“This is a floating airfield”: The Russian admiral opposed the placement of strike weapons on board a promising aircraft carrier

A promising Russian aircraft carrier should not have a strike weapon, this was stated by the ex-deputy chief of the main headquarters of the Russian Navy, retired vice admiral Vladimir Pepelyaev, who was responsible for the development of the aircraft carrier project at the Krylov Research Institute.

According to the admiral, the Russian the fleet a new promising aircraft carrier with a powerful air wing, but without strike weapons, is needed. As Pepeliaev emphasized, it is necessary to move away from the Soviet projects of aircraft carrier cruisers, which carried both aircraft and rocket armament. The aircraft carrier's main weapon is its aircraft. And the weapons should include anti-aircraft systems of the Pantsir type, capable of shooting down both missiles and Drones.

Today, strike missile weapons are irrelevant for a ship such as an aircraft carrier. He must decide aviation tasks, the crew must be focused on the aviation component. Instead of strike weapons, we must build up an air wing - this will be both attack and defense.

- leads RIA News words of the admiral.

A modern aircraft carrier should have a displacement of 70-90 thousand tons, and the air wing should include modern fifth-generation Su-57 aircraft, as well as early warning aircraft (AWACS), helicopters and drones.

An aircraft carrier is, first and foremost, a floating airfield.

- Pepelyaev added.

Comments

[Gankutsu_]

From the series: We can’t build it, but we will discuss what and how to arm it, argue.
until you're blue in the face for the concept.
Aircraft carriers are not about Russia.

[Egoza]

Quote: Gankutsu_

Aircraft carriers are not about Russia.

Well, let the retired admiral dream. He's seen enough American films, now he's "predicting"

[antiaircrafter]

Let his granddaughters grow strawberries at the dacha. There will be more benefits.

[BecmepH]

Quote: Egoza

Quote: Gankutsu_

Aircraft carriers are not about Russia.

Well, let the retired admiral dream. He's seen enough American films, now he's "predicting"

The lack of faith in our country and our people infuriates me. Or don’t you see that we have weapons that no one else has? And we can easily build an aircraft carrier. Not?
And we have military leaders who are smart, competent and who love their Motherland.
You have seen enough of American films where Russia is worthless, and now you echo them.

[Ermak_415]

And we have military leaders who are smart, competent and who love their Motherland.

Where? so far none are visible. We had Lebed, Prigozhin, perhaps even Surovikin, but where are they now?

[BecmepH]

Quote: Ermak_415

And we have military leaders who are smart, competent and who love their Motherland.

Where? so far none are visible. We had Lebed, Prigozhin, perhaps even Surovikin, but where are they now?

And who is fighting with us at the front? Has Kovpak come to life?
Why do you think that everything is so bad in Russia? Why don’t you believe in the people and the Motherland?

[Ermak_415]

And who is fighting with us at the front?

Just another parquet generals (in the absolute majority) who did not take any competent strategic actions.
Where are the boilers? Where is the destruction of bridges?
We have year-long battles for every village. Remember we attacked Kupyansk a year ago?
So, Sinkovka didn’t even end up in the gray zone!
So how are things going there?

[BecmepH]

Quote: Ermak_415

And who is fighting with us at the front?

Just another parquet generals (in the absolute majority) who did not take any competent strategic actions.
Where are the boilers? Where is the destruction of bridges?
We have year-long battles for every village. Remember we attacked Kupyansk a year ago?
So, Sinkovka didn’t even end up in the gray zone!
So how are things going there?

I don’t stand up for the generals, but they do exactly what they’re told.
I'm talking about commanders in general. We have smart and talented commanders. But they also do what they are told.
Why do many people think that there are only mediocrities in our army?
Don't you think so? Then don’t generalize, but write specifically.

[Darkdimon]

The swan is corrupt scum, bought by Yeltsin, thrown into another world because it is no longer needed.

[Aerodrome]

And we can easily build an aircraft carrier. Not?

no...and this is not disbelief..it is a fact. There isn't even such a shipyard.

[Sergey39]

Two shipyards. In Kerch and Severodvinsk (but here the priority is nuclear submarines, the pool will not allow the construction of a nuclear submarine and an aircraft carrier at the same time). I assume that after two UDCs, competencies in the construction of large displacement ships will be developed.

[Petr_Koldunov]

Quote: Sergey39

Two shipyards. In Kerch and Severodvinsk (but here the priority is nuclear submarines, the pool will not allow the construction of a nuclear submarine and an aircraft carrier at the same time).

My personal opinion is that if you build an aircraft carrier, then only for the Pacific Fleet. This means building on the Pacific Ocean. Accordingly, the shipyard should be organized there.

[Alien From]

With all due respect, Sergey39, while we wait for these UDCs, the cancer on the mountain will whistle.

[APASUS]

Quote: BecmepH

The lack of faith in our country and our people infuriates me. Or don’t you see that we have weapons that no one else has? And we can easily build an aircraft carrier. Not?
And we have military leaders who are smart, competent and who love their Motherland.
You have seen enough of American films where Russia is worthless, and now you echo them.

The aircraft carrier is the last link in the AUG military system.
1 He must be accompanied by a full-fledged squadron (we are just starting to update the fleet)
2 It must have an equipped parking area. (Kuznetsov is standing in the sump, a couple of anti-ship missiles will fly there and will sink, it’s not even covered)
3 The use of AUG without a carrier-based AWACS aircraft does not make sense (there is not even a conversation about R&D)
4 And in terms of design, there is not even a hint of what the fleet wants. The technical specifications must be rigidly formed, and we don’t even know whether the Su-57 will be deck-based by then

[Boa kaa]

Quote: APASUS

The aircraft carrier is the last link in the AUG military system.

