Military Review

Indian aircraft carrier finally turned into expensive long-term construction

72
Indian television station NDTV reported that the Indian Ministry of Defense decided to send a request to the government to allocate additional 2000 crores (20 billion rupees, or about $ 363 million) to pay for the overrun during the first stage of the construction of the national aircraft carrier IAC (Indigenous Aircraft Carrier). This decision was made as a result of a discussion of the construction of IAC at 20 in November 2012 at a meeting chaired by the Minister of Defense of India AK. Anthony.

The ship with a standard displacement of 40 thousand tons, which is expected to be called Vikrant, is being built from 2008 year at the state shipbuilding enterprise Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL) in Cochin.

Previously A.K. Anthony stated in parliament that the IAC construction program is progressing at a time lag of at least five years and that the ship will be ready no earlier than 2018 of the year instead of the originally planned date (2014 of the year). At the November 20 meeting, the Minister of Defense of India demanded that the CSL shipyard finally set the date for the delivery of the aircraft carrier.

Sources told NDTV that the cost of the first stage of aircraft carrier construction, which was planned for 2003 crores (3200 billion rupees, or about $ 32 million at the then rate), for the 700 budget, increased due to delays. At the first stage of construction, the shipyard was supposed to bring the weight of the ship's hull to 18 thousand tons, but so far the hull mass is only 14 thousand tons. The total cost of building an IAC aircraft carrier is now estimated from 14 to 18 thousand crore (from 140 to 180 billion rupees, or from 2,54 to 3,27 billion dollars).
Originator:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com
72 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. soldat1945
    soldat1945 28 November 2012 09: 59
    +9
    The fact that India is able to build aircraft carriers is already a hyper step in the development of the country, and ours will develop a concept only by the year 20! Hurry, you have to hurry very much!
    1. sv-sakh
      sv-sakh 28 November 2012 10: 17
      +4
      India, alone, is unable to do anything ...
      (before stupidly poking minuses, write in a comment, a list of outstanding military equipment made in India ...)
      1. mamba
        mamba 28 November 2012 10: 21
        +8
        Well, they do the same, albeit with great difficulties. Therefore, our delays in the alteration of Gorshkov are treated with understanding and tolerance so far.
        But for now we can only build frigates for ourselves. And then piece by piece.
        1. starshina78
          starshina78 28 November 2012 19: 24
          +2
          For reference: not a single frigate has been built in Russia for the needs of its own Navy. We build corvettes, small artillery and missile boats, anti-sabotage boats, and even then "a teaspoon per hour." Almost like an Indian aircraft carrier.
          1. Gluxar_
            Gluxar_ 29 November 2012 22: 24
            +1
            Well, even nuclear missile carriers and strategic submarines, frigates, too, are building for ourselves.
      2. soldat1945
        soldat1945 28 November 2012 10: 22
        +7
        I was at joint exercises, and on a business trip there, they can do a lot, and are growing by leaps and bounds, and our T-90s are already almost self-produced, albeit of lower quality, but this is engineering experience, and even 10 years ago they were of military designation let out nothing!
        1. sv-sakh
          sv-sakh 28 November 2012 10: 25
          +11
          Amazing !!! They began to produce T-90 almost independently according to the finished drawings !! Here is an achievement !! laughing
          it’s not even the reverse engineering of China, when they clone technology using several serial samples - it’s 1000 orders of magnitude lower level ...
          Do not disgrace.
          I have a 5-year-old child who collects a large-block designer of 270 parts, per hour, according to the instructions. This is an achievement for a child of his age.
          And to assemble the same large-block designer, under license, for a huge country is NOT an achievement.
          1. Armata
            Armata 28 November 2012 10: 48
            +2
            Quote: sv-sakh
            Amazing !!! They began to produce T-90 almost independently according to the finished drawings !! Here is an achievement !!
            But what about the fact that they provide a production reserve for themselves under a license ?. And how will it be if later on the same equipment they start to rivet their own tanks, which will differ slightly from ours?
            1. sv-sakh
              sv-sakh 28 November 2012 10: 59
              -6
              And let’s sell them another T-34 .. let me rivet backward technologies ... And we will use the money from the sale (if we don’t cut it out according to the Russian habit), we will build the money with this money ..
              Why do you think military equipment is sold to other countries? and under what conditions is the license transferred?
              1. Armata
                Armata 28 November 2012 11: 07
                +12
                Quote: sv-sakh
                And we will use the money from the sale (if we don’t cut it out according to the Russian habit), we will build the Amatou with this money ..
                What we do (or how loudly we say BUILDING) is not something breakthrough. Nothing is new in shipbuilding, tank building. Controversial Armata project, with a bunch of flaws. Projects that cannot reach the stocks in any way. 1,5 built corvette. So at this rate, the Indians will simply trample us on their T90s. We have over-promising T72s in service until now (by the way, according to plans, they will be converted from 20 to 50 pieces at UVZ into "Slingshot". But T90s will be driven by 100 pieces a year for export. I prefer poke neighbors, watch and compare with what we have going on.
                1. patsantre
                  patsantre 28 November 2012 11: 55
                  0
                  What are the disadvantages of Armata? According to him, there is almost no information.
                  For the rest, I fully agree.
          2. in reserve
            in reserve 28 November 2012 11: 09
            +1

            sv-sakh
            it’s not even the reverse engineering of China, when they clone technology using several serial samples - it’s 1000 orders of magnitude lower level ...


