecraft is being restored.
4. There are over-the-horizon radars capable of looking at 3000 km away ...
5. And finally, the last argument of the kings - SBP on carriers (CR and TO).
So, not everything is obvious. And not all the obvious is fully known! (With)

[Ryusei]

Where do such stupid people come from and really find chtol in cabbages.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Ryusey

Where do such stupid people come from and really find chtol in cabbages.

No, the Stork did not inform him ... he dropped it on the way ...

[faiver]

maybe adults will return ship modeling to children?

[couch]

God! how tired of these projects, projectors and others ... When will we start building at least something similar to aircraft carriers. At worst, blind a large barge and place aircraft on it, and then bread (as they say)

[Piramidon]

Quote from sofa

When will we start building at least something similar to aircraft carriers

The Navy itself does not yet really know whether it needs them and, if needed, then for what. There was no place for them in the naval doctrine.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Piramidon

There was no place for them in the naval doctrine.

1. For starters, it would be worth reading the Doctrine ... so as not to bubble water in vain.
Shipbuilding section, paragraph 9, we read:

ensuring the capabilities of the shipbuilding complex of the Russian Federation for the construction of large-capacity vessels, including modern aircraft carriers for the Navy"

Somehow, however.

[max702]

For starters, it would be nice to build coastal infrastructure, shipyards, berths, a support fleet and much more, otherwise the examples of "Ural" and "goldfish" will not teach anything ..

[Grits]

Quote: max702

For starters, it would be nice to build coastal infrastructure, shipyards, berths, a support fleet and much more, otherwise the examples of "Ural" and "goldfish" will not teach anything ..

I had a chance to work at Ural in the summer of 91. And then he stood on the roads near Putyatin Island, and not at the pier, working out the resource. Because the infrastructure did not exist then, and it does not exist now.

[max702]

That's actually what I'm talking about, billions per combat unit, please, thousands for the servants of Fig ..

[Kuziming]

As the name suggests, it has nothing to do on the water.

1. Calling sea vessels "karakurt", "cheetah", or the names of cities that do not have access to the sea is the height of perverted fantasy.

2. A shortened aircraft carrier, this is something like an airfield cap - it increases a sense of self-worth, but is useless for business.

[Liao]

My impression is that if this is a non-nuclear ship, then the island should not be so far ahead, it should be in the middle of the ship, as this will allow the shortest exhaust pipes to be used.

[SVD68]

How again
There was already Varan, represented. Even with the same number 064

[Cowbra]

Tfu! Got it. There are no catapults, no escort ships. In fact, there is no aviation either - well, the simplest thing - is there a deck-based AWACS? And without it, the functionality is immediately, specifically curtailed ...
No, you can drive a helicopter. In the Russian Federation, there are already as many as TWO! If they are still alive. For comparison, the same in India - 14 pieces.
What will it be anyway? A target complex, moreover, for Lithuania, and not for the USA?

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

On British aircraft carriers there is no carrier-based AWACS aircraft and nothing.

Another point that the aircraft could be built later would be the deck.

And aviation is the MiG-29K and its new version based on the MiG-35 + the ship version of the Ka-52 + anti-submarine helicopters and AWACS helicopters.

[Cowbra]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

On British aircraft carriers there is no carrier-based AWACS aircraft and nothing.

They generally do not have carrier-based aircraft. They haven't accepted it yet... But they don't even have missiles for warheads - they take a loan from the Americans. And what, now to equal the degenerates? For comparison, having squandered money on two useless and empty aircraft carriers, they were left without a land army, in which the last tanks are being decommissioned, and in fact without an air force. So-so role model

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

And what, now to equal the degenerates?

To begin with, do not whine, use and improve what you have and do it even better, gradually increasing your power and capabilities.

[Grits]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

And aviation is the MiG-29K and its new version based on the MiG-35 +

Forget about the MiG-29 and MiG-35 already. Soon you won’t even find a foundation from the factory

[Oorfene Juice and his wooden soldiers]

The American edition of Forbes criticized the sketch of the Varan aircraft carrier, saying that this project is "not serious"

[TEX-50]

If diesel-electric submarines are a completely justified solution, especially in the near sea zone, because they are quieter and cheaper, then what is the point of building a non-nuclear aircraft carrier is a mystery.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Russia does not need a non-nuclear aircraft carrier, it needs a nuclear one, so that it can perform its function off foreign shores as much as it likes and not depend on fuel supplies.

[iouris]

For what task, where will it be built, to which port will it be assigned, and why just one? Maybe fifteen of them?
Yes, and why "Varan"? Why associate yourself with Central Asia?

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

It's not about quantity, but about quality.

And so we must try to build at least 5 by 2 in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet + one spare for the duration of the service replaces the retired one.

It is clear not immediately and it is clear after the fleet is saturated with corvettes, minesweepers, frigates and destroyers, but you need to go towards this goal.

[-Paul-]

The states are barely pulling out the content of 11 pieces, and here 15 ... Cut the sturgeon.

[Liao]

Nuclear carriers also require a lot of aviation fuel, lubricating oil, food, ammunition and supplies, and a single maintenance visit takes longer than a single voyage. If you don't have multiple carriers to rotate, one nuclear carrier will only leave you without a carrier for more time.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Instead of a nuclear aircraft carrier, oil, food and ammunition are not needed?

Among other things, the aircraft carrier eats a lot of fuel, and what if they don’t want to refuel it in other ports? In addition to the AUG, build another fleet of tankers and a sea of ​​frigates to protect them?

The French only have 1 nuclear aircraft carrier and nothing, of course 2 or 4 would be better, but 1 is better than none.

And Russia needs 5 aircraft carriers for good, 2 each for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet and 1 spare to replace the one that will be in service.