As a rule, the carrier is built for... WEAPONS!!! Remember: they built the R-39, 941 projects were born for it. This is only in the Army: first - a rifle, then they refine the ammunition for it.
Avik's main weapon is his air wing. But we don’t have a clear understanding of what kind of deck we need! Will it be VTOL or normal design. What kind of AWACS can we place in the volume of a deck vehicle... After all, our electronics are still the “largest” in the world ( ) and there is no breakthrough in obtaining a modern domestic power plant yet...
And the fact that dear Vladimir Viktorovich openly screams: - do not put your “Zircons” on the new AVU - this is also not without reason, because - “there is an opinion...” - as party bureaucrats used to put it!
And the fact that the fleet needs to have at least 3-4 AVU (with vigorous thrust!) is something only the infantry does not understand, because they still hope to hide behind a hillock. And at sea there are no trenches! In the sea there is “heavenly punishment” (a strike from the enemy’s high-powered attack) and “the abyss of hell” (with monsters from the depths)... You can wag your tongues forever, discussing the “combat stability of fleet forces.” But if you don’t have an AVU, then there’s nothing for you to do beyond the piers beyond the BMZ. And boats won’t last long either if there is no umbrella, and the enemy’s UUV is constantly hanging over you.
So, accept (for starters) the concept of the future deck, under which we will later build the carrier! But, knowing the tendency of modern NGShs of the RF Armed Forces to build a “missile fence”, I’m not sure that the new AVU, in addition to the aircraft, will not stick something like this, “missile strike”...
IMHO.

[Alien From]

Boa constrictor! Nobody needs the truth. Man is a wolf to man. THAT'S IT. The generation, as always, asks for changes. Changes are already among us. McDonald's would

[Alien From]

APASUS! There’s no point in even commenting on the nonsense of lop-eared people.

[Cicerist98]

@BecmepH: "I am infuriated by the lack of faith in our country and our people.
It is you who have seen enough American films, where Russia is worthless, and now you echo them."

He is very likely a professional (ie, actually employed) anti-Russian propagandist troll, most probably sitting in an IDF/MOSSAD hasbara troll farm cubicle somewhere in Israel. His job is to spread nihilism, defeatism and a sense of inferiority and helplessness among those reading this website by a continuous daily stream of mocking, snidely sarcastic comments which invariably criticize in a cynically dishonest way everything to do with Russia, the Russian government and Russian society and nation, while AT THE SAME TIME incessantly extolling the power, virtues and goodness of the US, Israel and Western enemies of Russia and acting as an apologist for all their actions. There are a few others like him on here: "solar", "mordvin3", "SZ", etc., clinging to this website like ticks and continuously injecting their venom, while pretending to be ordinary "concerned" Russian citizens with the use of words such as "us", "our" etc. WHY these open enemy propagandists are allowed on what is supposed to be a Russian patriotic militray-political website in a time of war, it is really hard to figure out - there is no counterpart of this on the other side, whether in Ukraine, Israel , the US or the EU

[BecmepH]

I agree with you 100%

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: BecmepH

And we can easily build an aircraft carrier. Not?

We had 4-5 of them besides what was left.
1 left.
2 fly the flags of China and India.
1 has become an entertainment complex in China.
And 1-2 were sawed in Korea (they weren’t even sawed by moms).

Again, they are convenient for the United States to sail to the EU and attack us from there.
In our case, where should we go? Syria? So there's a ground base there.
Cuba? Well, you can try if they agree, but there will be a target...

[Alien From]

And 87-146 percent of us are responsible for their words......

[Machito]

This Pepelyaev is like Rogozin, whose spaceships roam the Bolshoi Theater, and Elon Musk flies into space on a trampoline. The admiral smoked something wrong.
There are no aircraft carriers, no shipyards, no Su-57s, no naval aviation, no AWACS airplanes or helicopters. And the admiral plays with model ships. He should be driven out of USC and retired. Let him write fantastic stories.
.......gets rich in thoughts.

[BecmepH]

Quote: Bearded

And the admiral plays with model ships.

And military pilots also play airplanes. Let’s pick up airplanes and let’s follow each other with these same airplanes. Let the damned ones twist and turn them.

He should be driven out of USC and retired.

You should go to the HR department. They would kick everyone out of the army and recruit a new one.

[Machito]

Cadres decide everything.
I would definitely employ Maxim Klimov.
Otherwise, Belousov can’t find anyone to innovate.

[Neo-9947]

Quote: BecmepH

And military pilots also play airplanes.

Forbidden techniques were used. Because there's nothing to say.
We have military pilots. And they are great.
And we have military sailors on our ships. They are great too.
And the infantry are great.
But these are all performers.
But why did our Black Sea Fleet drown? But as always. Why is there no AWACS? Why did the T-55 come into use? Connection? Drones?
These are all questions for managers. Including admirals who play “airplanes”.

[BecmepH]

Quote: Neo-9947

Forbidden techniques were used.

What? Why do you only see the bad? Do you think that we have only stupid people serve. It's not so! Wake up! Turn on your brain. And start loving YOUR Motherland! And your army. Think about good things

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: BecmepH

And military pilots also play airplanes. Let’s pick up airplanes and let’s follow each other with these same airplanes. Let them twist and turn the damned ones

By the way, is this still done?
I saw it in Soviet cinema, but I don’t know how it is now.

[Sergey39]

Naval aviation includes Mig-29, Su-33 and Su-25 in small quantities for Kuznetsov, based in Safonovo. They train on strings in Saki (modernization according to the 2025 plan) and Yeisk. A training ship for training naval helicopter pilots has been launched and is being completed.

[Vasily_Ostrovsky]

He earns money there, and sits for furniture...
We are lucky to have... how to put it mildly... not entirely adequate retirees.
One requires drill reviews to be carried out at the LBS, the other lives in a world of opium fog, otherwise how can one characterize phantom aircraft carrier pains?
It’s hard to understand who is pushing this topic....
Do we have that much time to prepare for war? It will take approximately 15-17 years to build an aircraft carrier and put it into operation in the first line. There are no tactics and are not expected, there are no strategic tasks for them, there are neither shipyards nor people capable of building it...
"De...,..." (c) S7Lavrov....

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Bearded

There are no aircraft carriers, no shipyards, no Su-57s, no naval aviation, no AWACS airplanes or helicopters.

And in 20-30 years, will there be??? If there is nothing, then there’s no point in bothering: it doesn’t matter to the farmhand on the plantation whether his baron has planes/missiles/aircraft carriers or not! And for a country fighting for its sovereignty, this is a matter of life or death. As I understand it, you, together with Katz, propose to surrender... This is your choice! Because for a day laborer, everything is the same, as long as there is some stew for the evening...
And than. The cycle of planning - design - R&D - pilot production, establishing production links with THOUSANDS of manufacturers (logistics is now called) and then - industrial implementation of the project, for a ship - at least 10 years. And for someone like AVMA, it will definitely be at least 20 years. If you don’t do this today, then tomorrow it will be too late! If, of course, you don’t want the Yankees to implement their “Fleet versus Shore” concept, then you need to “dig trenches” in the sea, and not in the invasion area!
AHA.