            This is now China can clone technology, but at first it produced according to the drawings. yes
      3. Vadivak
        Vadivak 28 November 2012 10: 39
        +7
        Quote: sv-sakh
        write in the commentary, a list of outstanding military equipment made in India


        Not really a technique, of course, but still

        The fighting elephant - was a unit of the elephant itself and in the Indian version - 4 people: a mahout, a heavily armed dart thrower and two archers

        And about the stupidity of the Indians, the issue of controversial chess, calculating the degree and roots, methods for solving equations of degree 1, 2, 3, 4, the concept of percent, and negative values ​​and other mathematics, as they say the leader lacked them
        1. sv-sakh
          sv-sakh 28 November 2012 10: 54
          -1
          Well, how much can you refer to the inventions of antiquity?
          And a digging stick was invented in Africa .. Are Africans the greatest inventors?
          The Chinese built a wall .. The Egyptians built pyramids in some way ... (That's how they did it ???)
          These are past civilizations, their descendants relate to these achievements, just like a monkey to human achievements.
          And no one spoke about stupidity .. talk about backwardness ...
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 28 November 2012 11: 00
            +5
            Quote: sv-sakh
            Well, how much can you refer to the inventions of antiquity?


            Sorry, I’ll say a commonplace thing - without those inventions, modern life is unthinkable.
          2. sniper
            sniper 28 November 2012 14: 09
            +3
            Quote: sv-sakh
            Itaians built a wall

            Well, this is a moot point, it was painfully long ago .... There is a version that the rest of the world fenced off from them .... wassat
          3. baltika-18
            baltika-18 28 November 2012 15: 00
            +1
            Quote: sv-sakh
            The Egyptians in some way built the pyramids ... (That's how they did it ???

            Adhesive polymer concrete, The analysis was done, such granite does not exist in nature, artificial origin. No aliens, they just knew the proportions.
        2. baltika-18
          baltika-18 28 November 2012 11: 10
          +2
          Quote: Vadivak
          And about the stupidity of the Indians, the issue of controversial chess, calculating the degree and roots, methods for solving equations of degree 1, 2, 3, 4, the concept of percent, and negative values ​​and other mathematics, as they say the leader lacked them

          In the "Mahabharata" it is said "seven white people from the North came, gave knowledge and became teachers."
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 28 November 2012 11: 40
            +3
            Quote: baltika-18
            In the "Mahabharata" it is said "seven white people from the North came, gave knowledge and became teachers"

            Nicholas - so, after all, the North is a geographically wide concept, do not take into account that they could come simply from the North, for example, Tibet?
            1. baltika-18
              baltika-18 28 November 2012 13: 57
              +2
              Quote: Vadivak
              Nicholas - so, after all, the North is a geographically wide concept, do not take into account that they could come simply from the North, for example, Tibet?

              There are no white people in Tibet. The language of the Brahmins, the highest Indian caste is Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a stripped-down version of the Russian language. If you don’t believe look at the Russian-Sanskrit dictionary, you can read Dragunkin’s book "5 sensations". At least in linguistics, but convincing.
        3. Kaa
          Kaa 28 November 2012 11: 51
          +4
          Quote: Vadivak
          Not really a technique, of course, but still