[iouris]

The SF bases are under growing threat. Yes, and the Pacific Fleet is locked. CHF - you understand. We need access to the Indian Ocean. And who will give us?

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

The SF bases are under growing threat. Yes, and the Pacific Fleet is locked. CHF - you understand. We need access to the Indian Ocean. And who will give us?

Any naval base is under the threat of a strike, for this there are measures to prevent such a threat. For example, combat duty, when the fleet is not at the base, but is already at sea, where it is necessary and you don’t need to ask anyone for this.

[Liao]

In addition to the AUG, build another fleet of tankers and a sea of ​​frigates to protect them?

My point is that nuclear carriers require just as much resupply and don't have unlimited range. The planes on board are much more "hungry and greedy" for fuel than the carriers themselves (only the Jews can compare with them).

You have to understand that an aircraft carrier usually means a battle fleet, and the destroyers and frigates in that fleet are non-nuclear. Obviously unlimited cruise is a false proposition.

Therefore, even with a nuclear carrier, you need to build logistics support ships for each week's supply.

Nuclear and non-nuclear aircraft carriers do not have such a huge spread in use as conventional and nuclear submarines. With the right choice, they are all good, regardless of the type of food.

In fact, due to their sheer size, aircraft carriers can carry 10 tons of fuel simultaneously for 000 nautical miles, more than enough for them to carry out a full combat on their own without the need to refuel.

The real advantage of nuclear power is not "unlimited range" but the provision of an adequate power supply. It is also small enough to allow the carrier to carry more jet fuel or multiple aircraft. But you must understand that they will be 50% more expensive to build and almost 30%-50% more expensive to operate than traditional energy.

Okay, now you have to choose whether to build 2 nuclear carriers with the same resources or build 3 regular carriers?

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

In fact, due to their sheer size, aircraft carriers can carry 10 tons of fuel simultaneously for 000 nautical miles, more than enough for them to carry out a full combat on their own without the need to refuel.

Our TAVRK "Admiral Kuznetsov" did not reach Syria without refueling. What 10 nautical miles are you talking about?

Another point is that the huge reserves of fuel are also an extra vulnerability of the ship in the event of a missile hitting it.

And it’s one thing to carry fuel with you for 2 frigates and 2 destroyers, and it’s quite another to supply fuel + a ship with a displacement of 80-100 tons.

Roughly, you will have to spend 2 times more on fuel. There is a difference? There is also a huge one, that is, we need 2 times more supply ships and more ships to escort these supply ships.

Now imagine that the convoy was destroyed by an enemy submarine, what will happen to our AUG after running out of fuel? All of them are finished. And a nuclear aircraft carrier will be able to remain combat-ready and maintain such combat capability for a very long time.

The task for an aircraft carrier group will not only be to sail somewhere, but to carry out combat duty for months, and maybe even years, you will get tired of carrying fuel oil to an ordinary aircraft carrier.

A nuclear aircraft carrier is the fulcrum of the fleet and it must work for a long time. Automation will lead to a reduction in the number of crew, food can be loaded onto this ship for years, and if necessary, the crew can be changed right at sea.

In addition to the aircraft carrier, cruisers can and should also be made nuclear-powered, then we will significantly increase the independence of our fleet from fuel and the stability of our forces at sea.

[Grits]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Russia does not need a non-nuclear aircraft carrier, it needs a nuclear one, so that it can perform its function off foreign shores as much as it likes and not depend on fuel supplies.

Plus, we can build nuclear reactors for ships very well. But with other engines it somehow didn’t work out and it looks very sad.

[Wildcat]

It's not funny anymore. The number of projects and models based on them can decorate any circle of ship modeling.

that last year the American edition of Forbes criticized the sketch of the Varan aircraft carrier, saying that this project was "not serious." This conclusion was made as a result of the analysis of the image of the ship. It was also stated that the project would not continue, because "the Kremlin will not allocate money for its construction."
Earlier, the Nevskoye Design Bureau presented a project for a new nuclear aircraft carrier 11430E "Lamantine"

I think it is necessary to entrust the construction of an aircraft carrier to the guys who built Scheherazade's yacht.
They are quietly building, imperceptibly, 700 million USD (the price is not up to an aircraft carrier, but quite a bit), as they say in the news.


The guys know how to work with money, they rummage around in shipbuilding, they don’t throw anyone away - they will build an aircraft carrier. Let it be under the flag of the Cayman Islands for a start .....

[Yuriy Malyshko]

This is called, give ersatz! It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...

[Scharnhorst]

light aircraft carrier "Varan" with a displacement of 45 tons

Why go into verbiage about a light aircraft carrier if such a ship in the USSR was called a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser pr 1143.4 "Admiral Gorshkov", now "Vikramaditya"?

carrier-based MiG-29K fighters, Ka-27 and Ka-29 anti-submarine helicopters can enter the aircraft carrier's air wing

On a new aircraft carrier, junk from the last century, which has already been discontinued?

for the takeoff of which an electromagnetic catapult will be used

Judging by the model, there should be two of them. Will we take electricity for it like Europeans, from a socket? Looking at the picture, I did not find on the small superstructure located in front either an exhaust pipe from a 40.000 hp non-nuclear power plant, or a decent locator to illuminate the air situation.
Well, the architecture with the contours of the hull is more reminiscent of an average tanker or a leisurely gas carrier than a warship with an estimated speed of at least 25 knots. It was as if the designer on Louboutins was straining ...

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

And send it to the Black Sea Fleet. There commanders know how to dispose of large ships.

[acetophenone]

What are you going to turn the screw with? Will the engine be removed from Kuznetsov and rearranged?
Or on the outskirts (if you're lucky!) hope to do it?