[pyagomail.com]

Quote: Gankutsu_

We can't build

We can probably build it, but the question is, why? If only to display the flag? They also say: “If you want to ruin a country, give it an aircraft carrier.”

[zloybond]

We have been developing the maize plant for 15 years, but we will wait another 15 years to build it and launch it into the sky. and here it is.....

[anatolv]

Tell us why and how you build a corn house. What are the problems in its construction?

[igorbrsv]

. We can probably build it, the question is, for what purpose? If only to display the flag?

This is a valid question. It can only be installed on the Pacific Fleet. And even that is a big target. There is no doubt that in the port or off the coast it will be the first to be drowned. No air defense can cope. It would be nice if the chickens didn’t peck at the money. It probably needs to be developed. It will not be worse. And this is not the time to pawn

[Stas157]

Quote: pyagomail.ru

the question is, for what?

Let's imagine for a second what we have on an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea. How would he help in the Northern Military District? It will not be able to get close to Ukraine. And his planes are useless. Since they don’t fly into Ukraine either.

[Vasily_Ostrovsky]

Yes, we can’t, well, in fact, look at the broader problem of “just building”... There is no one to do even “simple” design today, to be honest, the designers are already worn out... Going to the Chinese will only spoil the engineering brains...

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: Gankutsu_

Aircraft carriers are not about Russia.

Why do we need aircraft carriers in general? For what purposes?

[Dutchman Michel]

Why do we need aircraft carriers in general? For what purposes?

In order to say “know ours”!

[Photon]

To cover nuclear submarine deployment areas

[Sergey39]

Aircraft carriers are needed in distant sea zones. And, there are more than enough tasks for them. In the Black Sea we have the unsinkable aircraft carrier Crimea. Everything that NATO members have started on the “territory of Ukraine” is also connected with Crimea.

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: Sergey39

Aircraft carriers are needed in distant sea zones.

What are our interests and in which distant sea zones?

[Vasily_Ostrovsky]

I can hardly imagine the tasks for a Russian aircraft carrier at the present stage...
For such tasks “in the far zone” it will be necessary to build another fleet - a support fleet, otherwise there will be no far zone.

[Machito]

For long-distance sea voyages, naval bases and logistics bases are needed. Everything has gone quiet again about the logistics base in the Red Sea. They never returned to Lourdes in Cuba. Putin went to Vietnam, but there is complete silence about Cam Ranh. Without the naval forces of the BRICS countries, long-distance voyages of the Navy are like Rozhdestvensky’s voyage to Vladivostok.

[VPK-65]

Quote from: AllX_VahhaB

Why do we need aircraft carriers in general? For what purposes?

To: "master the means" allocated from the budget for their construction into your pocket (it is not at all necessary to build anything, you just need to create an IBD - Imitation of Violent Activity under this guise). By the way, reports are written exactly like this: "funds have been spent".
PS the more grandiose the project, the better.

[BecmepH]

Quote: Gankutsu_

From the series: We can’t build it, but we will discuss what and how to arm it, argue.
until you're blue in the face for the concept.
Aircraft carriers are not about Russia.

To put it mildly, it’s bad that you don’t believe in Russia’s capabilities and belittle the ability of our designers

[Ermak_415]

So far they have not shown that they can justify our trust.
It’s better to immediately lower expectations so that it’s less offensive

[BecmepH]

Quote: Ermak_415

So far they have not shown that they can justify our trust.
It’s better to immediately lower expectations so that it’s less offensive

There are many things we can list where we are the best. There is no need to belittle, you need to highlight the best sides so that there is motivation and excitement. And you shouldn't be offended. Work on mistakes and continue into battle.
Imagine if you were only scolded and blamed? Whether at home, at school, at work... Would you have a desire to do something for their benefit?

[Ermak_415]

Imagine if you were only scolded and blamed?

They scold them, but they are not the same ones.
How many commanders were punished for mistakes?

[Evgen Zharov]

An activist who REPRESENTS NOTHING, a COUCH STRATEGIST from (it’s not clear which) god, right now give out a concept for the development of the Russian Navy??? ADMIRAL (albeit retired) is more constructive

[Gankutsu_]

Judging by the way you wrote your message, you clearly have mental problems. Therefore, instead of wasting time on the Internet and catching triggers, I advise you to contact a specialist.

[AAK]

In our USC they cannot translate into metal the upgrade of the MRK 22800 "Karakurt" with a second UVP for strike weapons, the Packet-NK complex with a GAS and an air defense missile system with a UVP, but here we have wet dreams of aircraft carriers... we have frigates that are essential to the fleet like air , corvettes and minesweepers produce “a teaspoon per hour”, NSPLs at VNU have not been able to bring them to fruition for 25 years... and I don’t even want to talk about the same “Red Banner resort” fleet, it’s just like WWII Somehow boatmen, pilots, and submariners fought... the rest are sitting on the skerries and do not show up...

[iommy]

And he’s right in saying that armament on aircraft carriers should be limited to protective equipment. Ships designed for this purpose should play a striking role.

[novel66]

Moreover, the air wing must also carry strike assets.

[Al Asad]

Maybe we can deal with Kuznetsov first, and then discuss castles in the air

[novel66]

And, finally, do at least some drill for Kuzya.

[bayard]

Quote: novel xnumx

do at least some drill for Kuzi

That’s what they did for him - AWACS helicopters. But an AWACS aircraft cannot take off from it - there is no catapult.

[novel66]

What's the use of those helicopters...

[Sergey39]

I completely agree, we need a light AWACS aircraft, without it “Kuznetsov” will again be “limping”.

[bayard]

Quote: novel xnumx

What's the use of those helicopters...

What if VTOL aircraft are based on it? Such an aircraft is being prepared, work is underway and the engine for it is undergoing testing. At the stand it showed a thrust at afterburner of 24 kg.s. (instead of 000 kg.s. calculated), and 23 - 000 kg.s. without afterburner. With such an engine, it may turn out so bad that the F-14B will commit suicide out of envy.