          “The Vimanika Shastra was first published in Sanskrit in 1943. Three decades later, it was translated into English by the director of the International Academy for Research in Mysore, India, JR Josier, and was published in 1979 in India.
          The Vimanika Shastra contains numerous references to the works of 97 ancient scientists and experts on the construction and operation of aircraft, materials science, meteorology.
          The book describes four types of aircraft (including those that could not catch fire or crash) - Rukma Vimana, Sundara Vimana, Tripura Vimana and Shakuna Vimana. The first of them had a conical shape, the configuration of the second was rocket-like: "Tripura Vimana" was three-tiered (three-story), and on its second floor there were cabins for passengers, this multi-purpose vehicle could be used for both air and underwater travel; "Shakuna Vimana" looked like a big bird. All aircraft were made of metals. Three types of them are mentioned in the text: "somaka", "soundalika", "maurthvika", as well as alloys that can withstand very high temperatures. In addition, Vimanika Shastra gives information on 32 main parts of aircraft and 16 materials used in their manufacture, absorbing light and heat. The various instruments and mechanisms on board the vimaana are most often called yantra (machine) or darpana (mirror). Some of them resemble modern television screens, others are radars, and still others are cameras; apparatuses such as generators of electric current, absorbers of solar energy, etc. are also mentioned. "
          Yes, even with nuclear weapons: belay
          “Since his life was in danger, he touched the water for purification and, concentrating, began to recite hymns that set in motion nuclear weapons, although he did not know how to stop its action. Blinding light instantly spread in all directions. intolerable that Arjuna, feeling that his life was in danger, turned to the Lord ...
          The Lord ... said: I will reveal to you that the son of Drona is to blame. He recited hymns that set in motion the nuclear energy of the brahmaastra), but does not know how to return this dazzling radiation. He did it out of helplessness, gripped by the fear of imminent death " am
          What were the ancestors of the Indians, but here they can’t cope with an aircraft carrier ... laughing .
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 28 November 2012 12: 10
            +2
            Quote: Kaa
            What were the ancestors of the Indians

            Well so what am I talking about? And the elephant is the prototype of the tank
      4. soldat1945
        soldat1945 28 November 2012 10: 47
        +14
        With all due respect to you, no one poked minuses as you put it, I talked with their officers, in their heads the power and protection of the country from external threats comes first, but they do a lot according to our drawings, but they do a lot capable of doing it yourself, take the BRAMOS project, you have an attitude of neglect towards a country that, although our weapons are better equipped than we are, and we didn’t stand next to the mechanization of their units, their engineering units are buried in three hours, and watch how we prepare for we’ve been digging up exercises for the platoon’s stronghold for a week because the working excavator is alone in the sapper battalion, I’m no less a patriot than you and have been serving in the army for 12 years and believe me there is nothing to compare!
        1. sv-sakh
          sv-sakh 28 November 2012 10: 51
          -4
          All joint projects are India financing our developers, while Our technologies are inaccessible to the second side.
          India receives all weapons options in a stripped-down version, just like a regular weapon buyer.
          Draw your own logical conclusions ... Which India is the manufacturer of high-tech weapons .. And where do they come from? You still call your own development of India, and not joint projects ... Well, at least one ... at least for decency or something ...
          1. soldat1945
            soldat1945 28 November 2012 11: 29
            +4
            You probably do not read carefully, I wrote that India itself is building an aircraft carrier and this is already an achievement, and about everything else I wrote that yes, according to our drawings, but it gains great engineering experience. Therefore, of course, I can’t name you a purely Indian development, although for example the Arjun tank is 70% made in India, but you tell me again that the technology is not theirs, but the degree of development of the state over the past 10 years has been seen!
          2. wave
            wave 28 November 2012 13: 45
            0
            And how to start, at least the fact that the Indians have nuclear weapons ...! I called it for decency ..., so between things :) Or, too, under the license or according to someone’s drawings, the sweats were collected ...?! I agree - in general, Indodes are underdeveloped, but they pump muscles in the defense as they should and it’s not so important anymore, due to whose brains and technologies!
        2. sasha1973
          sasha1973 28 November 2012 21: 54
          0
          I served in the army for 8 years, and besides dolbo__ma, I saw practically nothing. So, I agree with the opponent.
      5. baltika-18
        baltika-18 28 November 2012 11: 07
        -1
        Quote: sv-sakh
        India, alone, is unable to do anything.

        I agree. Yes, and in addition, their corruption is at a fairly high level.
      6. bart74
        bart74 28 November 2012 12: 00
        +1
        However, an aircraft carrier is in production. Yes, the first aircraft carrier is the running-in of the production process. This is normal. I don’t know what tactical and technical he has. But do not forget that India is one of the leading steelmaking countries. And do not underestimate India. Yes, a kind of country. At the same time, they have programmers at the level and much more. Your rockets, your tank. And indeed they are our allies. We have nothing to share with them. Only be friends against the Chinese together!
      7. sapulid
        sapulid 28 November 2012 12: 19
        +5
        I don’t put cons, but the development of rocket technology is taking leaps and bounds. It is worth paying attention to the electronic database with programming in this country.
      8. Su24
        Su24 28 November 2012 13: 07
        0
        Hindus created their own philosophical, and technology will apply.
      9. Volozhanin
        Volozhanin 28 November 2012 18: 55
        0
        I fully support it. Last year I read somewhere the words of one of our engineers: "Show the Chinese a third of the block, relatively speaking, they will figure out the rest. Show the whole block to the Indians, they will not do the same." He may have exaggerated, but I would rather agree ...
      10. APASUS
        APASUS 28 November 2012 19: 40
        -1
        Quote: sv-sakh
        (before stupidly poking minuses, write in a comment, a list of outstanding military equipment made in India ...)