Quote: Sergey39

need a light AWACS aircraft

Only if AB has a catapult. But with a good radar system, an AWACS helicopter can handle it. By the way, the A-100 is already flying, and recently the second flight model flew, and its radar confirmed the calculated/declared characteristics - the detection range of large high-altitude targets is up to 850 - 900 km. , and fighters at 450 - 600 km. So there shouldn’t be any problems with the hardware for the AWACS helicopter.
"Kuznetsov" is entering testing this year (like "Nakhimov"), so both will soon return to service.
A carrier-based AWACS aircraft is only needed if we decide to build large (nuclear) aircraft carriers. With catapults, of course. But for this it is necessary to revive the Yak-44 project, and for this we need appropriate engines - turboprops, powerful and economical. There are no such people yet. So what is realistic today is AWACS helicopters, which with the new hardware will cope with the task quite well.

[bayard]

Quote: Al Asad

Maybe we can deal with Kuznetsov first, and then discuss castles in the air

Why deal with it? It’s going out for testing this year, along with the nuclear-powered cruiser Nakhimov.
Two more aircraft-carrying ships (UDC-helicopter carriers) are being built in Kerch at the Zaliv Shipyard.
It is a lie that we are supposed to be unable to build aircraft carriers and that there are no such shipyards. VI aircraft carriers weighing 100 tons can be built in Kerch (Shipyard "Zaliv") and on the "Zvezda" in Bolshoi Kamen. There are slipways, slipways and dry docks of appropriate size and carrying capacity (at Zaliv it is 000 m long, at Zvezda it is even longer), so there are shipyards. But thieves, saboteurs and traitors to the Motherland at USC systematically disrupted all programs, embezzled funds and did everything possible to prevent new ships of the main classes from being built for the Russian Navy. And this was done in collusion with the former leadership of the Moscow Region. Now USC has been transferred to VTB, the military-industrial complex is controlled by Dyumin, and military (and not only) shipbuilding is controlled by Patrushev. If there is a desire to build a real ocean Fleet, they will build it. Before this, there was only a desire to steal and sabotage to please the Anglo-Saxons. But the leadership of the Moscow Region, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the USC and the curator of these areas from the presidential office have changed almost completely, an audit is underway, criminal cases are being initiated, new people are being appointed. If they don’t want to steal, but to build, they will build.

[Galleon]

But this is a look at the root. First let the thieves in the state get their guts out, and then dream about aircraft carriers.

[T-100]

As Pepelyaev emphasized, it is necessary to move away from Soviet designs of aircraft carrier cruisers, which carried both aircraft and missile weapons on board.

The admiral is generally aware that they were built in Nikolaev, and this is the Black Sea, and then the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, where the Montreux convection prohibited the passage of aircraft carriers.
But in fact, what kind of aircraft carrier is there, frigates would be tormented.

[SEVERIN]

In this case, the Montreux Convention is not applicable to ships of countries located in the Black Sea basin.

[Lech from Android.]

If our country has such an aircraft carrier, where will it be used in our interests?
So far nothing serious comes to mind... a fifth wheel... no one knows why.

[igorbrsv]

And that's true. Kuzi is even more useful. At least he can be naughty. And he's old, don't feel sorry for him

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Lech from Android.

If our country has such an aircraft carrier, where will it be used in our interests?

In the North - the breakthrough of our submarines into the Atlantic to ensure the landing of DESO on the coast of Scandinavia, the air defense of the northern route of our strategists...
At the Pacific Fleet - defense of Kamchatka, strikes on the Japanese islands, covering the ROP of our forces.
But they definitely have nothing to do in the inland seas. Coastal aviation and BRAV will cope there too.

[Revolver]

And it depends on where to build. If in liberated (I hope they will make it in time for the start of construction) Nikolaev, then there is no way to do without missiles. An aircraft carrier cannot pass through the straits, but a cruiser, even an aircraft carrier, can. Why, you ask? According to the Montreux Convention.
And if you build in the north or in St. Petersburg, then you can do without missiles.

[next322]

about the Nikolaev factories (which were brought to a standstill during the time of the Ukrainian Reich) and now destroyed - you can forget forever

[Apis1962]

To start building anything in St. Petersburg, it is necessary to build a shipyard with the appropriate equipment. And taking into account the construction of the WHSD with permanent crossings, the entry of ships along the Nevsky Fairway is limited by the height of the superstructure. So in this regard, you shouldn’t count on the Admiralty Shipyards. Well, the Baltic Shipyard.... I don’t even want to write about it. Are the Admiralty shipyards planning in connection with this!!!? relocate beyond Lomonosov. So you shouldn’t count on St. Petersburg in terms of building 1st rank ships.

[Ermak_415]

If in liberated (I hope they will have time to start construction) Nikolaev

I have small doubts, but I really want you to be right

[solar]

According to the Montreux Convention, the cruiser is not mentioned there at all. Formally, battleships, submarines and light ships can pass through.

[Vadim S]

We decided a long time ago that we don’t need any socks! Again the dreams of pre-retirement generals? We need to increase the regular fleet, we don’t have time, what is he talking about?!

[Per se.]

Quote: Vadim S

We need to increase the conventional fleet

A regular fleet, what if we remove light and heavy pieces from the chessboard and leave only pawns?
No one decided that aircraft carriers are not needed; the whole world is building them, like aircraft carrier ships. Only here, not without the instigation of the Anglo-Saxons, they rub in about their “uselessness.” The fact that problems with the economy are not the fault of the aircraft carriers, but of those fools and traitors who ruined and optimized the industry.
Ships must be designed long before they are laid down; this is not selling apples off the wheel.

[Lykases1]

Complex issue. Naturally, they are needed, but... Do we know how to build them, are there shipyards, is there aviation for it, catapults in the end, so as not to take off with half the supply of fuel and weapons? Is there an escort? Well, in a real war, for example, a desert storm, how many aircraft operated from an aircraft carrier, and how many from the ground? Why? Well, they would have driven away five aircraft carriers. But no.

[DenVB]

Quote: Lykases1

Naturally, they are needed, but... Do we know how to build them?

The only way to find out is to start building.

[Lykases1]

Perhaps a colleague, but where to start? From the shipyard? From aviation, including DRL aircraft? Escort ships, so that it doesn’t work out like with nuclear cruisers - fast, unlimited range, but there is no escort with such characteristics. So what should I do? Swim alone or paddle with others. Why then such characteristics? Is it worth spending resources today when the world is heading towards nuclear war? Or spend it on protected silos or mobile ICBM systems? Everything is complicated.