        India is taking seven mile steps to rearm and this is already a huge +! It doesn’t stand still! As for the brilliant production of military equipment In India, programmers work very well and I think their software for the T-50 will be better than ours! Despite the fact that our rocket, but fine-tuning it with Indian specialists doubled its range, there were opportunities use it from an airplane. I mean Bramos. But the second part of this enterprise belongs to Russia, but I have not heard talk about the procurement of Bramos for the RF Armed Forces. What do we not need?
      11. Volozhanin
        Volozhanin 28 November 2012 19: 45
        +1
        Comrades, does anyone know the details or the latest news about the repair and modernization of our nuclear-powered cruisers? Or, as always, we talked and poher?
    2. lotus04
      lotus04 28 November 2012 18: 58
      0
      Quote: soldat1945
      Hurry, you have to hurry very much!


      Hurry, you make people laugh. Measure seven times, cut one. Where to rush? Papuans scare? Where there is more or less modern weaponry, an aircraft carrier can’t be seen nearby.
    3. Krilion
      Krilion 29 November 2012 04: 11
      0
      Quote: soldat1945
      The fact that India is able to build aircraft carriers is already a hyper step in the development of the country, and ours will develop a concept only by the year 20! Hurry, you have to hurry very much!


      Before posting any nonsense, master the topic ... "Ours", unlike the Indians, have already built these aircraft carriers. If you remember, one of them was sold to the same Indians and is now being rebuilt in accordance with their wishes. And the Hindus, whose society is still divided into castes such as the Brahmans and the untouchables, have never built anything like that, do not build, and, apparently, will not be able to build ..
  2. itr
    itr 28 November 2012 10: 01
    -2
    Yes, that's the truth of life
    Our fellows and Indians are stupid
    I hope everyone understood why they bought the Mistral in France? And they did not trust our enterprises to build
    We bet gentlemen, I believe that Russia will get a ship faster than India
    Yes, I almost forgot for such grandmothers, we still spread something there with brick
    But they will pay extra and a log house that stupid Indians would take a bath
    After such movements, Russia will lose its last customer. Since the rest only take weapons for free
  3. Fox
    Fox 28 November 2012 10: 03
    +1
    as in a joke: drown the Indian aircraft carrier .... the reed continues to surface. but seriously: until the Indians defeat hunger in their country, they won’t do nichrome.
  4. predator.3
    predator.3 28 November 2012 10: 09
    +14
    The first-born - aircraft-carrying cruiser "Kiev" impressed with its size. The ship had a height of 27-storey building, which housed about 4000 rooms, including 50 showers, several wardrooms and dining rooms. To provide the cruiser, 12 different pipelines and 138 km of electric cables were needed. Someone calculated that it would take more than 2,5 days to go around this giant along all corridors and visit each room for at least one minute. TAKR built 169 factories and enterprises of the USSR.

    After launching the cruiser “Kiev”, the second TAKR Minsk, the third Novorossiysk, the fourth Baku (Admiral Gorshkov) and the fifth TAKR of project 1143.5 Tbilisi were subsequently renamed “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov”, which preferred the promising Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters with conventional take-off and landing. For this, a springboard was mounted on the aircraft carrier “Tbilisi”, and the displacement was increased to 55000 tons. Laid on September 1, 1982, the ship opened a new third stage in the creation of the carrier fleet. The construction of a full-fledged aircraft carrier was immediately noticed in the west. Before retiring, Navy Commander-in-Chief Sergei Gorshkov managed to get a government decision to lay another ship of Project 1143.5 aircraft carrier "Varyag". The ship was built rapidly and three years later in December 1988, it was launched. The seventh Takr Ulyanovsk was planned to be equipped with a nuclear power plant. By this time, the Soviet fleet had already gained experience in operating the Lenin and Arctic Arctic nuclear submarines. The aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk" was laid down in Nikolaev in 1988. The project of this ship was distinguished by revolutionary solutions - it had a displacement of 75000 tons and the most powerful power plant at 1200 MW. This made it possible to place two catapults on the ship and 1,5 times more aircraft of 70 units, including long-range radar detection and guidance aircraft. Apart from supersonic missiles, firepower was supplemented by armor.

    The aircraft carrier cruiser is the most versatile and most powerful weapon to date. 40 ship fighters can repel the strike of two enemy aircraft carriers at once. Destroy 100 air targets within a radius of 500 km.

    Unfortunately, all Soviet aircraft carrying ships found their refuge in China as tourist attractions. A museum of the Soviet fleet was built on the basis of TAKR Minsk. At the enterprises of India TAKR "Moscow" and "Leningrad" were cut.

    In 2004, TARK Admiral Gorshkov was sold to India. Its modernization is carried out according to the documentation of the Nevsky Design Bureau at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk. After modernization, the ship will have a continuous flight deck with aerofinisher and a springboard for takeoff of the MIG-29K fighters.

    Not a single task at sea without aviation support is feasible. In Russia today there is not a single factory with a dry dock, where it was possible to build a ship with a displacement of more than 50000 tons and a length of 300 m. There is no suitable equipment for such work.

    The experience of world history teaches that in the near future, only a state that will have a balanced modern fleet in its composition can be considered a great sea power. The first place in it should rightfully belong to aircraft carriers, because it is not by chance that they are compared with the length of a hand capable of punishing a potential aggressor at any time, but in order not to repeat past mistakes, it is necessary to turn to history more often.
    1. soldat1945
      soldat1945 28 November 2012 10: 23
      0
      That which I briefly wrote about in the top post, for some reason they were blundered.
      1. askort154
        askort154 28 November 2012 10: 40
        +1
        Interestingly, the shipyard where the mistrals will be built in Russia, is it possible
        will use for the construction of aircraft carriers?
        1. Armata
          Armata 28 November 2012 10: 50
          +3
          Quote: askort154
          Interestingly, the shipyard where the mistrals will be built in Russia, is it possible
          will use for the construction of aircraft carriers?
          Not. There is no shipyard in Russia and in the near future there will be no displacement for the construction of ships. There were rumors that the shipyards in Sevmash would be modernized for aircraft carriers, but so far not at all. The project of a promising aircraft carrier was wrapped up for revision.
          1. predator.3
            predator.3 28 November 2012 11: 16
            +8
            It is impossible to do without Nikolaev shipyards of Russia, and for this it is necessary to unite with Ukraine! Ukrainians themselves will not master anything, so what about USSR-2? what
            1. wave
              wave 28 November 2012 14: 10
              +1
              Ukrainians fight with Russia even for the fuel delivered to the ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, under the article "taxation and duty on goods imported into the territory of Ukraine." What kind of "unite" there ...?! For green loot, they will then again sell all the common developments and technologies.
          2. askort154
            askort154 28 November 2012 12: 04
            +1
            MECHANIC

            Thank. And yet, is it really impossible to unify, because the helicopter carrier is close in size to an aircraft carrier? New technologies for cutting metal and the rest that the French will give us, can not be used to build, at least, the body of an aircraft carrier?
            1. Armata
              Armata 28 November 2012 12: 22
              +1
              Quote: askort154
              And yet, is it really impossible to unify, because the helicopter carrier is close in size to an aircraft carrier? New technologies for cutting metal and the rest that the French will give us, can not be used to build, at least, the body of an aircraft carrier?
              In principle, it is possible. But do not forget that the case is not the main thing. It should be borne in mind that any ship is built around power units, but for their installation, as well as for the installation of other overall elements, it may not be suitable. And their displacement is different. Moreover, we cannot know what the new project of the aircraft carrier will be like.
              1. askort154
                askort154 28 November 2012 13: 34
                +2
                MECHANIC.
                It is clear that the building is not everything, "EVERYTHING" is 168 allied factories. I am what
                believed that the "Mistrals" were bought 2, performed by the French, and 2 we will build
                themselves at the newly built shipyard with new technologies. That is, to us
                "mistrals" are not so much needed as a modern shipyard for construction
                aircraft carriers and other large-tonnage warships.?! I think so.
                OR ???
                1. Armata
                  Armata 28 November 2012 14: 00
                  0
                  Quote: askort154
                  I am
                  believed that the "Mistrals" were bought 2, performed by the French, and 2 we will build
                  themselves at the newly built shipyard with new technologies. That is, to us
                  "mistrals" are not so much needed as a modern shipyard for construction
                  aircraft carriers and other large-tonnage warships.?!
                  You misunderstood me a little.
                  1. There is nothing new in French Peugeot construction technology. Their purchase has a completely different subset.
                  2. Even if the dock allows you to build a Peugeot, this does not mean at all that on the basis of this dock assembly of an aircraft carrier is possible. This is due to the dimensions of the same above-deck buildings. Features of the installation of power plants.
                  3. We do not have a finished aircraft carrier project. I will not undertake to assert that he will have much in common with the Mistrals in line-up, displacement, geometry, and dimensions.
                  If we were talking about the Mistral and the heavy cruiser, I would agree with all the arguments.
        2. urzul
          urzul 28 November 2012 11: 01
          +8
          In the Primorsky Territory in 2015, a shipyard designed for 250 thousand tons, up to 350 meters long and up to 60 meters wide. must finish
          1. Armata
            Armata 28 November 2012 11: 15
            0
            Quote: urzul
            In the Primorsky Territory in 2015, a shipyard designed for 250 thousand tons, up to 350 meters long and up to 60 meters wide. must finish
            Thanks for the info, did not know.
            1. urzul
              urzul 28 November 2012 11: 25
              +2
              At Star, they started with a Korean company, but they either asked to leave the project or didn’t share what, in general, now it’s a purely Russian project.
              Photo of November 2012 of the year
          2. askort154
            askort154 28 November 2012 12: 24
            +3
            urzul