[DenVB]

Quote: Lykases1

Perhaps a colleague, but where to start? From the shipyard? From aviation, including DRL aircraft?

From everything at once, probably. And a shipyard is needed, and aviation, and AWACS aircraft (these are needed in any case). And catapults. And carrier-based drones. And all the rest.

Quote: Lykases1

Or spend it on protected silos or mobile ICBM systems?

Why "or" when there should be "and"?

[jayich]

We know how to build, the last one was completed in 2013 and handed over to India, Vikramaditya is called former admiral of the Soviet fleet Gorshkov.

[Lykases1]

Not really. An aircraft carrier and an aircraft-carrying cruiser are not the same thing. The plane cannot take off from the springboard with a full load. The effectiveness of our aircraft carrier has already been demonstrated. If I'm not mistaken, two lost planes.

[igorbrsv]

Simply, if there is no aircraft carrier, then there is no admiral. In my opinion. The admiral seems to care about himself

[U-58]

If the move away from strike missiles is made in favor of defensive weapons, the idea makes sense. An aircraft carrier is too visible and a tempting target.
The means of defeating the ship have reached the highest level and protection against them will be a priority.
And such an aircraft carrier will require a significant escort in the form of covets and frigates with a set of anti-submarine weapons and powerful air defense.
In any case, this will be a “peacetime” ship.
In conditions of total war, he will most likely be defeated.

[Per se.]

Quote: U-58

In any case, this will be a “peacetime” ship.

By and large, a “peacetime ship” is a prevention against a big war. By stopping problems in a timely manner and creating leverage, a lot can be achieved in peacetime. If we talk about a total thermonuclear conflict, then “with a high probability” everything will be affected. A class such as an aircraft carrier is most important precisely for operations before a major war, and, in the pre-launch period, as, indeed, the entire surface fleet in general.

[igorbrsv]

The fleet in this case will serve as a convoy for transport ships. And an aircraft carrier is too expensive a toy. And what can’t a rocket ship, even a small missile ship, do that, that an aircraft carrier is needed?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: igorbrsv

And what can’t a rocket ship, even a small missile ship, do that, that an aircraft carrier is needed?

1. Complete a daily “thrown march” of 1500 km; or a “round-the-world trip” with an average speed of 25 (!) knots...
2. Get lost at sea for 100 days, without resupply;
3. Control a water area of ​​approximately 2 sq. km;
4. Solve the problems of anti-aircraft defense, delivering repeated strikes in the depths of the enemy’s defense with a given intensity;
5. Solve air defense problems for ships at a distance of 500-600 km from the center of the order;
6. Conduct visual reconnaissance within a radius of up to 800 km
well, and so on.

[igorbrsv]

But the aircraft carrier will also have support and cover ships. Mrk with these ships will also sail anywhere
And isn’t it really easier to adapt barges for UAVs? It's safer too. And costs less

[igorbrsv]

And another thought came to me. Perhaps you can give me a hint. Why are there no radio stations on ships? After all, if they help against UAVs, they will help against backs and modern anti-ship missiles. Another related thought - maybe granite was written off too early. I haven't read about them - I'm lazy. But I assume that they have no connection with the operator or with satellite navigation. And then it turns out that they will overcome the enemy reb. If I assume correctly, the speed and course of the ship are calculated, after which the granite flies to a given point (or I’m wrong)
But I didn’t think and didn’t come up with where to get the drill

[Boa kaa]

Quote: igorbrsv

Why are there no radio stations on ships?

Why - NO! There are also very modern ones. Even against the optical systems of SN anti-ship missiles, there are IR and aerosol countermeasures. But against the GOS, broadband... they are that... Therefore, ZOS is best, and of them Dagger (on land it is TOP)...

[igorbrsv]

But all of the above is not reb. And further. Today I saw an interview with a fighter from the Kharkov direction. He said that they use some kind of "bombs" (literally) that create an electromagnetic pulse. There are supposedly few of them, but they are used. It is enough for it to fall next to an Abrams or Leopard type tank and the electronics fail. I know that such a pulse can be obtained by discharging a supercapacitor. What are they using there? Who put it? And in general, this is the first time I’ve heard about the use of such a device. Of course, the T-64 tank and D-20 howitzers are not afraid of this impulse at all

[Boa kaa]

1. We are talking about explosive EMP generators. About Alabuga - I heard about these "Projectiles" only from the TLV screen.
2. You are right, the T-64 and D-20 will not be disabled by EMP. But the on-board computer or Abrashi’s ballistic computer may well burn out. The same applies to the electronics of night lights, heat lamps, TLVs, etc. bells and whistles

[Boa kaa]

Quote: U-58

In any case, this will be a “peacetime” ship.

Colleague, have you ever asked yourself: -- Isn't it too much for "peacetime" for the Yankees to place 48 nuclear weapons carriers on each of these ships? This "peaceful" ship has unlimited endurance for D of navigation, 100 days of daily food supplies for personnel, and aviation kerosene for 5-6 full shifts of its air wing... Well, and the cherry on the cake -- 104-108 nuclear batterers. This is so that "pacifists" like you don't get their heads shaking from too "peaceful" thoughts!
Here's a "peacetime ship" for you!

[U-58]

Why did you write this?
Would you like to have something similar to this?
Then it would be better to make a "unique" BZhRK. A set of 10 such trains would cost exactly the same as an aircraft carrier.
And there is no need to send to distant shores. And the adversary won’t get you that easily.
And there is no need to demonstrate leavened patriotism...
We already have too much of it. Total victory.

[ximkim]

Yes, you can forget about the aircraft carrier.
It’s a shame to spend money on it, because you could spend it on something else for other purposes.

[SEVERIN]

An aircraft carrier is first and foremost a floating airfield

- that is, the admiral excludes the second and third stages? - How long will the aircraft carrier be in development? - when will it be laid down and built? - when will he become mentally old??

[Galleon]

And when will the runway, the arsenal building or the fuel storage facility become old? In the States, aircraft carriers operate for 40 years. I started my service in the 80s and their Midway, built in 1949, was still running properly.

[SEVERIN]

So we will never see our new aircraft carrier afloat? - Why do we need it then, considering that it is an excellent target for hypersound?

[Galleon]

With the current guaranteed stability, of course not.
But we will hear talk about it as about new spaceships and other tales regularly

[g_ae]

We need to start designing a Star Destroyer or an Aklomator. And more money can be stolen, and over a period of decades, and Chubais can be brought back to consolidate success. What's wrong with Rusnano? Everything is fine, we can leave.

[Illanatol]

A modern aircraft carrier should have a displacement of 70-90 thousand tons, and the air wing should include modern fifth-generation Su-57 aircraft, as well as early warning aircraft (AWACS), helicopters and drones

1. Our fleet doesn’t really need strike aircraft carriers.
2. We need small escort aircraft carriers capable of covering nuclear submarine combat patrol areas, first of all.
3. It is necessary to look to the future and create similar aircraft carriers, carrying exclusively UAVs of various classes, capable of hitting both surface targets and aircraft, primarily SSNs.
Displacement - 20-30 thousand tons, 30-40 drones on board. Our shipyards can handle such ships quite well, given the proper level of funding and R&D.

[Feodor13]

I agree with Per-se!!! My plus one. An aircraft carrier is not for war.

And I completely agree with Anatoly. The development potential and construction time lag should be discussed by the admiral, not the composition of the weapons.
The UAV carrier, by the way, will be less noticeable in profile, and possibly even underwater!
Because our submarine fleet is growing faster!

[DenVB]

Quote: Feodor13

Because our submarine fleet is growing faster!

Yeah, according to the principle “we will build not what is needed, but what we can.”

[U-58]

But 30-40 drones on board can be placed on an ocean tug and on an accompanying tanker.

[Andrey Moskvin]

We need small escort aircraft carriers,

We generally have problems with escorts.

[Apis1962]

There are no problems with an escort! The dismissed generals as escorts will of course not earn money for the fleet, but at least some benefit will come from these ministers without a portfolio.

[Galleon]

It won't be useful. It will be a pleasure. Moral including

[Sergey39]

Let's see what happens with UDC pr.23900, of course it will not be delivered on time, perhaps by 2030.

[Romanenko]

The main question is: Is this aircraft carrier really needed? Why does our fleet need it? In the event of a real war, he would live for about five minutes, but we don’t seem to be fighting colonial ones. May consider another option; now a lot is being done to create floating infrastructure facilities, power plants, gas liquefaction plants, etc. Perhaps, as part of these projects, consider creating modules for the construction of a floating airfield? This will, in my opinion, be more relevant than a self-propelled airfield, a target for missile attacks for crazy money. If you look at things realistically, then the main object to be protected and monitored is the Northern Sea Route, all sorts of movement and construction will take place along it in the near future, of course, the partners will try to mess up and interfere, so the idea of ​​organizing floating bases-airfields or heliports along the entire route. These platforms can, at the same time, support and extend the autonomy of surface and underwater ships plying along the NSR and covering convoys; smaller platforms can be equipped with air defense and radar positions, in a word, the flight of imagination is unlimited. But Russia didn’t seem to have any plans to capture Honolulu or Papua.

[U-58]

In some important ways you are right.
1. Aircraft carrier on the Black Sea.
To get out into the ocean, it needs to squeeze through the eye of the needle of the Bosphorus, the Dardanelles, pass through NATO lands, then Gibraltar. In general, it is problematic.
2. Baltic. Same song.
3. Cold ocean. From the northern ports the route can be bent through the distant north, but there is nowhere to go there, really. Unless you guard Novaya Zemlya and terrorize Spitsbergen.
That leaves option 4 and the Pacific theater of operations.
Helping still friendly China in its imperial ambitions. Moral (no more than that) support for the regimes of Southeast Asia, the Hindustan basin and the near-Arabian zone.
Friendly visits to the ports of African "friends".
Covering SSBNs will be much better provided by satellite nuclear submarines, taking up a lot of enemy anti-aircraft submarine forces.

[faiver]

Pepelyaev is right, the concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser did not justify itself. Another question is that the construction of aircraft carriers is not relevant for Russia now....

[Pavel73]

For Russia, an aircraft carrier is another blow to the forehead with a rake. Russia's ocean-going battleship fleet was destroyed by the Japanese in 1905, and NOBODY will allow us to revive it, even if we tried. This is the first thing. And secondly, we don’t fucking need him. To retaliate in the event of a full-scale attack, we have a powerful submarine fleet comparable to the US fleet. And there is the most powerful icebreaker fleet in the world, which allows you to navigate the Arctic as if it were at home. Russia does not have any tasks that would require an aircraft carrier fleet. We are not going to conquer anyone and put anyone under control. After the Tsushima defeat, we had battleships of the Sevastopol type. AND? Where were they really useful to us? Only during the Great Patriotic War, near Leningrad, and only as floating artillery batteries! If they had actually been at sea, against the Germans, British, Americans or Japanese, they would have been sunk along with all their crews. What almost happened to the battleship Marat, it was lucky that it was standing in shallow water. If all the gun turrets from these battleships were installed on coastal batteries, they would be much less vulnerable and much more effective. We need a surface fleet only for coastal defense, and here we need many small ships such as corvettes, small corvettes, missile and anti-sabotage boats, minesweepers and diesel-electric submarines. And to protect against fools in the ocean, a certain number of frigates armed with guided missiles and UAVs is quite enough.

[U-58]

And here we can agree with you. We can think up that ekranoplans are quite applicable for coastal defense. Here you have a ship with strike weapons and a fairly fast plane in one bottle.

[Dutchman Michel]

ekranoplanes are quite applicable

Already, by the grace of Drunk, one is rotting in Derbent

[Mazunga]

how many BECs are needed for one aircraft carrier and how can shells solve the Magur problem))? so build drones with a large range and even with armored armament, and if they can also submerge, this is a topic))) with such a gang, you can go to the AUG without worrying too much if you also equip them with AI so that you don’t have to worry about communications

[Havoc]

An aircraft carrier is an offensive weapon, but whether we need it is a moot point.
While there is no antidote to hypersonic missiles, this structure is very vulnerable.
And with the development of attack drones, a logical question also arises: any damage, even minor damage to the deck, boosters, and finishers will disable this colossus.

[solar]

There is no antidote to hypersonic missiles yet

The main weapons against anti-ship missiles are reb and traps. And it’s still too early for them to know what the speed of these anti-ship missiles is.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Havoc

any damage, even minor damage to the deck, boosters, and finishers, disables this colossus.