            Thanks ! Good news ! However, it is annoying that we do not have many strategic facilities near China? The Vostochny cosmodrome, the military-industrial complex of the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and Irkutsk? Now such
            shipyard in Primorye? No matter how you had to rent it, like Sevastopol,
            "Gabala" and Baikanur, or even lose (God forbid!)
          3. Lieutenant colonel
            Lieutenant colonel 29 November 2012 03: 58
            0
            And judging by what I saw while not far away - they will finish building. And immediately lay the first ship for the Navy (this desire is of course - what if)
        3. Kaa
          Kaa 28 November 2012 13: 34
          +1
          Quote: askort154
          the shipyard where the mistrals will be built in Russia, is it possible
          will use for the construction of aircraft carriers

          Maybe it’s easier to put something like that on the Mistral instead of the landing, and that’s the solution to the problem? http://alternathistory.org.ua/samolet-dlya-mistralya-pervyi-v-mire-sverkhzvukovo
          i-istrebitel-s-vertikalnym-vzletom-i-posadkoi-yak
    2. valokordin
      valokordin 28 November 2012 11: 44
      +1
      Interestingly, the Japanese were able to build 2 aircraft carriers before World War II, but we cannot and will not, because the money goes into the pockets of the employees of the Ministry of Defense, and 5 billion dollars a year go abroad, I wonder who? Something our "transparent" Vinorgans and the authorities are modestly silent. Deputies of all stripes do not publish inquiries about this. If it were not for the intrigues with Ukraine, aircraft carriers were built in Nikolaev, well, not Dwight Esenhower, but Boris Yeltsin.
      1. urzul
        urzul 28 November 2012 11: 49
        0
        Japan in the 2 world of the Chinese drove in their own territory be healthy. and now?
    3. patsantre
      patsantre 28 November 2012 12: 04
      +2
      Quote: predator.3
      The aircraft carrier cruiser is the most versatile and most powerful weapon to date. 40 ship fighters can repel the strike of two enemy aircraft carriers at once. Destroy 100 air targets within a radius of 500 km.


      This is generally complete nonsense. This is the same as saying "a medium tank can destroy 2 heavy tanks." advantage As for the planes themselves - this is a separate topic.
    4. Su24
      Su24 28 November 2012 13: 05
      +1
      Wait a minute, what about the Yantar plant? There seems to be a dock of the appropriate size.
      1. Armata
        Armata 28 November 2012 13: 25
        0
        Quote: Su24
        Wait a minute, what about the Yantar plant? There seems to be a dock of the appropriate size
        On yantar there is no dry dock for laying such ships. And in floating, it’s normal to carry out repairs only. And then they have only 3 pieces two in 160m and one 150m.
  5. Edya
    Edya 28 November 2012 11: 06
    -1
    1. India must build it first
    2. I think it’s not a demon the help of Russian engineers the ship is being built
    3. Russia is unable to build its carrier carrier because the new ferries are busy with other projects. A fairly large number of warblers are being built, and in 2020. start building as all ships for the Navy will already be built
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 28 November 2012 12: 06
      +3
      All the ships? Pfffff, for 20 years they haven’t done more than one destroyer and cruiser than to accompany this aircraft carrier? We need to at least modernize the cruisers that are available, and it’s better to build new ones. Yes, the number of ships that are currently under construction is unlikely to replace at least analogues (and the fact that ships of rank 1 are left without replacement, this is not necessary to talk about)
  6. predator.3
    predator.3 28 November 2012 11: 23
    +2
    hi one more photo.
    1. komTMG
      komTMG 28 November 2012 17: 09
      0
      Duc is PD-50 in Roslyakovo. Swedish plav dock. Drove him when I went to kindergarten. There are 80 in the year. I don’t remember exactly.
  7. Morok
    Morok 28 November 2012 11: 37
    -1
    It is good that our Indian comrades, "partners", as they say now, are building their own aircraft carrier. They are great. And we must take an example from them, of course.

    But explain to me wretched, like this:
    [quote "The ship ... has been under construction since 2008 ... A.C. Anthony said that the construction program is progressing with a lag of at least five years, and that the ship will be ready no earlier than 2018 instead of the originally planned date (2014 ). "]

    How? Well, how can you be 4 (!) Years behind 5 years of construction? Maybe I do not understand something from lack of sleep?
    But for some reason it seems to me that SUCH an example is, as it were, needed, then only by "sawmills". And my opinion is this: it’s better if only the project is being created before the age of 20, but they will do everything according to the mind, than to follow the example of the Indians.
  • dojjdik
    dojjdik 28 November 2012 11: 41
    0
    the construction of aircraft carriers for our country is a stupid luxury - the strength of an aircraft carrier in its carrier-based aircraft; for our air defense system "hornets" and "axes" do not pose any serious danger; systems "BUK" - "TOP" are protected from interference and are several times cheaper; "hornet" costs 55 lemons; our ground complex "Velena" will jam any "AWACS" - and all this is much cheaper; after the destruction of carrier-based aircraft, any aircraft carrier turns into an unnecessary floating toilet - therefore, the Indians should not get upset, but better buy our air defense systems; don't mindlessly copy NATO
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 28 November 2012 12: 16
      -2
      You’d better keep silent about what you don’t have any idea. In a naval battle, the fleet that is supported by aviation will win. It gives a huge advantage, I’m not going to paint anything for you, you won’t understand anyway. You suggest just scoring for the fleet, immediately give our territorial waters to the enemy’s paws and wait until they attack our land.
      I will not even say that in this way we will not be able to defend our interests outside the borders of our country, and if necessary, put someone in our place by sending our fleet to the borders of villains.
      Do you know what this will be like? They will stupidly gather their whole bunch at a certain safe distance from the coast and will be able to mutinize our objects with thousands of JASSM and tomahawks with impunity, even ballistic missiles will be able to intercept. that of the new air defense systems in service with the unit.
      Quote: dojjdik
      our ground complex "shroud" will jam any "AWACS"


      How do you know that the shroud will drown out any avax? And why are you sure that some rocket will not shy away from it?
      Having given them our waters, we will stupidly watch them shelling us from a safe distance.
      1. El13
        El13 28 November 2012 13: 56
        +1
        Quote: patsantre
        Giving them our water, we will stupidly watch how they shell us from a safe distance.

        You contradict yourself ... and the person has painted one of the correct points of view, but only one, which works in the absence of expansion into the outside world. An aircraft carrier is needed to project force outside its territory, far beyond, i.e. for aggression, or for "enforcing peace" :)) With a peaceful policy, it will come in handy in the North in the absence of development of the northeast of the country (in terms of airfields) and for defending our interests in Antarctica, if the division starts there (in the Arctic, I think we fly more from our territory).
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 28 November 2012 16: 59
          0
          I don’t contradict myself, the little guy just talks about our air defense, tori, beeches, about how they will fight with the air wing, and about our ships, etc. he was generally silent.
          Quote: El13
          An aircraft carrier is needed to project force outside its territory, far beyond, i.e. for aggression, or for "enforcing peace" :)) With a peaceful policy, it will come in handy in the North in the absence of development of the northeast of the country (in terms of airfields) and for defending our interests in Antarctica, if the division starts there (in the Arctic, I think we fly more from our territory).


          But it’s necessary. For all of the above. Yes, and you can defend it in principle, too.
      2. dojjdik
        dojjdik 28 November 2012 14: 24
        +1
        you learn to read - I'm talking about aircraft carriers, not the Russian Navy, and NATO will not "gather in a heap" because. for this heap we have excellent nuclear submarines (the cost of one "vaunted" aircraft carrier is equal to the cost of three nuclear submarines); aircraft carriers were created by the states to control the waters of the Persian Gulf and the eastern Mediterranean Sea - huge reserves of oil are concentrated here, which they successfully rob from the Arabs; therefore "the game is worth the candle"; we don't need that. You kid, you don't know what kind of watch is behind the radar control panel sleepless nights for the protection of VO
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 28 November 2012 17: 02
          0
          You should read how to read it, I didn’t say that they would be gathered in one heap, I said that they would be gathered at our waters with their whole heap (that is, the whole fleet). Even if you close your eyes to the fact that the AUG also has a means of counteracting nuclear submarines just count how many submarines they have and how many we have.
          And how do your show-offs about the duty at the radar console relate to the topic?
  • Su24
    Su24 28 November 2012 13: 03
    -1
    10 years to build a ship? It is in our opinion that now Indians are indignant over Wikpamaditya.
    1. Lissyara
      Lissyara 28 November 2012 22: 35
      +1
      But we won’t go far. Project 855 Ash, namely Severodvinsk, was laid down in 1993 (according to today's news on the site where he shot with cruise missiles).
      19 years for the Premier League - this seems too much. Even if we write off 10 years of a mess and lack of money - then 9 years, this is too much.
  • zemlyak
    zemlyak 28 November 2012 13: 46
    +3
    Hindus well done. They even build, even through trial and error, but they build, and we only shake the air with all kinds of fantastic projects and financial scandals. In Russia they say a lot but do nothing. They say the Chinese who do a lot of things. The Indians understand this very well and see the growing military threat from China and draw conclusions from this. You can only envy the sane and sober policies of Indian leaders. Maybe thanks to India (which breathes in the back of the head to China) and not to the persecuted nuclear weapons Primorye and Transbaikalia are still Russian.
  • sashka
    sashka 28 November 2012 15: 00
    +2
    The Chinese made an aircraft carrier out of the garbage, but we managed to do the opposite .. Not funny. Whom do you bastard ..?
  • sashka
    sashka 28 November 2012 15: 21
    0
    But we have the SUPREME CHIEF COMMANDER .. And they don’t know who .. It would be nice to talk about anything .. FSB is the head of everything ..
  • Setrac
    Setrac 28 November 2012 15: 37
    +1
    Well, Russia has land-based AWACS aircraft, so there will be no unpunished beating of the Russian coast. IMHO, the platform crisis has not been overcome, aircraft carriers are yesterday, those who have better missiles and a better global positioning system will win.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 28 November 2012 17: 13
      -1
      Well, on our Peter the Great, granites with a range of 600 km, supersonic, with half-ton warheads (and even nuclear warheads). And even if we have several such cruisers. And they have an AUG, let alone one. Aircraft DRLO, flying ahead of the AUG on several hundred km, our ships will see from a distance of 400 km (in this case, the distance from our cruisers to the aircraft carrier will be about 900 km). The wing will rise, will approach our cruisers 100 km at low altitudes (they will not be able to detect these low-flying aircraft from due to the radio horizon), and the AWACS aircraft will still be located at a distance of 400 km from our ships, where even if they find it, there’s nothing to shoot down with it, and it will highlight targets for their missiles. So, their air wing of 60 fighter jets just throws our cruisers with their harpoons. And there is nothing to work on the fighter, it is out of sight, beyond the radio horizon at an extremely low altitude.
      Even a group of cruisers will not be able to repel the attack of several hundred harpoons (which are much simpler and weaker than granite, subsonic, with a range of 100-150 km, warhead 200 kg) at once, especially since the avionics on our cruisers are outdated and cannot boast of special multi-channel) .
      Now it’s clear why aircraft carriers are needed, and that the best missiles are not a guarantee of victory, the carriers of these missiles, and sometimes the carriers, are also very important.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 29 November 2012 13: 55
        0
        Who is the minus - suggest your version of events that will unfold when two fleets collide. Otherwise, they farted and fled.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 28 November 2012 15: 57
    +4
    Untrue article. All facts are misinterpreted