The Yankees have the F-35B, which can take off and land vertically. Yes, there will be costs in terms of bomb load and radius. But they can refuel normally in the air...
Each AVMA has a repair and restoration team that will be able to eliminate minor defects and accidents...repair the runway.
So what's the problem?

[BigBoss]

The future lies in unmanned technologies, and an aircraft carrier is a big, fat target

[Wayfarer_2]

The Vice Admiral is expressing some stupid thoughts. An aircraft carrier may not need any Kalibr missiles. But anti-ship weapons are necessary. Because if the deck is damaged, the aircraft carrier will turn into a huge and defenseless target that can be destroyed by artillery at close range. An aircraft carrier needs anti-ship missiles. And anti-submarine weapons wouldn't hurt either. We don't have enough destroyers and cruisers to devote them all to protecting an aircraft carrier. However, we don't have an aircraft carrier itself and won't have one anytime soon.

[Konnick]

According to the admiral, the Russian fleet needs a new promising aircraft carrier with a powerful air wing, but without strike weapons. As Pepelyaev emphasized, it is necessary to move away from Soviet designs of aircraft carrier cruisers, which carried both aircraft and missile weapons on board.

With the modern development of SAMs, the use of aviation is becoming ineffective, and a floating airfield is a tasty target for all sorts of BEKs. Imagine an attack by fifty, from different directions, semi-submersible low-visibility missiles. The development of modern weapons has put an end to aircraft carriers, just as aviation drove battleships into bases during WWII. The Americans with their aircraft carriers are afraid to even approach the Houthis. And this admiral still dreams of standing on the captain's bridge in a white jacket, like Kolchak in his time, who loved to go out to the Black Sea on a battleship, having become a commander and considered submarines a vile weapon.

[antiaircrafter]

Does Russia need a promising aircraft pilot, if even without a promising one he was not a very good swimmer?

[Neutral Neutral]

The Russian aircraft carrier is not needed because A few cheap anti-ship missiles can waste too much money and man-hours, and the fleet already doesn’t have enough of them.

[Illanatol]

Quote: U-58

But 30-40 drones on board can be placed on an ocean tug and on an accompanying tanker.

Hardly. Drones need to be powerful enough. With a take-off weight of approximately 5 tons, a payload of 1-1.5 tons, and a range of approximately 500 km.
The engines are turbojet, cruising speed is subsonic, but with afterburner - so that supersonic speed is also available. Ideally, it would be possible to conduct air combat, but this is already “jam for the day after tomorrow.”

The runway is about 100-150 meters. Drones can handle overloads better, this length should be enough.
It would be nice to hang a mini-airship above such a ship for reconnaissance and targeting.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Havoc

An aircraft carrier is an attack weapon,

No. Even attack aircraft carriers are not only a means of attack. Otherwise, the deck group would not have included fighters.
One of the main functions of aircraft carriers is air cover for the squadron, both surface and submarine ships. Because, as real experience has shown, one of the most dangerous threats to the fleet is enemy aircraft.

[75 Sergey]

Why are the Americans so impudent?
Yes, because we won’t reach them and the hysteria with helicopter carriers from the same song!
But aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers will not be created overnight, the crews will not be trained, and experience in design and construction will not come by itself.
It floats shallowly, gentlemen.

[Gomunkul]

The topic about Russian aircraft carriers is like the topic of whether the Americans were on the Moon, the author of the article knows how to warm up a bored audience on the pages of VO.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Andrey Moskvin

We generally have problems with escorts.

We have a lot of problems, a variety of them, but we still have to solve them. Otherwise, they will decide for us... “to be or not to be.”
It seems that even the Kremlin has begun to understand this... few people want to share Gaddafi’s fate.
So there is still a chance for change for the better.

[Soldatov V.]

What this pensioner is offering is like Budyonny argued before WWII that the cavalry had not yet outlived its usefulness. The main thing is that the Navy has no idea what kind of fleet we need, how to deal with modern types of weapons, such as UAVs, BEC, and aircraft missiles with increased speed. Not only does this admiral propose to leave the aircraft carrier without strike weapons, but the admirals have no idea what, what effective weapons to arm corvettes, frigates, destroyers and in what quantity. For example, project 22160 or the poor fellow "Admiral Nakhimov"
Now missiles are moving towards universal use both as air defense and as anti-ship missiles and along the coast.
The size of missiles is decreasing and range, speed, and accuracy are increasing.

[svan26]

- “As Pepelyaev emphasized, it is necessary to move away from Soviet projects...”
Eh Pepeliaev! It is necessary to move away from Soviet thinking, which does not take into account reality and does not see prospects. It is necessary to fill the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff of the Navy with young, competent and modern officers who would set real tasks for industry that meet modern conditions.
What aircraft carriers?! Nonsense. There is a war going on. There is no communication at the front. There is no protection against UAVs. The BEKs are not allowed to live on the water. Part of the Black Sea Fleet has been sunk. Westerners from all over the world are bringing more and more modern weapons, and the admiral is talking about promising aircraft carriers, for which there are not even any promising tasks in sight. Truly, sitting in shit and dreaming of the stars...

[Gomunkul]

It is necessary to fill the Defense Ministry and General Staff of the Navy with young, competent and modern officers,

Yes, dear, you are some kind of revolutionary. Offer this!

The colonel's son comes to his father and asks - dad, can I become a colonel?
Dad answers him - of course, son. You will serve well and you will become.
Son again - Dad, but can I become a general?
No, you can’t be a general, because the general has his own son!

[Stas157]

Sevastopol would be covered with air defense ships. Doesn't the admiral want to think about this?
Why do we need a fleet?

[Konnick]

Quote: V.

What this pensioner is offering is like Budyonny argued before WWII that the cavalry had not yet outlived its usefulness.

There is no need to drag Budyonny into this. The cavalry showed itself excellently in the Second World War as mobile troops. Our cavalry-mechanized groups played an important role in Operation Bagration. Having started the war with us, the Wehrmacht had one cavalry division, and in 45 there were already 7.

[Konnick]

Quote: Stas157

Sevastopol would be covered with air defense ships. Doesn't the admiral want to think about this?
Why do we need a fleet?