    "Vikrant" - laid down on February 28, 2009
    The official date of transfer to the fleet is scheduled for 2017 year (8 years)
    Total displacement of more than 40 000 tons
    The cost of 2,5 billion dollars

    Russian super-frigate "Gorshkov" - laid down on February 1, 2006.
    The transfer to the fleet is scheduled for 2013-2014. (period 7-8 years)
    Total Displacement - 4500 tons
    The cost of 400 million dollars without weapons

    Well, where is the hellish unfinished building ??

    Aircraft carrier Vikramaditya (former Soviet Admiral Gorshkov)
    Start of modernization of the 1999. In September, the 2012 of the ship failed sea trials and again went into construction. The transfer of India is scheduled for 2013-2014 year ...

    Hellish pre-construction ... in your eye you do not see a log ...
  • TAGIR
    TAGIR 28 November 2012 20: 40
    0
    Russia has correctly emphasized the Mistral. If the aircraft carrier is laid down, it will not be available earlier than in 10 years, while Vladivostok will be in the fall of 2013 and Sevastopol in 2014. It is necessary to develop the Yak-141 technology (takeoff with a catapult and vertical landing is the future of naval carrier-based aviation)
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 29 November 2012 14: 01
      0
      Quote: TAGIR
      It is necessary to develop the technology of the Yak-141 (

      141 sold amers, along with documentation for 100 million bucks.
      Quote: TAGIR
      Russia correctly emphasized the Mistral

      And to cover these barges with what?
  • Lissyara
    Lissyara 28 November 2012 22: 45
    0
    TAGIR,
    Dear, and you ask the military pilots and sailors who served on aircraft carriers such as "Kiev", "Minsk", etc.
    What was the combat potential of the Yak-38, and where it mainly spent its fuel.
    About "Mistral" - a separate topic. The question is still there, how much did Taburetkin launder money for the purchase?
    This is not a full-fledged landing ship, and not a full-fledged helicopter carrier.
    My personal opinion is "Flies separately, cutlets separately." It will be more rational and quicker to transfer the helicopter strike group with VTA aircraft, rather than chatting them on the seas for several weeks or months.
    1. Lieutenant colonel
      Lieutenant colonel 29 November 2012 04: 10
      0
      Mistrals are rather staff ships than a full-fledged helicopter carrier, which is why his air group is so small and he takes so many "passengers". It is probably logical to have such carobles in fleets (not to confuse the class with the mistrals). But then the following question arises - what will they (what grouping of forces) control? There was no answer to this question from the Ministry of Defense, and it's a pity - by the time the first aircraft carriers appear, these ships will have already been written off from the fleet, or some of them.