How for what? Where should we put the admirals? As in the Second World War, our fleet was of little use. Aviation was much more effective.

[Strannik96]

Quote: BecmepH

Quote: Bearded

And the admiral plays with model ships.

You should go to the HR department. They would kick everyone out of the army and recruit a new one.

Will he find the door there?

[Zaurbek]

Our theorists surprise me.
There are already developed concepts of Aircraft Carriers and obvious erroneous concepts.
There is only one working scheme - 100 tons of displacement and the presence of a catapult. No ersatz ships with ersatz VTOL aircraft. The springboard scheme is also flawed.
But I would start with completing the UDC and equipping them with UAVs; the Turks are now working on this concept.
The question of the need for AUG in the Russian Federation is debatable, but if we need sea communications and trade, then AUG is needed.

[solar]

No ersatz ships with ersatz VTOL aircraft.

Right. We need a normal ship with normal VTOL aircraft - this is the most realistic option today.

[Yuras_Belarus]

The new (old) category of commentators is “non-believers”. Like “Russia can’t do anything,” “Russians can’t do anything.” I answer these cypsos and their followers: Russia can do everything and Russians can do everything when they don’t listen to you.

[Alexey Lantukh]

Somehow they forgot and do not mention that aircraft carriers do not sail alone. And this is additional money. And also the operation of such ships costs a lot of money. Somehow they forgot and do not mention that satellite reconnaissance perfectly tracks such large objects. In general, the subject of disputes and huge expenses, to which there is an alternative.

[FoBoss_VM]

What, we already have aug ships? Maybe there is modern carrier-based aircraft, and most importantly carrier-based drills? Are there any pilots? Base points? How tired we are of these dreamers and projectors from the plow

[Sergey39]

Oddly enough, for one AUG for the Kuznetsov there will be: TAKr-1 (either Petr or Nakhimov), 3 frigates-22350 (the fourth in 2025), 1 cruiser Ustinov, 1 destroyer 956,3, 1155 large anti-submarine ships 12. SSBNs of various projects - 1 (in service), for the AUG from 2 to XNUMX SSBNs.
The Kuznetsov naval aviation wing is based in Safonovo and trains in Yeisk.
Ah, AWACS aircraft are a problem, there are helicopters (but this is a weak replacement).

[Vasily_Ostrovsky]

Cool...
And after the formation of this AUG, the Northern Fleet ceases to exist... since the entire ship's personnel "left" for the AUG...

There is no capable ship-based aviation, and there never was one. The fact is known.

[FoBoss_VM]

This is all clear. But putting this together means gathering almost the entire northern fleet in one place. And expose the entire TVD. What if at the Pacific Fleet? There, in general, in the NK seams there is a complete, ancient Varangian, ancient 1155 of which only the cap has undergone at least some kind of modernization. The quay walls under the Vladivostok rig still have piles sticking out, they were abandoned. Everything in the Danube also rotted, only memories remained from Lazarev. I’m generally silent about the air wing

[solar]

For Kuznetsov, there is a big question - how many planes can he lift into the air at the same time? I had to read that there were no more than five. All attempts to find information about the exercises in which more were raised at the same time were unsuccessful.
Shouldn't we honestly admit that it is educational?

[fiv]

First. The missile unit of the Strategic Missile Forces, having fired, becomes motorized infantry and it has weapons for this. An aircraft carrier without weapons will become a suitcase. We need weapons.
Second. We will decide whether we need certain weapons systems (other than the triad) when we become proactive rather than reactive. When will we begin to pursue our policies and defend our interests? Let's say our aspirations in Africa and Latin America need an aircraft carrier, and more than one.

[Vasily_Ostrovsky]

Quote: BecmepH

And we can easily build an aircraft carrier. Not?

I don’t just don’t believe it - it’s basically impossible, either now or in the next 5, or maybe 10 years.
There are no shipyards, no technologies, no shipbuilders to work on such projects.
Not to mention the fact that there is also nowhere to build ships for the warrant.
Not seeing this means living with your eyes closed.
Question: do you need an aircraft carrier? We need?
My answer is not needed today, moreover, it is contraindicated.
We’ll just waste terrible money and drown it not even in the ocean, but in some other “marquise puddle”...
It's a pity that what was lost cannot be returned.

[Vasily_Ostrovsky]

Quote: BecmepH

To put it mildly, it’s bad that you don’t believe in Russia’s capabilities and belittle the ability of our designers

Believing is in the church...
Here you need to understand the economy, the availability of technological and human capabilities (work class, engineers, designers), basing, support, crews, flight personnel (currently absent as a class)...
In words - yes, we are, but it’s nonsense, but we didn’t do such things....
Yes Yes...

[MCmaximus]

Wow! The admirals have gone crazy in their heads!

[Konnick]

Quote: Illanatol

Because, as real experience has shown, one of the most dangerous threats to the fleet is enemy aircraft.

This was during the Second World War, and now the AUG is being destroyed by nuclear weapons.

[89824024836]

Dear retired Vice-Admiral Vladimir Pepeliaev. The future of our fleet is an aircraft carrier towed platform, which must be made of water-resistant concrete reinforced with fiberglass rods and have a cellular structure. None of the existing convection weapons should cause critical damage to the aircraft carrier towed platform when hitting the contour. Even after being hit by a tactical nuclear charge, the platform must remain afloat with subsequent restoration of the concrete structures. The displacement of the aircraft carrier platform must be at least 800 thousand tons. The length of the GDP must allow our strategists to land on it. The Russian Federation has a base for the production of such aircraft carrier platforms (Belokamenka, Murmansk region). Four aircraft carrier towed platforms located in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans will allow our strategists to freely fly over the entire globe. I beg you, do not build iron aircraft carriers with propulsion systems, do not waste the people's money in vain.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

an aircraft carrier with a powerful air wing, but without strike weapons

Of course, I’m not a general, but the TAKR can shoot you with missiles, but it’s universal.
Are we sitting on a dollar printer to build a megafleet?

[Knell wardenheart]

I cannot but agree with Mr. Pepelyaev.
Strike weapons can be effectively placed on ships of smaller tonnage, but aircraft cannot be placed effectively this way. The point of an aircraft carrier is not that it can project a guided missile strike - this can also be done by another surface ship or a missile-armed submarine or long-range aircraft. The essence of an aircraft carrier is that it is a floating vessel for your shore where it is required.